harry potter vs narnia all vote now

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I agree. While many of the actors I like ( Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes) others are not up to par (Rupert Grint Richard Gambon). Maybe the movies would have been beter if they had cast actors based on whether or not they were right for the role, instead of basing it on something as irrelevent as nationality.

Choosing hollywood actors (good ones which they are a few of) over mostly classically trained actors?

However you misunderstand me if you think that its purely the actors I'm talking about. The way Hollywood makes movies often destroyes them.

At the end of the day its Rowling's choice, and as HP is in many ways very British, its probably best that British actors were used, although they did have to comprimise and aim the films at teeny little children.

While Emma my be a good actress, she is a horible Hermione. She looks nothing like the role. And when I said LOTR was better I meant the books and the movies.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Choosing hollywood actors (good ones which they are a few of) over mostly classically trained actors?

However you misunderstand me if you think that its purely the actors I'm talking about. The way Hollywood makes movies often destroyes them.

At the end of the day its Rowling's choice, and as HP is in many ways very British, its probably best that British actors were used, although they did have to comprimise and aim the films at teeny little children.

At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

exandra kane - your bang on. Harry Potter's english! yuk just imagine if it was american!

yep jk rowling is english she has wrote the books from an english perspective , therefore the films actors should be english xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

I disagree and agree with you there. In all honesty, the HP books would never make a great film script, theres too much going on inside Harry's head, the little mentionings of various goings-on around Hogwarts that could never be conveyed into a medicore script.

Although, yes the book is for everyone internationally to enjoy, the way in which it is written is very British, the whimsical humour, the characters and many of the references (although that may be obvious). The only way you could transform that into a film would be to use a mostly British porduction team or people who understand British humour to the extent that would be needed. I believe it's the previous efforts' aim to make HP more universal that has caused it to be such a disappointment (althought not financially), they should have stuck to trying to cater for a British audience instead and maybe it would have elavated itself as something different.

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

As said before, you need someone to understand the way the books are, although some mentioned would have probably done a better job. That being said some of the idiots might have moved Hogwarts to America and had harry as an annoying lil' american kid. it's been done before (War Of the Worlds)...

Originally posted by charleestokie
exandra kane - your bang on. Harry Potter's english! yuk just imagine if it was american!

Isn't Waner Bros. an american company?
And The director of the first 2 was american. Guess that's why they were bad. Wow. I just prove your point while trying to prove mine. Hly crap I feel slightly retarded. I Apologize for arguing, although the director of the third one wasn't british either and that was the best one. I think I need to reevaluate my opinion 😕

Originally posted by exanda kane
[B]At the end of the day it's Rowling's involvement that made for such mediocre films. Harry Potter is an international book and should have the best personel working on it regardless of nationality. I would assume that most of the time the best actors for the roles would be british, but that shouldn't be the definitive ctiteria during the casting process. Why not focus in on things like, whether or not they have talent?

I disagree and agree with you there. In all honesty, the HP books would never make a great film script, theres too much going on inside Harry's head, the little mentionings of various goings-on around Hogwarts that could never be conveyed into a medicore script.

Although, yes the book is for everyone internationally to enjoy, the way in which it is written is very British, the whimsical humour, the characters and many of the references (although that may be obvious). The only way you could transform that into a film would be to use a mostly British porduction team or people who understand British humour to the extent that would be needed. I believe it's the previous efforts' aim to make HP more universal that has caused it to be such a disappointment (althought not financially), they should have stuck to trying to cater for a British audience instead and maybe it would have elavated itself as something different.

as for other movie makers excluding the actors who aren't British, well, I can think of several directors and cinematographers who would be better apt for the project. Spielberg I heard was originally rumored to do it, but either he didn't want to or he expressed intrest, and they refused. Tim Burton would also be good. Janusz Kaminski, Andrew Lesnie, and conrad L Hall would all have been good. As for writers, I think Ted Eliot and Terry Rossio could have done much better.

