meltingparappa
Member
Luna Lovegood's actress deserves special acknowledgement because she was cast partially because JK Rowling sorta promised her a role if she could beat her anorexia.
How in the hell did the three worst actors in the Harry Potter films get lead roles?
- Thread starter Ghost_Protocol
- Start date
- Status
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
That bastard.
I liked it a lot. The 6th film was wasted potential because that was the best book.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Favorite book, least favorite film. Turned the really creepy "Department of Mysteries" (in which in the book Ron nearly gets choked to death by a weird brain in a jar thing) into lots of glass balls getting smashed. Just terrible. Worse yet are the following films treatment of Dumbledore/Voldemort's backstory, with a complete omission of the formers.
Best film is easily Prisoner of Azkaban. Nailed the book to a T. Followed shortly by Goblet of Fire (Though I understand I'm alone in this... absolute dynamite reveal of Voldemort, before Yates turned him into a ridiculous caricature of evil with ridiculous laughs and cheesy dialogue.)
yup, they couldn't have handled it worse. Dumbledore storming the Ministry and showing everyone why he's the best wizard that ever lived lasted what, five minutes tops? Horrible editing didn't help either, everything looked like a Star Wars jedi fight
5 and 7 are the best books for me. So much great stuff happening
5 and 7 are the best books for me. So much great stuff happening
peanutbutterlatte
Member
"I want you to look at me when I kill you Harry Potter! I want you to see the light leave your eyes!"
This in Fienne's voice was genuinely chilling, especially after he starts off so chill. Pretty much what I expected when reading the book.
This in Fienne's voice was genuinely chilling, especially after he starts off so chill. Pretty much what I expected when reading the book.
But 6 textualizes Voldemort, is where Rowling learned to shed her love of the adverb, and finally gave Chamber of Secrets are purpose. Also, the Lightning Tower!
6 and 7 are my favorites, if just because the camping portions of 7 are such a breath of fresh air and I am weird for loving them.
Yes, but Umbridge was so perfect that it's almost forgiven.
I would rank them as 3 > 7pt 2 > 7pt 1 > 4 > the rest.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
The road trip element of 7 was risky, but I liked it. Came off really badly in the films though, maybe for exactly the reason OP points out. I think Ron being a whiny bitch and bailing did it in for me.
Down to the actor. Still don't particularly like Yates. Also, getting rid of the awesome-sounding mini-swamp for the fireworks from Fellowship of the Ring. No thanks.
Absolutely. I'm not sure if they were completely realized in the films, but the imagery alone worked extremely well, and I thought Emma probably gave her best performance in the series.
But it was handled a lot better in the book where it was pretty beautiful nadir for the trio, as well as a nice point of contemplation before the series reached its climax. I loved it, though I understand why others would not.
He handled 7 well, but really botched 5 and 6. I wouldn't have kept him after 5.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Doing things like getting rid of the part where Harry calls Lupin out for abandoning his kid to have a weirdly tense dance scene between Harry and Hermionie, just immensely stupid. Speaking of Lupin, Harry somehow magically knows he has a son. He's never mentioned in the films once, we've been with Harry the whole time, and yet somehow miraculously when he speaks with Lupin's ghost, Harry mentioned Teddy. But Yates, you never mentioned Teddy.
There's distinguishing an adaptation from the source material, then there's forgetting how to string together a coherent fucking plot. 7pt1 and 2 were done well, though I think with so many awesome scenes from the characters that had been there for 10 years it would have been impossible to be wholly awful. For example, Snape's Memories were done fantastically, but then that just reminds me of another part of 5 they cut out...
Snape calling Lily a "mudblood". You know, that time that Snape lost the one person in his life that was turning him away from darkness. The one friend who, had the "mudblood" comment not happened, Snape wouldn't have sold out to Voldemort. Causing Voldemort to kill Harry's parents. Initiating the events of the entire fucking series. And Yates cut it.
There's distinguishing an adaptation from the source material, then there's forgetting how to string together a coherent fucking plot. 7pt1 and 2 were done well, though I think with so many awesome scenes from the characters that had been there for 10 years it would have been impossible to be wholly awful. For example, Snape's Memories were done fantastically, but then that just reminds me of another part of 5 they cut out...
Snape calling Lily a "mudblood". You know, that time that Snape lost the one person in his life that was turning him away from darkness. The one friend who, had the "mudblood" comment not happened, Snape wouldn't have sold out to Voldemort. Causing Voldemort to kill Harry's parents. Initiating the events of the entire fucking series. And Yates cut it.
shakin_haitian
Banned
Luna was a plank of wood with clothing and hair. Being "weird" isn't just speaking your lines in a dead, monotone voice.
The main actors were good enough, especially later, for suspension of disbelief. Not great, but not bad.
The main actors were good enough, especially later, for suspension of disbelief. Not great, but not bad.
also totally not a big issue, but how they handled the goblins in the movies was beyond shameful. Griphook is ancient looking (first movie), then he's young (7th); Flitwick is ancient in the first, and Toulouse Lautrec from the third onward. Not sure why either
But she started out cute in the first few movies though. She stop being adorable and lost her sweet smile during the middle of the series.
She better get a few big profit movies and grab the money now because she will lost her star popularity very soon.
jamesinclair
Banned
Who wants to bet that in 15 years theyll be filming the remakes?
Doctor Decimate
Member
What the fuck? Richard Harris DIED
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Hopefully with the same fucking director for all 7 films this time. Imagine if Two Towers was directed by a different guy.
Indeed, Yates brought nothing to the series. Everything after 3 is bland and dull as all fuck. I don't understand why he was kept around until the end. It's really too bad not just that Cuarón didn't return, but that the producers didn't have the interest in bringing in talented directors with a modicum of artistic vision.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Replace David Yates with Chris Columbus and I'd agree with you. Easily my least favorite director, and looking back, possibly the worst possible director of the first two Potter films.
Yates & Co. at least came up with some good art design and cinematography, even if the legacy from the first four films (of which only one was great) held them down quite a bit.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Lol Columbus was fine for the books he adapted. Would have made a pretty awful Goblet, I'll concede that.
The Lord of the Rings books are like a series of long beginning bits all stacked up together in one big series that's written in the same style as an overly dry textbook.
At least the worldbuilding was decent.
OT: Rupert was fantastic and saved the last movie(s) from being completely awful.
All of the Yates movies except Part 2 are garbage imo. The two main problems with him is that it seems like he didn't watch any of the previous movies - he just read the book he had to adapt - and he clearly made the movies thinking everyone watching read the books.
Like, as much as people shit on the fourth movie, what I really liked is that he made everyone, including the Weasleys and all, have a massive crush on Cedric Diggory even though in the book it's the exact opposite. He saw that Cedric didn't really get a mention in PoA and knew it would be confusing for movie viewers if they all randomly hated on this new guy.
Yates brought up the Sirius's mirror out of nowhere, Lupin's son out of nowhere, it seemed completely normal to Harry that Fleur - the French girl he hadn't seen in 3 years - is marrying his best friend's brother and countless other things. He put in random scenes like the Death Eaters starting shit at the Weasley home for absolutely no reason and Harry/Hermione dancing. He butchered scenes that were great in the book (EVERYTHING in the Department of Mysteries, events surrounding Dumbledore's death, Ron/Hermione kiss, "NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU BITCH!", Voldemort's death etc.)
The books are just okay themselves but the movies, especially the later ones, could have been a LOT better.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Columbus turned two of the funniest, mysterious and clever children's books of the 90's into the most routine, soulless adaptions in the history of film. The very definition of "going through the motions." Rowling's writing ability went down over the series and the book's cleverness went kaput as she became more interested in recycling her old material (especially in books 6 and 7) but even that can't get anywhere near how unappealing the first two films are.
