Who is the best Harry Potter director?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CentroXer

Banned
The Directors:


Chris Columbus

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Alfonso Cuarón

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Mike Newell
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

David Yates
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2



Personally I am most fond of Chris Columbus. The movie I liked least is Goblet of Fire, so Mike Newell is the worst one for me.
 
Cauron. But I also liked Yates. Columbus did an excellent job at bringing the world to screen, but I don't think he would've done well with the darker books
 
Cuarón did better with the characters, but Columbus did better with the look of the magical world.

Newell was absolutely terrible.
 
Is this a yoke?

Yates definitely improved as they want on. but nah son. Nahhhh.
He couldn't even do establishing shots in film 5-6. Sloppy ass directing.

Cuaron.
 
Cuaron, and it's not even close. I have seen every Harry Potter movie. Azkaban is the only one I love (the rest bore me to tears).

Chris Columbus did well enough with such shitty material to work with, and did a good job of introducing the series.

Mike Newell's wasn't so bad.

David Yates is boring as fuck.
 
I still don't see how anyone can think its so much better than the others to the point where it can be considered to be the ONLY good one.

Because all the rest fail to rise to the levels PoA did. Visually, editing, overall feel. Nothing in the other 7 films comes close.
 
My favourite movies are the first and third, but the second is one of my least favourites, so I'll give Cuaron the edge. Absolutely loved the direction he was taking the series towards.

And if we're talking least favourite as well, definitely Yates. Absolutely hated the direction he took Harry Potter in.
 
Azkaban is my favourite by far, so Cuaron. Why did he only do one movie?


Yates is a mixed bag. First two were average at best, but Deathly Hallows were really good.
 
I think Newell made the only real problematic one. It's the only installment which I felt wasn't very representative of the quality of the source material. All the others IMO did an awesome job with the tone and story of their respective books.

Edit: love you bud :)
 
Alfonso Cuaron.

Not even close. David Yates was the worst. He put pace and plot ahead of everything.
 
Cuaron.

PoA was undeniably perfect.

The werewolf looked like shit. Hogsmede looked awful. The film was the start of making everyone look less magical by making the school clothes look less robe-like. Which continued till the end till the Magical Law Enforcement at the ministry wore normal uniforms.
 
Azkaban is my favourite by far, so Cuaron. Why did he only do one movie?


Yates is a mixed bag. First two were average at best, but Deathly Hallows were really good.

Cuaron is the only one with any real talent, so he probably didn't want to tie himself to one franchise.

Also, Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 is absolutely atrocious and by far the most poorly directed film in the series. Yes, Chamber of Secrets was better.
 
Azkaban is my favourite by far, so Cuaron. Why did he only do one movie?

Goblet was the first of the monster sized books they had to adapt, so they wanted to start working on it ASAP right after Azkaban. Cuaron was asked, but wanted a little break after Azkaban, and then they never asked him back. He wanted to come back for the final film(s), too. :(
 
Isn't Azkaban the film that showed us wandless magic in the Leaky Couldron? Film ruined!

I know it was a hard task to translate the last books to film, but I don't like a number of things Yates' films did.
-Instead of Voldemort being the only flier, now ALL Deaths Eaters fly. I think that was established in Goblet when they all appear at the end so maybe that wasn't his fault, but they certainly ran with it after that, letting a terrifying Voldemort-only skill be reduced to casual stuff
-No Voldemort back story in Half Blood. I know cuts have to be made for cinema, but I really enjoyed those parts and I don't like them not being there.
-Everything after they enter the castle in film 8. Completely removed Harry using cruciatus on Carrow, and that ruined that for me without even getting to the flying hug and the awkward hug.

The werewolf looked like shit. Hogsmede looked awful. The film was the start of making everyone look less magical by making the school clothes look less robe-like. Which continued till the end till the Magical Law Enforcement at the ministry wore normal uniforms.
Oh fuck me I forgot about uniforms. That switch is undeniably shit. A famous school for magic ended up looking like some kids on a school trip. I don't know why anyone let that happen. Uniforms are not visually more interesting than robes. Maybe the costume department all got the plague, so they sent a temp down to Schoolkit to get anything.
 
The werewolf looked like shit. Hogsmede looked awful. The film was the start of making everyone look less magical by making the school clothes look less robe-like. Which continued till the end till the Magical Law Enforcement at the ministry wore normal uniforms.
Wrong.
 
The lack of Voldemort background in Prince is the only real major misfire Yates/Kloves made for me in terms of adapted content. That never sat well with me despite thinking the movie was damn good anyway.
 
I still don't see how anyone can think its so much better than the others to the point where it can be considered to be the ONLY good one.

Chamber was such a yawner that expectations were low and Prisoner turned out to be pretty damn decent. Source material being the strongest Potter novel helps, too.
 
Give me the world building and faithfulness of Columbus, with the directing ability of Cuaron.

I think Columbus gets a little too much shit because his movies were the first. They were amazingly faithful, maybe a bit too much so, and were too origin focused, and he was working with some child actors who had never done this before. The older they got, the better they got. Plus, Azkaban and Goblet were also better books, more to draw from.

Cuaron's problem to me, was that he started the decline in actually making it seem like a film set in the Harry Potter world. Costumes went out the window in favor of regular fashion, not as many special effects/wizardry, and there was a lot of cut content. The movie was so short, they could have easily added about 10 minutes of content without changing much. For example, an extra scene of Harry in Diagon Alley actually seeing a Firebolt and how much it costs, rather than just have it at the end.

Even still, it's still a great film and one of my favorites. I like the first 4 films and can watch them anytime. The latter four I consider the worst, especially the final two. Even with 2 movies, they couldn't adapt the final book properly, cutting so much stuff. Why even call it the Deathly Hallows? Call it the Battle of Hogwarts. I hate the last four movies, I don't even care. I'm bullheaded enough that nothing will change my mind on them. No magic in the movies, the cast looks like Abercrombie models, etc.
 
Are you asking who is the best director of the bunch, or who directed the best Potter film? Because in either case it's Alfonso on top and Yates in second.
 
Give me the world building and faithfulness of Columbus, with the directing ability of Cuaron.

I think Columbus gets a little too much shit because his movies were the first. They were amazingly faithful, maybe a bit too much so, and were too origin focused, and he was working with some child actors who had never done this before. The older they got, the better they got. Plus, Azkaban and Goblet were also better books, more to draw from.

I thought Watson just gave up even trying after the 3rd film. She stopped being Hermione after that.
 
Alfonso Cuarón is obvious great but I really loved the style David Yates gave the last four films. The dark tone and slick cinematography was really on point. Yates made that world feel fresher somehow.

That said, I thought the first movie totally nailed the feeling of the book, maybe more so than any of the others.
 
Columbus. PoA was okay but it began the downward spiral by trying to apparently make the characters more relateable (putting them in normal clothes). After that, all the movies were basically meh.
 
Cuaron of course but Yates did a really good job wrapping up the series. Last movie was great.

I thought he did a good job with the last film, but not a great job. The only scene I thought he absolutely nailed was the Forest scene with the spirits. He left out some really important things in Snape's memory montage, and while each part included was good, as a whole it was lacking. He also pointlessly turned the final confrontation after the forest into a stupid action scene with Harry actually dueling with Voldemort. Not to mention turning Nagini's death into a chase scene, when it was so much more effective in the book for Neville to just cut the things head off after his speech.
 
PoA stands out as one of my favs but the twist at the end made absolutely no sense as somebody who never read the books. Maybe it's more of the editing department's fault but i thought it was just really poorly done.

I thought the last movies did a great job in the "shit just got real" department. not that they were ever going to be lighthearted but they feel very claustrophobic with impending doom
 
Cuaron, period. Only good film in the whole series. The Yates films are good (if safe and a bit bland) adaptations, but they rely heavily upon the books for their emotional power while PoA stands alone very well, I think.
 
Cuaron, period. Only good film in the whole series. The Yates films are good (if safe and a bit bland) adaptations, but they rely heavily upon the books for their emotional power while PoA stands alone very well, I think.
thisisneogaf.gif
 
Columbus did an excellent job at bringing the world to screen, but I don't think he would've done well with the darker books

Ehh, I think Chamber of Secrets did darkness pretty well, especially from a mystery/suspense perspective. Columbus could've handled the later movies.
 
Yates was the most consistent director. Cuarón's sole film you either love or you hate it. Columbus was too faithful to the source material to a fault, but he set a good tone for the franchise.

