The first four Harry Potters are ultra kino, the rare kind of cinema magic that comes around once every generation.
Why did they become generic shit after?
The first four Harry Potters are ultra kino, the rare kind of cinema magic that comes around once every generation.
GoF fricking sucks and only mouth breathing morons thinks it's even watchable
This. Goblet of Fire isn't comparable to the first three, homosexual OP
>Why did they become generic shit after?
They didn't, the David Yates movies are the best Potter movies. Also Goblet of Fire was awful.
You're just a redditor.
even the posters get worse. in the first two they look like wizards, characters from a far away world. in the top they are models for wal-mart clothing. "wow harry walking toward the camera with a blue tshirt how BADASS" was someone's thought when they designed them
Cuarón's biggest sin was ditching the robes. He wanted "realism" and sure, the kids might not be wearing their full unis on days off, but they took it too far and the movie is everyone in causal clothes besides the 3 scenes during classes. Not to mention that in the books, wizards don't wear muggle clothes unless they're trying to blend in. Normally they're said to wear travelling cloaks, etc.
The other hack director for GoF copied Cuarón on that, nd then they felt the need to put Harry in a special sports outfit for the Triwizard stuff, just because it looked like "Hogwarts robes but tacticool".
Azkaban is a good movie even if it butchers the book, it has the right mix of darkness and fun, and the characters come into their own. But it sucked the magic out of the world, slowly.
good post. the first 2 movies are definitely the most magical
>why does money, the embodiment of cold objective boring reality, suck the soul out of art, the embodiment of emotional creative fantasy?
I don't understand you. All the movies made more or less the same gross. Why would money cause the movies 5-8 to be markedly worse than 1-4. Please explain using specific examples and demonstrating causality.
creativity makes the first 4
the creators are rewarded with money
creativity could make more but it needs a break
bean counters want it now
I guess. But you still haven't demonstrated how these things are related. So, in this scenario we have the creatives involved with the first four movies... quitting because they weren't being paid enough? Or are they.... being replaced by people who will be paid less because the producers want more money?.... But the movies were already blockbusters? And the movies were already based on an established property?
It's a nice sentiment, money corrupts and money corrupted Harry Potter, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
>Dumbledore knew Sirius Black was innocent but let him be raped by Dementors for 10 years.
TL;DR: The books are better. Read the books, listen to the Stephen Fry narrated audiobooks if you have to. The films just aren't worth it.
I think the Harry Potter films could've been better and held up today as the last vestige of quality kino cinema alongside the Lord of The Rings trilogy had we got TWO THINGS.
1) The original Dumbledore from the first film captured the essence of the Book-Dumbledore. He was PERFECT. Had he lived to play the entire series, the Harry Potter films would've been better. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore was completely wrong, he was nothing like the book character.
2) They tarnish the films by having so many nameless non-white background students. While I do appreciate that this was a Pre-Occupy Wall Street era where they didn't blackwash any of the main cast (which they most certainly would've done had it taken place after OW), the fact stands that they lumped in so many non-Europeans into a European school is so goddamn insulting. The books made an effort to make the non-white characters really stand out, like Ching Chong Cho Chang, because everybody else was hyper European in every regard.
I never had a problem with the foreign students. Universities have foreign students in real life. And this is magic school, where not every country might have one, so it is logically to go to overseas to attend in this case. Anyway there are nonwhites in England so it’s not that far out.
>where not every country might have one
No no, that's the thing, there are wizarding schools all around the world in the Harry Potter universe. They have them in Asia, Africa, the Americas. There are even ones nearby where the Frenchies go.
>Stephen Fry
The Jim Dale version is better, and it would be flawless if he wasn't reading the Sorcerer's Stone instead of Philosopher's Stone.
Also, Gambon is fine for Dumbledore. Harris captures how the books wanted him portrayed, how he was in the first few. But objectively, Dumbledore is a conniving, scheming, selfish person putting a facade out to make up for his failings. The books don't even hide this, in fact they add backstory and Harry's monologues that make it more apparent, no matter if Rowling meant it to come across that way. Gambon sells that kind of unlikeable Dumbledore quite well, and the fact that he's so different from the wizened grandfatherly Harris makes him almost impossible to like, which serves well to frame Harry's disconnect.
>muh occupy
Oh you're moronic, carry on then.
I disagree with you. The fact that the grandfatherly figure is so prevalent is what makes his master plan reveal so great. And no, Dumbledore isn't really all that, he did it to Harry because there was literally no other option, and he tried to postpone it as much as he could, he tried to give Harry a normal childhood as much as he could.
ONLY the first two are watchable. The rest are boring and dark. Only gays who've never been in danger have such an obsession with "realism" (i.e. everyone is a brooding lunatic) and dark palettes.
>Stephen Fry
It doesn't seem right to have a paedophile narrate a book about a school.
don't be a bigot
4 sucked ass and while 3 managed to be absolute kino it also suffered from some poor choices that detracted from the established style. all the movies after are weak adaptations and the entire production seems to lose the heart of the early films.
4 sucks
in what fricking universe does 4 suck lol like really lol get a fricking grib lol
dilate
The series trended into a grimdark and edgy tone that nobody really wanted and doesn't capitalize on its strengths. People enjoyed Harry Potter the most when it was a cozy fantastical escapist story with some modest antagonists. And then instead of resetting it with Fantastic Beasts, Rowling dove right back into it twice as hard, with a convoluted plot to make it even worse.
>The series trended into a grimdark and edgy tone
I'm going to blame the success of Nolan's overrated TDK for that.
>sloblet of fire
They drop the comfy aesthetic and the later books get longer so it was more complicated to adapt. Doesn’t excuse how they made the best book where it was essentially Dumbledore-Harry kino into some generic teen romance shit.
All of the students becoming experienced magicians and doing all sorts of crazy stunts, partaking in big wars etc maybe made it too unrealistic? Everything is new, innocent and basic in the first movies in a way that's more relatable.
The later books are hundreds of pages longer than they need to be, if they were written as just plot point-to-plot point. What keeps them comfy, and even grounded despite there being a huge war and evildoers everywhere, are the slice of life sections that didn't get put to film. A lot of the later books are like a detective story, in that you watch Harry slowly go through the school year piecing clues together about the main conflict of the story.
>Who's the Half Blood Prince and what's Malfoy up to?
>Where's Sirius, what are these strange dreams, and why is Dumbledore avoiding me?
Etc
Because David Yates is a soulless studio hack. They should have brought back Chris Columbus no matter the cost.
Warner Bros./David Heyman wanted a studio hack to push the movies out. Directorial changes meant they missed a release in 2003 when they could have used the hype from OotP releasing. They got Cuaron who was set to shoot 3/4 back to back but he only wanted to commit to one movie because he thought he might hate making blockbusters - that's why they got Newell in for 4, to get it out in 2005 alongside HPB on schedule.
Of course, GoF was awful and they couldn't lock Newell up, so when they went back to find a director, they went after someone cheap and agreeable.
Chris Columbus is the king of comfykino. Home Alone 1 & 2 and Harry Potter 1 & 2 are untouchable. It's a shame they didn't retain him for the rest of the series.
imo only the first two are truly soulful, third isnt too bad, but it marked the start of the awful blue and grey colour pallete that mars the rest of the series.
Goblet of Fire was garbage. They quite literally stopped caring in that movie.
>put the two weeks indians girls in Gryffindor
Didn't they really think the audience wouldn't understand the second sister was in another house?
The books became longer and longer. Successful authors are allowed less editing, become verbose, a tale as old as money (see Robert Jordan).
This also made then harder to condense for movies. Too much needed plot was cut.
because they turned into young adult garbage. Only the first two were really good though. PoA was decent, and GoF was not good.
Isn't that what happened with the books too ?