As said before, you need someone to understand the way the books are, although some mentioned would have probably done a better job. That being said some of the idiots might have moved Hogwarts to America and had harry as an annoying lil' american kid. it's been done before (War Of the Worlds)... [/B]

Great post! You've almost changed my mind. I agree that the books have that typical british whimsy, and perhaps using British actors would be the best way to capture that. However, I still think that casting actors and other positions of all nationalities. I'm not saying they should have a tolken american or anything, just keep an open mind and cast whoever is best and not let nationality dictate too much one's decision.n It is also clear that they are extremely difficult books to bring to film. I think I'm just hard on them because I love th books so much.

mint i agree aswell

Originally posted by Rapscallion
Isn't Waner Bros. an american company?
And The director of the first 2 was american. Guess that's why they were bad. Wow. I just prove your point while trying to prove mine. Hly crap I feel slightly retarded. I Apologize for arguing, although the director of the third one wasn't british either and that was the best one. I think I need to reevaluate my opinion 😕

No, dont apoligize, your opinion is valued. There are great American directors (usually the very best) everywhere but sometimes that cant handle things the same way some one else can. Different cultures etc.
HP just needs to be handled with care.

And I agree with you about the director of the 3rd one (Cuaro or something like that), he done it very well.

Originally posted by Rapscallion
I disagree. While I thought Dan was pretty bad in the first two, I think he's made enormous strides as an actor and really came into his own in the third movie. He also has a much more challenging role than rupert does. He has to tackle some serious emotional scenes. He doesm't always do them very well, but given his age, he's more than decent. Rupert on the other hand has a very fluffy, thin role (I put the blame on the writers for this) and doesn't have the opportunity to show all his ability. That said, he seems to be having enough trouble with the simple role of the sidekick and comic relief. He usually onlyhas one facial expression per film. in the first it was confusion. In the second, it was fear, in the third he didn't have any wich was an improvement because he was less noticable and therefor less anoying. In the fourth, he pouted all the time. I know he doesn't have very strong material to work with, but he could do much better.

Um, what? And how many expressions does Dan have? from what I found, practically one, and I don't mean in each film. Rupert has a variety of different expressions. and at least you're able to tell what Ron was probably thinking and feeling by his expression.

but I had a hard time, along with the people I was seeing the movie with, trying to figure out what Harry was thinking or feeling. for example, that scene in the maze when Harry was deciding whether he should save cedric or not, he had no expression. he just looked back and forth, when he should've at least looked like he was struggling on what he should do. Instead, he looked expressionless. But in the scene when Harry's name came out of the Goblet, they had a closeup on Ron, and you could tell he was angry. He also did an excellent job in the argument between Ron and Hermione, Rupert did, in my opinion, a great job acting jealous with his expression and his voice.

and since Ron was supposed to be moody in this film, it made sense that he'd be moody through most of it. and I don't remember him having one expression throughout each film. And I watched the other films fairly recently. I remember a variety of expressions. Dan might have a more challenging role, but he doesn't seem to live up to it, in my opinion. now don't get me wrong, Dan's an okay actor. but there are a lot of points he doesn't do so well.

mint , oh i love a good debate

It's true that you can tell what Ron is thinking and feeleing, but anyone can show what emotion they are feeling if they play their character like a chracature (sp?) All you have to do is either scowl real big, or smile really wide, or sob real loud. Great actors, show you not only what they are feeling, but why they are feeling it. Obviously, the reason for their emotion should be shown through the script and director, but the actors performance should convey an accurate reflection of what is going on around them so that if you saw only the actor's face, or heard their voice, you could still at least guess as to the situation they are in. This is a lot to ask of such a young actor, but he shows very little attention to detail that is required in what could have been a very strong role. For example, a groan let out upon hearing you have a pop quiz is very different from a groan let out upon being stabbed. A scream while riding a roller coaster is different, from a scream while witnessing a violent crime. And an insult traded between friends should be different from one exchanged between enemies.

lol .....................Harry potter is so much better than Narnia because ..........it is

HP rocks my socks. So suck it all you Narnia Freaks.

HP is a revoloution 😛 ner ner!!

here here !!!!!

narnai is a very good film and i recon its a close 2nd to the hp films but no books can possibly be anywere near as good as the hp books!

www.powerpets.com/signup.asp?rfID=538494
use the links to sign up to powerpets the best free gaming site in the world!

i totally agree i never used to read books now harrypotter,s here its the best set of books ive ever read !!!

i have to say Hp cause theres more and theres only one Narnia.

No, the Chronicles Of narnia do not suck as a whole. The movie was bad but it was probably better than the first and second HP movies put together.

And in its time, Narnia was revoulution. A quiet one albeit, but it had much more dignity than the HP franchise has ever had.

And LotR and other works by Tolkien beat them all, I'm afraid to say; better books, better films...