Who is the best Harry Potter director?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mmm, Cuaron? QFT.

Yates is horrible. After the boring, visually bland Order of the Phoenix and a disaster which was Half-Blood Prince with the focus on love triangle and emotions (not even present in the source material) amongst all things it was a travesty they kept him. I guess they really wanted it to remain British to the detriment of the quality.
 
Mmm, Cuaron? QFT.

Yates is horrible. After the boring, visually bland Order of the Phoenix and a disaster which was Half-Blood Prince with the focus on love triangle and emotions (not even present in the source material) amongst all things it was a travesty they kept him. I guess they really wanted it to remain British to the detriment of the quality.

HBP did look quite nice though http://www.diyphotography.net/harry-potter-half-blood-prince-cinematography-bruno-delbonnel/
 
Alfonso Cuarón and is not even near a contest.

How a Mexican man made the most sensible movie about a British magician kid is still baffling.
 
Wow, I didn't expect to see so much love for Cuarón and PoA. As far as I recall, for a good while there people considered it to be one of the worst films in the series and I got made fun of for thinking it was the best.
 

Yeah, I guess it looked pretty bland...

However, it's my personal opinion and for me, a movie is not about looks, it's about story first and foremost, the idea behind it and how it's told. HBP was terrible in that regard, utterly forgettable, skipped a half of the book material in favour of building weird emotional tension in every action. (I only watched it once so will not remember exactly the details). Dumbledore's death was laughable and lacking impact, just like the rest of the ending.

It also didn't help that, in my opinion, Radcliffe was bad in these last movies. Ever since he grew up, he went from being an adorable kid to a teen with mediocre acting skills. His delivery in tOotP and HBP was wooden and insincere in almost every scene. I vividly remember how I left the HBP raging at the last line of the movie that he delivered which went somewhat like: "I didn't know it was so beautiful here" overlooking the lake. NO EMOTION. Wooden eyes, robot delivery. And this was maybe his last look at this scene as he was leaving Hogwarts...

So yeah, I don't care if the movie was visually great, or special effects were awesome. So what? I hated Avatar and Transformers for the same reasons.

Not to derail the thread but Yates didn't do the books justice.
 
i've only read the last book. after disappointing first part i was excited for the second part. but man, snape's death, kings cross station scene and mostly the last fight scene really left some empty feelings.

now i don't want to read the books because i'm afraid what ever likeness I've about those movies, will be lost.

as per this thread, POA is my favorite. all others are kind of in the same level.
 
Chris Columbus.

Because he's the only one who even TRIED to make the series accessible to those that didn't read the books, unlike the other directors who seem to have just said "Fuck it! Our target audience knows the story forwards and backwards. Lets just do whatever we want without explaining shit!"
 
You do know Prisoner of Azkaban was the lowest grossing of the Harry Potter films, right?

Yup. Chamber of Secrets nearly killed the franchise, and the gross came off post-CoS expectations.

I remember people from Warner Bros -- though I can't give exact names because it's been a long time -- saying people were ready to give Columbus's creation a complete boot out the door, and Cuaron revitalized moviegoer interest.
 
I think Curaon simply for the creepy mood he set for PoA. Just so well done.

Even if that film deviates most from its book, the atmosphere more than makes up for that. PoA has a great atmosphere. Columbus did a great job establishing the film universe, and I loved how Cuaron built on that.
 
Yup. Chamber of Secrets nearly killed the franchise, and the gross came off post-CoS expectations.

I remember people from Warner Bros -- though I can't give exact names because it's been a long time -- saying people were ready to give Columbus's creation a complete boot out the door, and Cuaron revitalized moviegoer interest.

...by making even less money than Chamber of Secrets? That doesn't make sense.

"hey can you revitalize interest in this by making the studio less money"
 
Chris Columbus because he made the foundation for everyone else, it needed a strong pillar, and he managed to do it.

Cuaron added a touch of realism to the characters and setting, best Potter movie.

Im not sure about the other two, im not too fond of Goblet of Fire, it was weird, like trying to be funny or something.

Half Blood Prince and Deadly Hallows part 1 were boring, with some great scenes here and there, but they are the least rewatchable movies to me.

I liked Order of the phoenix and Deadly part 2.
 
...by making even less money than Chamber of Secrets? That doesn't make sense.

Did you read the first part of my post? The gross of PoA was because so many people were already tired of Harry Potter. And quite a few people thought CoS was a boring slog. But because of what Cuaron created, the gross of GoF was immense. In between PoA and GoF's releases, word of mouth spread to those who backed away, and interest regrew. If PoA still had the same style of CoS, GoF would've crashed.

You see the same thing in television ratings. If an amazing episode is right after a terrible one, it'll have mediocre ratings, but then a mediocre episode just after that will have amazing ratings because everyone remembers last week's buzz, and thus show up to see it happen again.
 
Cuaron for the PoA alone, loved the addition of the Harry and Lupin scene on the bridge, as well as the adaption as a whole.

Columbus was great for setting the tone of first two films, so he's my second fav.

Slogged through both Newell and Yates, but I'd put Yates above Newell easily though I don't care for most of the films after PoA to be honest.
 
As someone who hasn't read the books does the plot get worse as the books go on. The first couple were about stopping the return of Voldemort, then the 3rd is more character based. The fourth one is "Look at all this Wizard Crap... surprise Voldemort is back" WTF, why did the Dark Lord go through all the hoops in the first two movie when his resurrection in the fourth one seemed so simple, was this explained in the film?

I'm not sure where exactly it was explained, but after Voldemort's first death at the hands of baby Potter, the Dark Wizard community effectively dropped their support for Voldemort, because they didn't know who or what Harry was, all they knew was that they didn't want to be the one to get on Harry's bad side and end up destroyed. Because if a baby could destroy Voldemort, what chance did any of them have?

When Voldemort revived himself in book 1, nobody helped him. Dark Wizards could have helped him come back, but they willfully didn't want to get involved (on any side), and they pleaded ignorance.

Books 2 and 3 were about the specter of Voldemort returning, more than his actual return. The diary was just a memory of Voldemort come to life (later revealed to be an actual piece of him), and Seriously Black was billed as the return of Voldemort's most terrible servant (revealed to be a lie).

Wormtail was revealed as the real villain of #3, which made him run to Voldemort for protection in #4. Since Voldy now had someone, anyone helping him, his return seemed easy, because it kind of was (although it did involve someone chopping off their own hand). No Dark Wizard was thus far willing to do as much for Voldy as Wormtail did, except for maybe Lucius Malfoy and the diary, but nobody knows what his actual intentions were (and Voldy neutered Lucius soon afterwards by taking/destroying his wand).

When Voldy came back in the graveyard in #4, he thought he had learned from his previous defeats, figured out how to beat Harry, and then invited his cowardly Death Eaters to watch him kill Harry. After two losses, Voldy needed to prove to his troops that they should fear and obey him, not Harry. He needed to remove Harry as a threat, and he needed to prove that he himself had no weaknesses, lest some Dark Wizard smell blood in the water and decide to kill Voldy for himself, to take his place as the reigning Dark Wizard. In front of that audience, the best Voldy could manage was a tie. Harry ran away. That sort of counted as a loss for Voldy, because Voldy needed to win that fight.

That's why Voldy didn't make a big move in #5. He hadn't been able to solidify the support of his troops, and he couldn't afford to make another reckless move against Harry, not until he could figure out why he keeps losing. He tried a slow mental attack against Harry, which failed, while he searched for intel, in the form of the prophecy. Also, Dumbledore was unable to press against Voldy's forces, because Fudge was so scared of Voldemort that he refused to believe in the threat, choosing instead to believe it was a ploy, and turning against Dumbledore, so Voldemort got lucky. Fudge bought time for Voldemort to establish his position.

In #6&7, Voldy slowly ramped up his attack against the world, despite his lack of success against Harry.
 
Well, I completely dislike Yates films, especially Half Blood Prince. Why add that scene when Bellatrix attacked The Burrow? And many parts about Voldemort's past ignored. It still angers me. As for Deathly Hallows, they were mediocre. I was expecting something better at the Battle in Hogwarts if the book was split in two parts.

Columbus did a great job showing us that magical world, even though there were some parts which annoyed me like the ghosts. But, it was magical and did capture the charm Rowling wrote.

Newell, fine by me. Not bad the movie and it was a good adaptation from the book.

Cuarón started the transition from light Potter to dark Potter. He did a fine job although there were some parts that I didn't like.
 
Well, I completely dislike Yates films, especially Half Blood Prince. Why add that scene when Bellatrix attacked The Burrow? And many parts about Voldemort's past ignored. It still angers me. As for Deathly Hallows, they were mediocre. I was expecting something better at the Battle in Hogwarts if the book was split in two parts.

Columbus did a great job showing us that magical world, even though there were some parts which annoyed me like the ghosts. But, it was magical and did capture the charm Rowling wrote.

Newell, fine by me. Not bad the movie and it was a good adaptation from the book.

Cuarón started the transition from light Potter to dark Potter. He did a fine job although there were some parts that I didn't like.

Which parts with the ghosts annoyed you? Nick was hardly in either of them, and was played by John Cleese, so nothing bad there. And the actress who played Myrtle was great, and you couldn't tell that she was older than the combined age of all three of the kids at the time.

Did you read the first part of my post? The gross of PoA was because so many people were already tired of Harry Potter. And quite a few people thought CoS was a boring slog. But because of what Cuaron created, the gross of GoF was immense. In between PoA and GoF's releases, word of mouth spread to those who backed away, and interest regrew. If PoA still had the same style of CoS, GoF would've crashed.

You see the same thing in television ratings. If an amazing episode is right after a terrible one, it'll have mediocre ratings, but then a mediocre episode just after that will have amazing ratings because everyone remembers last week's buzz, and thus show up to see it happen again.

I honestly attributed much of GoF's success to being widely considered the best book in the series.
 
Which parts with the ghosts annoyed you? Nick was hardly in either of them, and was played by John Cleese, so nothing bad there. And the actress who played Myrtle was great, and you couldn't tell that she was older than the combined age of all three of the kids at the time.
I recall a part (or two, it has been a while since I watched that movie) in Philosopher's Stone where the camera focused too much about the ghosts. Not talking about Nick, about them in general.

As for Myrtle, I don't have a problem with her. In fact, I'm glad she appeared on the fourth movie.
 
Which parts with the ghosts annoyed you? Nick was hardly in either of them, and was played by John Cleese, so nothing bad there. And the actress who played Myrtle was great, and you couldn't tell that she was older than the combined age of all three of the kids at the time.



I honestly attributed much of GoF's success to being widely considered the best book in the series.

Was it? I've heard a few people say GoF was their favorite, but definitely not widely. Possibly back then? Not gonna dig through ten year old message boards to find out though :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom