Thread: Harry Potter: Scrap the movies?

I've just recently finished the 5th book in the series, having not read anything past the 4th in some time, so I watched the fifth movie as well, never having liked anything past the 2nd one, though.

Though, I guess "watched" isn't the right word. I only managed to get through the first 10-15 minutes of the movie before turning it off.

Certainly, the book is quite too large to fit everything into the movie but I don't see that as the problem.
What I did find made the movies past the 2nd one utterly horrid was the acting, really, and not least of all: the "new" Dumbledore.

The acting seems so stale and unimmersive that I can barely compare the various scenes to the book, even when they're mirroring it. The Squib witness during Harry's trial at the beginning of the 5th movie was depicted in the book as beginning with vague uncanny descriptions of dementors but then, as the book depicts it, transformed into a truly frightened explanation of what it feels like to be attacked by them. In the movie, however, the entire few sentences that Mrs. Figg said were stated in such a light and unimmersed tone as if she was reading the text from an overhead projector, never before having seen it and having no idea of how the scene looks in the book (though I guess that might be the director's fault).

As for Dumbledore, the first two movies, I must say, had an unmistakable image of Dumbledore played by Richard Harris, who, most unfortunately, passed away.



He played Dumbledore just as he is depicted in the books: calm, serene and wise. With a peaceful tone of voice when at peace and a threateningly powerful but still steady voice during conflict.

But after the second movie, when Richard Harris was replaced by Michael Gambon, it all went so terribly wrong.



The fitting Dumbledore was no more. And since the third movie, he became a hyperactive aged hippie with braided hair and a complete lack of the charisma the Dumbledore from the books has (the kind that Richard Harris in his role portrayed perfectly).

And even more so, the acting of all the actors seems to be so loose that it gives the impression of a slight rehearsal of a small school play by uninterested children rather than a movie that depicts a book series that's become so incredibly popular over the years.

Now, I have no idea if it's the actors that turn the movies into such a state or if it's the producer who is to be blamed but one thing I can say for sure...I'm not watching any more of the movies, even after finishing the entire series.

So, aye, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this, if any.

Actually, I thought the first two were awful. It seemed as if the only picked the three protagonists for not their acting skill, but how they looked like the characters. Their acting skill grows with each movie. That is what should make the movie, right? The skill of the main characters?

You're right about Dumbledore though. He no longer seems compassionate and friendly. (fourth one especially) He is now this angry old man who is vastly worse than Richard Harris.

I think dumbledore was supposed to come off angry in parts of the fourth movie, as thats what came across to me when I read the books, though the fourth was my least favorite anyway.

Anyway, the only reason the more recent movies (third and fourth especially) failed to better capture the scope of their respective books is because the writers intentionally left out essential plot details that have taken just a few minutes to add in and replaced them with totally pointless but "exciting" action sequences.

To be fair, the movie was really long anyway. I enjoyed it immensely, but since half of the audience was little kids with their parents, they probably didn't include too much of the plot because the parents probably wouldn't understand it anyway and it's nonessential to the children.

Michael Gambon is an appalling actor. He openly admits to having never read the books (surely the hundreds of thousands of pounds he is paid should at least require that effort to be made), and I once heard him ramble on about he had such a clear picture in his head of what Dumbledore should be like.

What the fuck? You've never read the books, you've got no goddamn idea who Dumbledore is, and consequently you play him completely wrong.

Seriously, what a waste of an actor. You're not being paid to 'interpret' a character and give it your own personal spin when you don't even know what the hell's going on, you're being paid to act out the character that is in the books.

The only movie I enjoyed quite a lot was the third, Alfonso is a very good director and he captured the tone of that book pretty well and the subtle vibe of the books were there too, unlike in any of the other movies so far. The lows were obviously the bits with Gambon in, particularly as it was his first movie and so there was the shock factor too.

Unfortunately the same director is doing number 6. I really really hope they make something of the death scene. If he and Gambon screw that one up, I'll be pretty pissed off.

M Night Shyamalan is a candidate for the seventh movie though, that could be fun.

Don't worry; he dies!



























Edit: I have never read any Harry Potter book.
~

Originally Posted by Grod

Actually, I thought the first two were awful. It seemed as if the only picked the three protagonists for not their acting skill, but how they looked like the characters. Their acting skill grows with each movie. That is what should make the movie, right? The skill of the main characters?

I agree, Grod. I think the main characters were cast initially based on looks, and have grown a lot in their acting ability since then. I thought the first two movies were awful - too cutsy, even compared to the books. Chris Columbus did a horrible job with them.

POA was MUCH better directed and was a great movie, though they needed to put in more of the actual storyline with the Maurauder's and the connection with Sirius and James, and not so much wasting time showing the stupid Whomping Willow killing birds and shit. The end scene with Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack was poorly done - I thought the acting was bad. Didn't seem natural at all.

The 4th movie I thought was decent just because of the epicness that the book had with the 3 different schools and the Triwizard. However I could not get over how bad all the characters hair was... I know, stupid thing to ruin a movie, right? But for goddsake, the guys with their long hair was nauseating and that ruined a lot of the effect for me.

I just bought the 5th movie yesterday and haven't watched it again since seeing it at the theater so I haven't seen it as many times as I have the other 4, but I liked it overall. I thought the MOM battle at the end was really good, and Harry's acting ability has come a LONG way since his pathetic fake crying scene in POA. I agree that whoever cast and trained Mrs. Figg should be fired - I could act better than her without ever seeing the script before. But I wouldn't judge the whole movie based on that one flop character, Merlock. I thought the same exact thing when I saw it for the first time.

And about the Dumbledore thing - I think we can all agree that Richard Harris was THE Dumbledore that we imagined from the books. But as we can't have him, I think anyone they cast in that role will look bad compared to him. It does infuriate me though that Michael Gambon hasn't even read the books! I mean, WTF is he being paid to do?? That should be a prerequisite for being in the movies - you MUST have read the series at least X amount of times and be able to portray the charcter as JKR wrote them. Period. I agree that he is a terrible Dumbledore and the casting director made a huge mistake casting him in such an important role. I think only the people who have read the books can fully appreciate what a tragedy that is.

Come to think of it I didn't even like the books that much either..

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Come to think of it I didn't even like the books that much either..

Blasphemy!

I agree with everything you said, Merlock. I think the biggest tragedy was their terrible casting of the second Dumbledore, but perhaps it's not the actor who is to blame. I also desperately want Harry Potter to be taller, just so he could be at least a little bit physically threatening during battles.

Out of the regular cast, who do you think is the worst and who is the best? Unfortunately, I think Harry might be in the worst group for me. The way he portrays anger is just dumb. There's something about his voice that makes it seem like he's really straining to get the emotions across.

Heh, I would puke if Shamalan did the 7th movie. That dude started off awesome but now has a string of flops at the box office. At the end of the book he might be like, "And then they all realized that none of it was real..."