Eh? Despite her accent wobbliness, she and Ezra Miller were the highlights of Perks. Perks really seemed like a much better representation of her as an actress than Harry Potter, mostly because the films became so plot focused to fit in everything from the books as they expanded.
How in the hell did the three worst actors in the Harry Potter films get lead roles?
- Thread starter Ghost_Protocol
- Start date
- Status
Eh? Despite her accent wobbliness, she and Ezra Miller were the highlights of Perks. Perks really seemed like a much better representation of her as an actress than Harry Potter, mostly because the films became so plot focused to fit in everything from the books as they expanded.
CrocMother
Banned
I was a huge Potter fanboy when it was just the books. I read Books 4,5 and 6 pretty much straight through right when they came out over the course of 1-2 days. I was in elementary school. Needless to say I fuckin loved Harry Potter.
Then the movies came out. I was a bit older. I saw Harry, who didn't look like the Harry I had followed through hundreds of hours of reading. Ron was pretty close, Draco was alright. but Hermione wasn't anything like I had thought. Hermione wasn't supposed to be hot. This new element of attraction, "hotness" whatever you want to call my sexual attraction to her (and before you call me a creeper I was 12 when the Sorcerer's Stone movie came out) just totally morphed the character in my head.
The Harry Potter movies are an abomination to me. I know they aren't even close to the worst movies. I just hate them. I wish I didn't.
Then the movies came out. I was a bit older. I saw Harry, who didn't look like the Harry I had followed through hundreds of hours of reading. Ron was pretty close, Draco was alright. but Hermione wasn't anything like I had thought. Hermione wasn't supposed to be hot. This new element of attraction, "hotness" whatever you want to call my sexual attraction to her (and before you call me a creeper I was 12 when the Sorcerer's Stone movie came out) just totally morphed the character in my head.
The Harry Potter movies are an abomination to me. I know they aren't even close to the worst movies. I just hate them. I wish I didn't.
Wiktor
Member
They were cast long before anyone could realistically judge their acting ability. That said, they did a decent enough job.
Daniel seems to have the best future ahead of him though. He was pretty damn good in his post-Potter movies. He picks weird projects that fit him well. Horns should be pretty sick.
Daniel seems to have the best future ahead of him though. He was pretty damn good in his post-Potter movies. He picks weird projects that fit him well. Horns should be pretty sick.
Yes and no. One of the things that people appreciated about Harry Potter, and probably one of the reasons it went to from phenomena to what will be a lasting children's series is the relationship between Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.
Unfortunately for the films, the first few movies were the only ones that found time to established any semblance of a relationship and character development and they were 12. By the time they had enough of a chemistry and had developed enough talent to convincingly play these three with some nuance, there wasn't any room left in the films for significant character moments and differing POVs.
Dealthy Hallows sort of alleviated this, but the second one was pretty hit the ground running from the get go, so it was only the first that allowed some time to breathe.
Marmaladefire
Member
I think it was a more natural role for her and surely better than the last 4 Potter films, but nothing to really write home about. Ezra (despite being a very good actor in general) was just.. walking on set being Ezra, which happens to be a wonderful thing to behold. Logan fit the role well but in film format his character was as over shadowed as could be expected.
I'm going to have to disagree. I had some problems with the film, but I thought it was a pretty powerful and lasting movie that stayed with you, in part thanks to Ezra and Emma (Logan's character was really just a cipher in the book as a means for the reader to enter). I thought both did a pretty great job and I'm excited to see what they both do next.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
The tone of this series varies wildly, so I see why some people might have issues with the direction of the performances at times, but to call it all horrible? You need to check that thread awhile back about not being able to tell bad acting from good.
The main leads where all more than fine and seeing all three in roles outside this series is proof they all have some talent.
The main leads where all more than fine and seeing all three in roles outside this series is proof they all have some talent.
Marmaladefire
Member
I haven't seen the Bling Ring, but I'm interested in her performance. I like watching Emma on screen even though I don't think she's the Best Actor Ever, which is why I still hold the HP films in high regard. Like the sort of person you want to do well.
He's doing Madame Bovary next whenever that starts filming. Mostly just drumming in a hipster band though. Which is ok too. He's a cool guy. Really charismatic.
Saoirse Ronan auditioned for the role but ultimately lost out to fellow countrywoman Evanna Lynch due to her age. If the only films had been pushed back 2-3 years.
Wait.....what?
Also, watch the movies again and watch Emma's eyebrows when she talks. They go up and down A LOT. Now you can't unsee it, you're welcome.
Saoirse Ronan auditioned for the role but ultimately lost out to fellow countrywoman Evanna Lynch due to her age. If the only films had been pushed back 2-3 years.
Why are you so obsessed with Saoirse Ronan?
As for the main question they were fine. They certainly got better as the films went on. Me watching the films as an adult would have more to say about their acting ability vs me as a kid watching them.
Emma Watson could be very ott for the first three films though she learned some subtlety as it went on.
Marmaladefire
Member
Everyone needs a stan.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Lord of the Rings would like to have a talk with you, atleast it didn't have to recast their old wizard dude.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Well, the original actor dying would have to play a big part in the need to recast the old wizard.
Yeah, fuck those 10 year olds. They did a shitty job of portraying wizards who fight orcs, time travel, and talk to ghosts
Dream cast for Harry Potter.
Liev Schreiber as Harry.
Brendan Gleeson as Ron
Marlene Dietrich as Hermione
\
Pure class.
How about Daniel Day-Lewis, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Meryl Streep for the roles?
Monocle
Member
Doesn't beat Lord of the Rings, but it's way up there.
That is a correlation without causation.
Unless you seriously believe somebody heard about Gambon and then decided to protest right there on the spot.
Wiktor
Member
I don't know. Lords of the Rings characters were so bland the casting didn't matter much.
Marmaladefire
Member
Dumbledore is literally any thin old white guy with a quirky way of carrying himself and a large beard. Plus they recasted so early hat he wasn't even anything more than a mysterious helpful figure before.
It's not my fault I remember these things!
Monocle
Member
I don't even.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Wait what? Is this a serious opinion? ... really?
She was cute as a button as a little kid, but...yeah they were kinda locked in as everyone got older.
Radcliffe was pretty bad, especially in the preteen years (particularly 2-4). Ginny was headshakingly bad, the whole romance aspect was gross. Luckily young Tom Felton was there to hold the series together.
This kid was born to play a villain, my favorite character in HP. His story is more interesting than HP's
someone should rewrite the books from his perspective
Monocle
Member
You are bad at film watching.
AnathemicOne
Banned
How so? Aside from Frodo the Fellowship casting is fucking perfect (even Sean Bean) and not to mention Hugo (Elrond) and Ian (Gandalf) were professional actors at the time of hiring.
Christopher Lee and Ian Mckellen are fine actors too, but they were given such cheesy characters and expected to play them straight. It works against it. The human characters in the movie could be cardboard cut outs. I forgot about the treacherous snape character, he was pretty good.
Undeniably true.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Wiktor
Member
I mean in books. Movies improved on this aspect considerably, but papa Tolkien was just plan bad writer. Rowling is in completely different league.
AnathemicOne
Banned
...Dude just stop, you're just digging your own grave.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
King Allant
Member
Wiktor
Member
No. I'm not. He was just plain a bad writer. What makes his books worth reading is the amazing world building. But his prose has terrible pacing, while his characters are mostly shallow stereotypes, that don't experience any real growth or change during the whole story.
Actually giving Aragorn a character arc was the best thing the movies did, at it turned him from boring ubermench to interesting hero.
PushTheButtonMax
Banned
It's hard to impress when you've got Britain's finest in the supporting adult roles.
AnathemicOne
Banned
The Hobbit would like a word with you.
Marmaladefire
Member
You know how when you watch an old movie that was considered groundbreaking in its time, sometimes you think "What people thought this was great? X recent movie did it so much better" and you realize X recent movie wouldn't exist without that really old movie? It's like that.
Sure, since Rowling could write the same book three times and get away with it.
Lord of the Rings suffers from the long beginning bit with the journey up until Bree. Skip most of that, and it's a great book. Rowling has committed similar sins.
- Status