Did anyone like Mike Newell's lone entry? Seems to frequently and consistently come up as the least liked film in discussions.
 
Best is Cauron, worst is Newell. Haven't seen too much of the Yates ones though. 3 is awesome. 4 killed my interest in the series.
 
Anyone but Alfonso Cuarón!

My favourite book of the series became my least favourite movie of the series due to the artistic style and atmospheric touches he chose to implement for the movie.

I have no idea why that movie gets so much love!
 
The lack of Voldemort background in Prince is the only real major misfire Yates/Kloves made for me in terms of adapted content. That never sat well with me despite thinking the movie was damn good anyway.
I don't like how they did the ending to DH part 2. it was fine and quite faithful to the book up until Harry shows himself alive, then its a bit of a mess with harry and voldy flying round together, the final battle not being in the great hall in front of evryone and voldy and bellatrix turning into confetti. Also harry never repairs his broken wand with the elder before snapping it which was another oversight.

maybe these are nitpikings of a big fan of the books though..
 
Anyone but Alfonso Cuarón!

My favourite book of the series became my least favourite movie of the series due to the artistic style and atmospheric touch he chose to implement for the movie.

I have no idea why that movie get so much love!

Because it's the best shot, best paced, and the best acted out of the 8 movies they made?
 
thisisneogaf.gif

Like I said, PoA is only film that, if you hadn't read books, I think would stand on its own as a good movie. Given literally everyone and their mother has read the books, that's not really an issue—and I'd extend "good" to the Yates films, which I thought were well done. Chris Columbus movies are really stiff and hold up terrible; Goblet is a fucking mess.
 
Isn't Azkaban the film that showed us wandless magic in the Leaky Couldron? Film ruined!

I know it was a hard task to translate the last books to film, but I don't like a number of things Yates' films did.
-Instead of Voldemort being the only flier, now ALL Deaths Eaters fly. I think that was established in Goblet when they all appear at the end so maybe that wasn't his fault, but they certainly ran with it after that, letting a terrifying Voldemort-only skill be reduced to casual stuff
-No Voldemort back story in Half Blood. I know cuts have to be made for cinema, but I really enjoyed those parts and I don't like them not being there.
-Everything after they enter the castle in film 8. Completely removed Harry using cruciatus on Carrow, and that ruined that for me without even getting to the flying hug and the awkward hug.

The biggest thing I hated about Yates was how he just didn't explain things. It felt like he expected you to have read the books already. Harry, Hermione, and Ron are trying to talk to Sirius via Umbridge's fireplace, next scene suddenly Ginny, Neville, and Luna are also caught. Why? Never explained. Harry uses Sirius's mirror to communicate with Dumbledore. Where and when did he get that mirror? Never explained. Fleur Delacour is suddenly back after three years and engaged to Ron's elder brother. Harry randomly is aware that Lupin and Tonks have a child. There's probably more, too. I mean, if he or one of the directors didn't set up something in their respective movie that would be much more important later on, work around it. Don't just put the aftermath in just because the book you're adapting has it. Sirius never gave Harry the mirror? Then make Dumbledore give it to Harry via his will, and then have it smash into pieces in some other scene - it would also explain why Aberforth would have the other mirror, too! Problem solved.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't mind Newell as much; like, he saw Cuaron didn't mention Cedric and how his victory made Gryffindors hate him in Azkaban, and so in Goblet, made everyone do what they logically would otherwise - admire him.

And then there's awful additions and changes like the crappy, utterly useless attack on the Burrow in the 6th book. What's the aftermath of this attack? Nothing. Hermione says, "Wow, it's so easy for them to find you!" and that's it. Done. They cut the entire journey to the Hall of Prophecy. The Death Eaters and Order can randomly fly. Avada Kedavra goes from being not instant death in Phoenix, to instant death again in Prince. The trio get caught in Part 1 by Snatchers and instead of just Apparating like they do to get out of pretty much every other situation they're in in the movie, they decide to run (at least in the book, they couldn't just apparate because they had their tent and possessions all laid out instead of in Hermione's bag, so just apparating wasn't an option). Voldemort disintegrates when he dies, as if he's some sort of monster - when a big part of his death was how normal and just like the other corpses his body was; in the end, he was still human and not some invincible being.

I could just go on and on. >___>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom