Support NeoGAF

[Hyperactivity]

Cuaron and Colombus

Colombus did an amazing job at introducing Hogwarts and just nailed the worldbuilding for the series. All the little things, like Diagon Ally, the details on Hogwarts, christmas at Hogwarts, the hogwarts Express, etc were just done really well

 

[HeavyMetalLover91]

Cuaron by miles. PoA is GOAT

Columbus was good for the first two but he left at the right time. That said, Chamber is in my top 3 so would've been curious to see him go even darker.

Newell does stand out a little bit but overall no complaints especially compared to last place which is held by the sloppy ass motherfucker Yates.

My god he fucking sucks. All of Ootp apart from the final act was garbage, and stands out as the bottom of the barrel of HP. Only to be followed by the ending of HBP. Like seriously, Snape's reveal

Spoiler

that he is the Half Blood Prince

, like seriously dude, give more of a shit. In fact that whole 'thing' feels like an afterthought yet it's the title of the movie. Not that I blame Alan Rickman, I blame the directing of him. And don't get me started on

Spoiler

Dumbledore's death.

Zero drama or suspense (unless you're watching it for the first time I guess? I read the books first so can't comment too much) and the whole silence/slow motion thing is laughable.

Deathly Hallows was his best work but even then he fucked it up with basics like Harry not fixing his wand before snapping the fucking eldar wand in half. That shit still makes my blood boil. That's BASIC stuff. But come on guys, gotta get that money shot of Hermione and Ron kissing in the Chamber of Secrets! Give me a break.

Yates is fucking terrible and lucky for him the source material of those movies are good enough to keep them watchable, but as far as staying true to the source material, he's crap. And to hear he's directing Fantastic Beats makes me lose all interest now.

 

[A-V-B]

Guess what.

If something in the world of art could be close to objective, it would be that Cuaron was the best director of the Harry Potter series. Say what you like about the script -- which Cuaron didn't write -- but Alfonso performed a miracle for both the movie itself and the survival of the film franchise.

So it's Cuaron. Bye.

 

[BorkBork]

Can't fathom anyone but Cuaron. Columbus got the whimsy right but the movies were slogs. The other ones were just boring.

 

[C4Lukins]

Newell or Columbus. Newell directed the best film in the franchise. Columbus set up the vision for the franchise which stood up for 8 films and several directors. Without his blueprint, the whole thing could have gone to shit.

 

[BlueDogAnchorite]

Alfonso Cuarón

 

[MrChom]

I can't stand Cuaron's directing so for me it's Chris Columbus.

 

[Marvel]

Cuaron.

Hands down, that film was moody as shit loved it's atmosphere.

 

[Richie]

The great thing with Cuarón, as has been said before, is that you could watch it as a day one fan, or without having any knowledge of Harry Potter whatsoever, and will have a great time regardless. A friend of mine hated the franchise with a passion but loved Cuarón's previous films, so we convinced him to watch this one, dude left with a big smile.

 

[Mighty Chin]

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

I agree. The early books were perfectly suitable for Columbus and I love them. He would not be able to transition to the darker tones.

Yates is the worst.

 

[makingmusic476]

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.

Well this just depresses the fuck outta me. =(

 

[ostrichKing]

I agree. The early books were perfectly suitable for Columbus and I love them. He would not be able to transition to the darker tones.

Yates is the worst.

Personally, I really really do not like the first two films. Then again, I've always hated Columbus as a director...if he had directed the whole series I would have probably quit half way through.

 

[EightBitNate]

I really hate Harry Potter threads because no one ever explains why PoA is the best. It's pretty great, but I must have read 80+ posts saying PoA is the best without explaing themselves. I haven't read every post in this thread, though.

 

[Sch1sm]

Wasn't a huge fan of Yates. I liked the last two from an entirely cinematic view, don't get me wrong. They were done well. But I hated HBP. It's my least favorite of the lot of HP films. For me it'd be something like:

1. Cuaron
2. Columbus
3. Yates
4. Newell (though I'm not in the camp that disliked Goblet of Fire, I may be a tad biased because it's one of my favorite books of the lot - second to PoA.)

I really hate Harry Potter threads because no one ever explains why PoA is the best. It's pretty great, but I must have read 80+ posts saying PoA is the best without explaing themselves. I haven't read every post in this thread, though.

For me, and shoot me here because I have no idea what I was thinking, it was the first of the lot I read. I was like 8/9, it was for some reading club. Fell in love with it. Said love translated into the film.

Spoiler

I like Sirius, okay. And I loved the acting. My choices are biased, no denying it.

 

[DrForester]

I really hate Harry Potter threads because no one ever explains why PoA is the best. It's pretty great, but I must have read 80+ posts saying PoA is the best without explaing themselves. I haven't read every post in this thread, though.

The third book usually ranks high on book lists, and the film adaptation was well done with a dark tone appropriate to the change in tone the books at this point. The film continued the previous films impeccable casting choices with Lupin, Sirius, and recasting of Dumbledore with a much more energetic, Michael Gambon. It's not my favorite of the films, but I certainly understand why it's popular (and I still consider it a really good film). I don't like all his chances though. I don't like how he did Hogsmede, and I do not like the effort to make all the Wizards and kids look more "normal". I did love the changes he made to the appearance of Hogwarts though.

 

[Knoxcore]

Cauron reinvented the universe of Potter after what I thought was a dull sophomore return. By far the best directed movie.

 

[EightBitNate]

The third book usually ranks high on book lists, and the film adaptation was well done with a dark tone appropriate to the change in tone the books at this point. The film continued the previous films impeccable casting choices with Lupin, Sirius, and recasting of Dumbledore with a much more energetic, Michael Gambon. It's not my favorite of the films, but I certainly understand why it's popular (and I still consider it a really good film).

Oh I agree it's good (probably my favorite book and movie) but I just find it annoying how often people rave about it without elaborating. And even if we look at the reasons you listed, none of those are praises to the film's direction (except the change in tone, but even the source material changed on tone)

 

[jb1234]

Cuaron. PoA also benefits from having the best score.

 

[Jarmel]

Cuaron in some ways fucked up the rest of the films by cutting out the backstory in PoA. He never laid down the framework for other directors to expand on.

This really fucked over a lot of stuff down the road.

 

[Loxley]

Cuaron, if for no other reason than that hilarious freeze-frame of Radcliffe's face at the end of Azkaban.

 

[Fantomex]

Cuaron set the bar so high it screwed over other directors. I remember reading the polls on Pottermore about POA being the favorite among readers and Rowlings. And the funny thing is, that it takes more liberties from the source material than all of the other ones. That's pretty impressive.

 

[DrForester]

Cuaron in some ways fucked up the rest of the films by cutting out the backstory in PoA. He never laid down the framework for other directors to expand on.

This really fucked over a lot of stuff down the road.

How so? Other than him not throwing in the explanation that the Marauders Map was made by James, Lupin, Sirius and Peter (and even that was never an essential plot point in the books), I can't remember him leaving any really essential out.

 

[Toxi]

Cuaron. He had a lot to work with and made it work well. The Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the most rewatchable Harry Potter film, with good pacing, beautiful visuals, and some real rich humanity after the pretty-but-lifeless Columbus films.

-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.

I don't blame him for removing that; the cavalier use of unforgivable curses in book 7 was weird as hell.

 

[Jarmel]

How so? Other than him not throwing in the explanation that the Marauders Map was made by James, Lupin, Sirius and Peter (and even that was never an essential plot point in the books), I can't remember him leaving any really essential out.

I haven't seen it in forever but I seem to remember that he cut out more of the Marauder backstory stuff.

 

[Sky Interloper]

As plenty of people have said earlier, Cuarón was the most accomplished director. Prisoner of Askaban has a good foundation in its book roots, and his directing made for a good transition. I also agree with the notion that Columbus was a good choice for the initial movies, as their tone is much more whimsical than the later books.

Goblet of Fire in parts felt like a slideshow, as it was the first big book in the series and the pace was frenetic. The same mistake happened in Order of the Phoenix. I'm still somewhat salty that the largest book became the shortest movie, if only because the talk between Dumbledore and Harry was dismissed with only a small, inconsequential scene.

If memory serves right, Yates became more competent with time. I think I'm due for a rewatch of the whole series, as things have become muddled as the years passed.

 

[Warm Machine]

Cuaron. Azkaban is thoughtful and genuinely scary / challenging for the target audience. It also has the best pacing and complicated story to pull off. On top of that it was beautifully shot.

Newell's movie was good. Columbus's second one worked better than his first. Yates's second and forth worked but his first and third are unfortunately dry. Deathly Hallows part 1 takes place in that tent for so much of the movie, seems to move in slow motion, and just feels like a completely different series.

Have to give Columbus full marks for the casting. Who knew those actors would embody those characters so well for so long.

 

[Valhelm]

Cuarón

 

[shintoki]

I'll also say it depends on what books are used too.

The first three are the easiest and strongest to adapt since they are the most stand alone. The 3rd book being by far the best. The material is the strongest for it. While OTP for example, the material is wretched, but it was a solid adaption.

 

[Conflict NZ]

I'm not really sure I like Cuaron. He's the one that set up Michael Gambon's Dumbledore as aggressive and controlling and that made the rest of the series less enjoyable.

Richard Harris is by far the better Dumbledore as a wise and calm authority figure. Prisoner of Azkaban was a bit too moody for a 13 year old Harry as well.

My order would be:

Columbus
Cuaron
Newell
Yates

 

[Quick]

One thing that initially bothered me with the transition from Columbus to Cuaron was the set design changes, purely from a consistency standpoint. The changes were definitely for the better.

The Whomping Willow was too close to Hogwarts, but Cuaron moved it to a better spot further away from the castle and near the forest.

The courtyard and clock tower were great additions to Hogwarts.

Hagrid's Hut looks 10x better being more into the wilderness.

I liked the added emphasis on the Scottish highlands in the background.

Overall, Cuaron really added more personality to Hogwarts, versus Columbus' by-the-books approach.

 

[A-V-B]

I'm not really sure I like Cuaron. He's the one that set up Michael Gambon's Dumbledore as aggressive and controlling and that made the rest of the series less enjoyable.

Cuaron did nothing of the sort. Gambon's Dumbledore in Azkaban was superb. Maybe the only thing it was missing was Harris's super ancient "of the wizard nobility" element, but the rest of it was a bull's eye. In PoA, he was crazy and wonderful. Except for his big speech at commencement, he was quiet. He was kind. And quite jubilant about all the oddities of the magical universe. The entire time-traveling sequence is wonderful for the character. Watch his mischievousness when they've done it, and he says, "did what?" and bounces away humming a tune. Listen to him distract Fudge with his long name, and with his description of the flowers planted by the previous headmaster. Then his casual dismissal of the Minister and the headsman once Buckbeak's gone. He almost doesn't seem as if he'd ever been a student, but instead had lived in the highlands as a nature spirit before Hogwarts was built, and endured all this time.

It was Mike Newell turned him to an angry boarding school headmaster who shoved and pawed at others. This survived into Order of the Phoenix due to Dumbledore's role in alienating Harry. He only started to come back in Half-Blood Prince, which I think is one of the bright spots of that film. His performance in the cave -- the rushed drinking scene aside, and that may be down to editing -- is inspired.

BTW, the backstory about James and company was in PoA. It was written, it was filmed, but cut at the last moment after test screenings complained it made the ending too long.

 

[DJ_Lae]

My order would be:

Columbus
Cuaron
Newell
Yates

That would be my order as well. I liked how the Columbus movies felt very much like the books, nailed the tone, and Cuaron deviated more than a bit but his is easily the best movie of the entire series.

Newell's film was okay.

Yates a mixed bag, glossing over so many things from the books, plus a huge chunk of part 1 of Deathly Hallows is boring as fuck.

 

[BorkBork]

Cuaron did nothing of the sort. Gambon's Dumbledore in Azkaban was superb. Maybe the only thing it was missing was Harris's super ancient "of the wizard nobility" element, but the rest of it was a bull's eye. In PoA, he was crazy and wonderful. Except for his big speech at commencement, he was quiet. He was kind. And quite jubilant about all the oddities of the magical universe. The entire time-traveling sequence is wonderful for the character. Watch his mischievousness when they've done it, and he says, "did what?" and bounces away humming a tune. Listen to him distract Fudge with his long name, and with his description of the flowers planted by the previous headmaster. Then his casual dismissal of the Minister and the headsman once Buckbeak's gone. He almost doesn't seem as if he'd ever been a student, but instead had lived in the highlands as a nature spirit before Hogwarts was built, and endured all this time.

It was Mike Newell turned him to an angry boarding school headmaster who shoved and pawed at others. This survived into Order of the Phoenix due to Dumbledore's role in alienating Harry. He only started to come back in Half-Blood Prince, which I think is one of the bright spots of that film. His performance in the cave -- the rushed drinking scene aside, and that may be down to editing -- is inspired.

BTW, the backstory about James and company was in PoA. It was written, it was filmed, but cut at the last moment after test screenings complained it made the ending too long.

^ This. I loved Harris, but Gambon in PoA was pretty good. So bad after that.

 

[Cheerilee]

Cuaron in some ways fucked up the rest of the films by cutting out the backstory in PoA. He never laid down the framework for other directors to expand on.

This really fucked over a lot of stuff down the road.

One thing to remember is that the movies were coming out while the books were still being written. IIRC, there was an interview with Chris Columbus and JKR, and JKR said that she was really happy that Columbus got as many things right as he did, because he was correctly setting up a bunch of the things that she wanted him to set up. And Columbus said that it was a pain in the ass, because JKR was extremely secretive and wouldn't tell him anything about any books that hadn't been published yet. So how was he supposed to know what future events he was setting up, when a movie can't capture an entire book? He just guessed, and got lucky. But later directors had to cram more stuff into the same space, and they weren't as slavish to the source material as Columbus was, so they basically had to get more of their guesses wrong.

The first two movies were made (by Columbus) in the gap between JKR's Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix. So they knew that

Spoiler

Voldy

would come back and

Spoiler

Cedric

would die.

JKR's Order of the Phoenix came out after Cuaron's Azkaban was already well into filming, so Cuaron only knew as much about the series going into the third movie as Columbus did going into the first one. He didn't know the full story of the Marauders and the Half Blood Prince, or what that meant to anything, and he can't really be blamed for that, but he did know about Cedric being a big character coming up in the very next movie, and really should have set him up better.

Amusingly, Half Blood Prince was the first movie that actually knew how the story was going to end (right down to the epilogue).

 

[a916]

Specifically speaking... what did each director do differently enough to warrant putting one over the other?

If someone told me they were directed by the same person, I would believe them... none of the films stood out in my mind as that...

(that's to assume that they did their job and the screenwriter would be to blame for any issue of plot and the producer for the overall product translation from the book)

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Well this just depresses the fuck outta me. =(

holy fuck i cant even begin to imagine how awesome the Deathly Hallows movies would've been under Cuaron. A tracking long cut of the escape from the death eaters at the beginning of the movie? unf unf unf

:'(

 

[daniels]

I am more of a fan of awe&wonder fairy tale type of movies that takes me back to being a "child" So i basically i only like the first two movies .. the later ones lose all the innocents for the typical dark&edgy teen audience
So who ever directet the first two movies is my favorite

 

[sephiroth7x]

Yates is without doubt the most boring director I have seen. I am amazed he got to work with so many movies. He must have been brilliant with the cast and crew etc as it wasn't his actual work that kept him in the job.

Best director by far was Alfonso Cuarón. A really good movie, not just a good Harry Potter, but a good movie in general.

 

[Superflat]

In order from best to eh:

1. Alfonso Cuaron
2. Mike Newell
3. Chris Columbus
4. David Yates

Maybe it was because the books got much longer and more complex by the time Yates picked up the ball, but his films were hard to follow, even as someone who read the books years before. Most of his films felt like chunks of critical information were completely missing, leaving me with a bunch of head-scratching coming out of the theater. Eventually I just stopped going to see them on the big screen.

The Harry Potter series up to the Goblet of Fire felt much more focused and had distinct identities and styles of filmmaking. Yates' adaptations were more faithful in a straightforward sense, but failed to create films that had any personality.

 

[Iceternal]

I can never forgive Yates for destroying Voldemort...

Voldy was pretty good in GoF, even though he was very very different from the book.

He was also impressive in OotP, during his duel against Dumbledore. Fiendfyre, lightning bolts etc .... amazing stuff...

But WTF happened in DH ? He's supposed to be He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and we got "Nyeah hea hea" ?!

He looked, sounded and acted ridiculous...

And he got nerfed HARD. How can Harry duel against him at the end ?

Harry shouldn't last 5 seconds against him.

I suppose it's because of the Elder Wand not obeying him but they did such an awful job explaining it ... seriously, did anyone who hasn't read the book understand how he was defeated at the end ? How could Harry win the duel ? It's nonsense.

 

[JB1981]

Guess what.

If something in the world of art could be close to objective, it would be that Cuaron was the best director of the Harry Potter series. Say what you like about the script -- which Cuaron didn't write -- but Alfonso performed a miracle for both the movie itself and the survival of the film franchise.

So it's Cuaron. Bye.

Survival of the franchise? What are you talking about ?

 

[Biggu Bosu]

Alfonso Cuarón
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

.

Easily the best movie in the series, sad he only did one movie before they gave him the boot

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

cuaron.

he directed the only good harry potter film.

Yeh same for me more or less.

I don't think I actually really liked any of the movies so I suppose it's rather that I disliked PoA the least.

All the films just couldn't live up to the books whatsoever and that's with cutting some slack because they're adaptations of increasingly large novels.

HBP was such a great book and Yates cut out or ruined my favorite parts such as Voldemort's background story and Dumbledore's funeral (for pathetic budgeting reasons IIRC).

 

[DrForester]

Cuaron did nothing of the sort. Gambon's Dumbledore in Azkaban was superb. Maybe the only thing it was missing was Harris's super ancient "of the wizard nobility" element, but the rest of it was a bull's eye. In PoA, he was crazy and wonderful. Except for his big speech at commencement, he was quiet. He was kind. And quite jubilant about all the oddities of the magical universe. The entire time-traveling sequence is wonderful for the character. Watch his mischievousness when they've done it, and he says, "did what?" and bounces away humming a tune. Listen to him distract Fudge with his long name, and with his description of the flowers planted by the previous headmaster. Then his casual dismissal of the Minister and the headsman once Buckbeak's gone. He almost doesn't seem as if he'd ever been a student, but instead had lived in the highlands as a nature spirit before Hogwarts was built, and endured all this time.

It was Mike Newell turned him to an angry boarding school headmaster who shoved and pawed at others. This survived into Order of the Phoenix due to Dumbledore's role in alienating Harry. He only started to come back in Half-Blood Prince, which I think is one of the bright spots of that film. His performance in the cave -- the rushed drinking scene aside, and that may be down to editing -- is inspired.

Agreed. Gambon was excellent as Dumbledore in the Cuaron film, and even in the Yates films. It was a completely different character in Goblet of Fire).

 

[KidB]

Cuaron>Columbus>Yates>>>>Newell

Yates would've been my favourite if he had only done the Deathly Hallows films.

 

[DrForester]

Guess what.

If something in the world of art could be close to objective, it would be that Cuaron was the best director of the Harry Potter series. Say what you like about the script -- which Cuaron didn't write -- but Alfonso performed a miracle for both the movie itself and the survival of the film franchise.

So it's Cuaron. Bye.

You do know Prisoner of Azkaban was the lowest grossing of the Harry Potter films, right?

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Basically anyone but Cuaron. I know GAF loves PoA, but I just didn't find neither the book nor the movie to be particularly enjoyable at all.

 

[Romez]

This seems stupid, people are just picking their favourite film which has nothing to do with the directors.

 

[Dyno]

Specifically speaking... what did each director do differently enough to warrant putting one over the other?

If someone told me they were directed by the same person, I would believe them... none of the films stood out in my mind as that...

(that's to assume that they did their job and the screenwriter would be to blame for any issue of plot and the producer for the overall product translation from the book)

These are my thoughts as well.

I think the 'style guide' that all directors had to follow made all the films very similar and cohesive as a series. I enjoyed them all and I don't personally don't think one stood head and shoulders above the rest. They were all pretty great!

Harry Potter series is for me the best movie series of all time. It's a cinematic feat that other franchises haven't matched. Eight movies, all of a high quality with the same main characters throughout. It's a really spectacular run.

 

[Faddy]

How so? Other than him not throwing in the explanation that the Marauders Map was made by James, Lupin, Sirius and Peter (and even that was never an essential plot point in the books), I can't remember him leaving any really essential out.

It was in the film that they made the map. Their nicknames are mentioned when Snape asks for the map to reveal itself. Lupin is also using the map at the end making it clear that he is familiar with the map. They didn't make it obvious but the detail as commensurate with its importance.

PoA is clearly the best movie. It is almost a stand alone with very little series overarching plot.

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?

OotP is probably my second favourite, it has some cool scenes and probably the most compelling plot. It is a coming of age movie for Harry and is setting up the final acts. Where as HBP is a waste of time. I was kind of confused by the ending and there seems to be a hell of a lot of unexplained or retconned Wand Logic that seems important for the final movies.

The last two movies were like the Wind Waker triforce quest. A boring task that seemed detached from the main story.