Tolkien's world-building remains one of the best ever.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
766 pages...
Huh, interesting. Apparently it was 766 in the UK and 870 in the US.
I'd rather them do a high-budget TV series or mini series, one season per book.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Damn, right. I was surprised at how much I loved the 5th movie. The 3rd one is till the most fun though.
6 should have given Voldemort texture, but it didn't. Rowling failed utterly and shed any attempts to make him anything other than a mustache twirling caricature, evil from the moment he was born.
Edit: On topic, I think all the films are crap, mediocre at their absolute best. Which is an astonishing accomplishment given the great cast, but when your Harry Potter is so bad I guess it's hard to do much.
They cast young kids who looked the part and surrounded them with a bunch of the strongest stage and screen actors in the world. Pretty much anyone would look bad next to that insane lineup.
Yeah I mean what is the Silmarillion next to the grandeur of HUGGLENUGGLEMUGGLEPUFFADAVARA
Yeah I mean what is the Silmarillion next to the grandeur of HUGGLENUGGLEMUGGLEPUFFADAVARA
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Tolkien a plain bad writer? Damn, if anything should be a bannable offence...
He wasn't a BAD writer necessarily, just a boring one. I mean, he could put words together in a cogent and logical fashion, but that's as far as I'll go in praising his style. His prose is nothing to write home about, pardon the pun.
For what it's worth, Dan Radcliffe is carving out a pretty good career for himself in theatre, having headlined three separate big scale productions so far (Equus, How To Succeed In Business Without Even Trying (a musical for which he had to learn to dance!) and now The Cripple of Inishmaan). I don't think anyone thinks he's an amazing actor, but he clearly works his arse off to avoid being an actor cast on name alone.
You can see him dance on the Tonys here - he does a pretty good job with Rob Ashford choreography. Even if he is half a foot shorter than everyone else in the cast.
The last non-Harry Potter thing I saw Emma Watson in was a TV adaptation of Ballet Shoes; she was pretty dreadful. I don't know whether she's improved in her more recent film outings (it sounds as though she's quite funny in This Is The End?) but I don't think it matters, she's a bright lady and will do whatever she wants with her life.
Rupert Grint I've never seen do anything else so I can't judge. He's got some indie film of some kind coming out soon, right?
You can see him dance on the Tonys here - he does a pretty good job with Rob Ashford choreography. Even if he is half a foot shorter than everyone else in the cast.
The last non-Harry Potter thing I saw Emma Watson in was a TV adaptation of Ballet Shoes; she was pretty dreadful. I don't know whether she's improved in her more recent film outings (it sounds as though she's quite funny in This Is The End?) but I don't think it matters, she's a bright lady and will do whatever she wants with her life.
Rupert Grint I've never seen do anything else so I can't judge. He's got some indie film of some kind coming out soon, right?
I think I'm more a fan of her new smile.
So fake.
General Patton
Banned
Wasn't their bullshit articles about Radcliffe taking hormones to grow, accompanied with pictures of him next to his mother looking like 8-foot tall and as thick as a redwood?
Anyway, if anything, this thread proves people have mostly terrible opinions. For what it's worth, I think they did a fine job. I always thought they could have gotten someone better for Harry, but Hermione and Ron were spot-on. Grint has very decent comic timing.
Anyway, if anything, this thread proves people have mostly terrible opinions. For what it's worth, I think they did a fine job. I always thought they could have gotten someone better for Harry, but Hermione and Ron were spot-on. Grint has very decent comic timing.
way more
Member
Is sadly quite true.
I'm really not good at judging actor skills, but most HP character / actor, really don't respect how you would picture them from the books. But to be fair you can't choose how a 10 year old actor you cast, will grow up...
I like how that comic sexualizes child actors for being so sexy that it's distracting. Finally, someone understands my pain.
iShouldGoPro
Member
I think Hedwig's performance outdid the majority of the casts'
Children of Men was a fair trade.
He cheated. Fixed his teeth.
- Status