do you like the Directer who directed the 3rd? or 1st-2nd? i like the directer from 1

st-2nd. I HATE THAT FRENCHY DUDE WHO DIRECTED THE 3RD!!!! so glad hes taking a break. and here are my reasons for it.

1.he left out a lot of stuff
2. he could have picked a better PD
AGH! and there are more, but i rather not say it....

I WANT the dude that Directed the 1st-2nd!

buggy buggyband

He left out a lot too... all three movies left stuff out.

I like 3th

Chris Columbus was terrible, the films were badly filmed and edited, and anyone could have done better. I thought PoA was good because of the interpretations made by the director and writers and even the kid actors when they felt like actually acting.

But i'm glad that it has now gone to a Brit director, bringing the movie home!

i couldnt agree more with jaina...alfonso cuaron brought an outsiders view of the world of harry potter....what you must realize is that not every book translates well to the screen...let's pretend that the harry potter books did not exist but they made the movies....the first two movies would not be watchable because they are just poorly made..the only reason they were semi-watchable to begin with was because people knew what happened in the books...now prisoner of azkaban is the only one that seems like it is a movie...sure, they left stuff out...but in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? does it really matter that they put the firebolt at a wrong place in the movie? NOT AT ALL...cuaron created a movie that was suspenseful and exciting...i can only hope that this mike newell guy directing the fourth can carry the magic on...

3rd. The first poster (mentalbug) does not know what she's talking about.

They cut a lot of stuff out because it was a bigger book. If they put everything in the movie, it would not only take longer to come out, but we would have to be in the theater longer, which may irratate people.

I liked Chris Columbus as the director better than Alfonso Cuaron.

By the way, it's spelled directOr.

I thought POA was best filmed. All 3 films have mess ups though where they leave things out. But that is what makes the movie a movie.

i preferred the 3rd too- altho i think the main reason is that he included a sense of humour- i think that was missing a lot from the first 2. as for missing things out- i found that much more noticable in the 1st and 2nd but hey that could just be me 😛

That they left out alot of stuff isnt just the directors fault it has a lot to do with the script writer to.
I personaly like the guy from the third movie he did a god job and the movie wasnt as kiddy as the first two.Plus I like the idea of having a mexican director.Oh i got one more thing to say dan should not cry that one scean was the worst in the whole movie it should be taken out and what the _____ happend to flitwick he was souposed to be in the bar and we were souposerd to learn about the fiedlus charm.

Originally posted by alberto8159
That they left out alot of stuff isnt just the directors fault it has a lot to do with the script writer to.
I personaly like the guy from the third movie he did a god job and the movie wasnt as kiddy as the first two.Plus I like the idea of having a mexican director.Oh i got one more thing to say dan should not cry that one scean was the worst in the whole movie it should be taken out and what the _____ happend to flitwick he was souposed to be in the bar and we were souposerd to learn about the fiedlus charm.

I AGREE! Ok, after watching the movie 100 times (its on HBO tooooooo much) I saw that seen with Dan crying and every time I say to myself "HE CANNOT CRY!" As for Flitwick who knows... I just wish they used the knot(sp?) in the tree inside of imoblizing it.

the guy is a decent actor but please just dont give him any more crying sceans get a double or something or at least let rupert or somebody knock him out before they shot these scenes that way the tearas are real and they look real couse he really will be and pain.Oh and that girl that plays ginny shouldnt be given any lines she butcherd the one line she did get in PoA but she is one of the only actors who actually looks like how i pictured the charecter.

How did she butcher her one line?! "The Fat-Lady is gone." How do you butcher that, seriously?

It just sound horerable in the first two she sound girly and stuff but that one line sound like a dude said it.

what do you mean by she butchered it?

O.o Ok, I'm suppose to be gone, but I am commenting still on this... I have heard that line about 100 times in the past two months (movies on HBO alot) and each time I hear a girl.... How do you butcher it?

Originally posted by revolution_man
i couldnt agree more with jaina...alfonso cuaron brought an outsiders view of the world of harry potter....what you must realize is that not every book translates well to the screen...let's pretend that the harry potter books did not exist but they made the movies....the first two movies would not be watchable because they are just poorly made..the only reason they were semi-watchable to begin with was because people knew what happened in the books...now prisoner of azkaban is the only one that seems like it is a movie...sure, they left stuff out...but in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? does it really matter that they put the firebolt at a wrong place in the movie? NOT AT ALL...cuaron created a movie that was suspenseful and exciting...i can only hope that this mike newell guy directing the fourth can carry the magic on...

i agree with you completely.
and speaking from the emotions evoked by the movie...
you have to admit the 3rd movie was much,MUCH more magical,and the essence of the books started seeping through.

I thought th e 3rd one was lame compared to the first two and the dialogue PD used made me gag. I think they could have either found a better PD or made him sound like less of a loser. I do think Daniel and Rupert will be quite good looking when they get a little older ✅