Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince discussion... - Page 7

Jrf2 · 03-13-2008, 02:43 PM

I'm pretty surprised. I was expecting and hoping for a three hour finale. Order of the Phoenix (which I mostly enjoyed) certainly should've been longer, as the movie seemed like it was often one series of montages after another.

We'll see how this turns out.

Adam_S · 03-20-2008, 02:46 AM

i've been thinking about where to situate the split as there's no really good place to do it. but I came up with another one after coming across the comment that "how can you call it the Deathly Hallows if there are no deathly hallows in it, in objection to splitting it after the white doe. (regardless they'll be called part 1 and part 2, and I still think it's an enormous mistake that will bite WB in the ass, just make a 180-200 minute movie and they'd be perfect. doesn't even have to be 220 like Return of the King, that'd probably be excessive)

Spoiler:

Adam Lenhardt · 03-20-2008, 02:36 PM

I still vote for ending it at the white doe. With this much screentime, there's no excuse for meddling anything from the book up. It might not be an action packed ending, but it works structurally very well.

In HBP news, the second official photo:

Adam Lenhardt · 03-22-2008, 12:41 AM

Curious to see how the Columbus films would hold up with the experience of the three increasingly sophisticated films that followed, I watched Chamber of Secrets again for the first time in years.
It, if anything, improved for me with age. Except for the occasional line of unnecessary explanatory dialogue and an incredibly corny final scene, I don't really have any lingering complaints. It is the sole movie among the five released so far that actually plays as a mystery. Certain elements, like the sepia tone flashbacks and the Chamber of Secrets itself, seem pulled right out from a film noir. All of the clues that J.K. Rowling sprinkled throughout the book made it to the movie, so that the revelations had that satisfying "Of course!" to them instead of feeling like yet more piled on exposition. That's probably one of Kloves's key two advantages over Goldenberg, he knows how to bury the pipe (hide the exposition). If OOTP had decorated its exposition a little more artfully, it wouldn't have felt like a movie full of explaining. The other key advantage is Kloves's understanding of plot structure. In COS, every scene builds upon the last so at any given time we know roughly how far along we are in the story. And while Columbus takes a lot of flack for telling instead of showing, he does a lot of showing too. Every revelation made in Kloves's dialog is reinforced somehow visually or audibly on film. And the final act of COS is right up there with OOTP in terms of emotional weight, even though Columbus had a lot less dramatic of a climax. Fawkes is executed beautifully, a flash of beautiful technicolor on a monochrome screen. The pairing of William's soaring melody with the bird just when Harry seems doomed still got me a bit choked up. Partially because Columbus took the time to make Fawkes an extension of Richard Harris's wonderful Dumbledore, who embodies the character the way I always read him. Gambon's Dumbledore is closer to the Machiavellian creature Rowling ultimately revealed him to be, of course, but Harris captures the warmth and the levity that makes him so grandfatherly, even at the most serious of junctions. Gambon's intelligence is fierce and immediate, while Harris's is nimble and elusive. Of course, it helps that Harris's Dumbledore got far more screentime. It was staggering to note that the scene in Dumbledore's office in COS was about five times as long and covered five times the territory of the parallel scene in OOTP, even though the latter earned many more pages in the book and had so much more to talk about. And yet, the COS scene doesn't feel too long. Columbus wasn't afraid to linger in his shots, to let the weight of what a character says or the scope of the reaction sink in. Columbus's scenes feel like they're real time, much like Newell's scenes do. Part of my problem with both Cuarón's and Yates's films is that the induviduals scenes feel like they're in fast forward, too. The overall effect in the latter cases is a two-hour plus montage. Little moments, like when Harry instinctually brushes Ginny's cold hand in the Chamber to comfort her, are not a waste of time. Sometimes the rollercoaster needs to stop in the station.

Anyone with a free night on their hands, I highly recommend giving Chamber of Secrets another spin.

P.S. It's funny looking at that HBP still in my previous post after just watching COS. Harry's so much bigger than Ron and Hermione in that film, and now Ron and Hermione are so much bigger than Harry.

Adam_S · 03-22-2008, 04:10 AM

I always liked chamber of secrets (canted angles=something wierd happening

) but the thing that always turned me off of the film was the "don't worry I will be" so called 'clint eastwood' moment at the end of the film because it's so out of place. I don't think Harry has come to that point of self awareness quite yet.

but I love your take on the film. I just might pop it in this weekend and take a look at it. But I fundamentally agree that the biggest problems with Cuaron's and Yates' films are that they are so breathless, while Newell's greatest strength is getting the character relationships spot on and columbus in providing the overall vision of the world quite nicely. I wish Newell had come back for Half Blood Prince or Deathly Hallows.

Ray H · 03-22-2008, 08:41 PM

The first two films had the benefit of being adapted from relatively short books. As such, they kept most of the material and even allowed it to breath (COS lasts the better part of three hours!). The films themselves aren't bad. Heck, they're pretty entertaining and they're good translations of the books to screen. What I found in rewatching them, however, is that occasionally they lose my interest and large bouts of yawning step in. Maybe it's largely me or even my over-familiarity with the story. The first film is lacking in style. It's wonderfully designed but it just feels very sterile. There's no energy or real excitement. It's just Harry walking around and gaping at everything he sees. COS is superior to it in that it looks more interesting, but the movie just ends up reeeeally long. Some of it plays out more interestingly, while a good section just comes off as the kids walking down hallways and corridors in hushed tones.

POA is much more stylish of a film and it holds my attention better. But I see what you mean about the film though. It rarely relaxes or gives the audience a chance to relax. Most scenes give off the feeling that the wheels are turning and that something's happening that'll culminate in the film's finale. There's not really a fun sequence in the movie that allows you relax. GOF, on the other hand, cuts a load of material from the book that allows it to ease up on the pace. It also benefits from having a more straightforward storyline. Harry's entered into the triwizard tournament, he needs to finish all three tasks, and in the meantime has to ask a girl to the dance. Like the others, there's a mystery, but it's mostly working in the background. The three tasks and the Yule Ball allow the audience to relax and enjoy the film as opposed to a more uneasy and rushed feeling from POA and OOTP.

Chuck Mayer · 03-23-2008, 10:24 AM

Each of the films has their own strengths, but I still prefer POA because it's the first to not have the trio be KIDS, it's the first to actually explore their relationships beyond "BFF", it's the first to give Harry a strong relationship with an adult (Lupin), and most critically, it's the first film that doesn't FEEL like a kids movie (sets and all). After the LOTR films, HP came across as old school and lightweight. Hogwarts never felt like more than a set until Cuaron envisioned it. It felt vital and real under his camera.

That said, I like all of the films to one extent or another, but the quality of the films (directorially and art direction-wise) took a huge jump with Cuaron (and Newell and Yates readily admit that), so they had that to build from.

Oddly enough, Newell's film is one that most felt like scene/sub-plot->done, and next, and next, etc. I still enjoyed it. It felt the most rushed to me.

Chamber felt the least rushed, but it had the best page-to-minute ratio of the five films.

oscar_merkx · 03-23-2008, 10:30 AM

Potter Producer Talks Deathly Hallows
Exclusive: David Heyman on book 7 split

Empire: Movie News - Potter Producer Talks Deathly Hallows

Quote:

So these films will be the same length as the ones that came before? We won’t see two films that clock in under two hours?

No. The idea is to get everything people want in there. I’m sure there’ll be parts that don’t make it, which we won’t know until the script is written. But that is the idea.

What do you think is the natural separation point in the books? Where can you end the first film in a satisfying way?

It depends what feeling you want [to end on]. I don’t want to answer that just yet because we don’t have the first script. We do have a point roughly where we want to end, but we haven’t got a draft to know if that works yet.

Obviously, there are people who will think that the decision to make two films is driven by a desire to make twice as much money. What do you say to that?

The process went like this: the studio said to us, the filmmakers, “You decide what is best for the story”. Alan Horn (President of Warner Bros) and Jeff Robinov (Warner Bros Head of Production), particularly Alan Horn, are complete Potter fans. He loves the franchise, loves the books, loves the films and appreciates their importance to Warner Bros on many levels. But above all else he is a fan. And he said he did not want to compromise the creative integrity of the films. He wanted to end the series in the right way. He’s been very generous in the resources they’ve given us, but also in the freedom they’ve given us on each of the films. He very clearly said that Steve Kloves, myself, David Yates should make the decision and he would support that.

You mention earlier that you consulted Jo Rowling. What was her input?

We came to her and said that this was what we were thinking. She said, “You know what? I think that’s the right decision and whole-heartedly support you”.

Do you expect to shoot both films together?

It’s one film in two parts and it’ll be shot all as one film.

How long do you expect that to take?

I would think approximately a year’s shooting.

there is more

Adam Lenhardt · 03-23-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray H

What I found in rewatching them, however, is that occasionally they lose my interest and large bouts of yawning step in. Maybe it's largely me or even my over-familiarity with the story.

I think it's a personal thing. For me, there is definitely surplus in the first two films, but relatively little surplus, and never intolerable surplus. But they're definitely paced like older films. That doesn't work for some people, which I totally respect. I can only say that it does work for me.

Quote:

The first film is lacking in style. It's wonderfully designed but it just feels very sterile. There's no energy or real excitement. It's just Harry walking around and gaping at everything he sees.

The first film has the best sense of wonder, but its near or at the bottom of the list for me because it never really coalesces into a film. It's two and a half hours of introductions. I love the way Columbus opens the film, and I love the visuals of the film, but it's never allowed to be its own independent story. I think, though, that that was perhaps inevitable. All the setup in that film took a large burden off the ones to follow.

Quote:

COS is superior to it in that it looks more interesting, but the movie just ends up reeeeally long. Some of it plays out more interestingly, while a good section just comes off as the kids walking down hallways and corridors in hushed tones.

I disagree. That was one of the things I was afraid of going back to it, but it didn't ultimately prove to be the case. It definitely spends the most time in Hogwarts of the five, even more than OOTP, but quite a lot happens in that time. The structure is actually pretty similar to GOF: car chase instead of Quiddich World Cup, Dueling Club instead of dragons, spider chase instead of merpeople, Chamber of Secrets instead of Maze/Graveyard. While there is more padding in between each set piece, it's used to effectively lay out the mystery. You're given everything you need to solve it before the big reveal, but it's not pushed in front of you like the Moody/Barty Crouch revelation was.

Quote:

POA is much more stylish of a film and it holds my attention better. But I see what you mean about the film though. It rarely relaxes or gives the audience a chance to relax. Most scenes give off the feeling that the wheels are turning and that something's happening that'll culminate in the film's finale. There's not really a fun sequence in the movie that allows you relax. GOF, on the other hand, cuts a load of material from the book that allows it to ease up on the pace. It also benefits from having a more straightforward storyline. Harry's entered into the triwizard tournament, he needs to finish all three tasks, and in the meantime has to ask a girl to the dance. Like the others, there's a mystery, but it's mostly working in the background. The three tasks and the Yule Ball allow the audience to relax and enjoy the film as opposed to a more uneasy and rushed feeling from POA and OOTP.

I agree with all of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

Each of the films has their own strengths, but I still prefer POA because it's the first to not have the trio be KIDS, it's the first to actually explore their relationships beyond "BFF", it's the first to give Harry a strong relationship with an adult (Lupin), and most critically, it's the first film that doesn't FEEL like a kids movie (sets and all).

Maybe that's the key difference. I LIKE the family movie feel. Everything doesn't need to be so dark and serious. The books have their cruel splash of reality, but not until the last book does Rowling really drop the feeling of whimsy. Since the three protagonists are kids, I liked that the early movies allowed them to be kids. While I also really like the relationship between Harry and Lupin as executed in POA, I disagree that it's the first strong relationship Harry has with an adult. Dumbledore was very much a surrogate father in COS; if he hadn't been, Harry never would have been able to call Fawkes to himself. In many ways, Lupin filled the void left by Gambon's more distant and imperial Dumbledore. I also think the visual sense across the first four movies was very strong, but the first two movies more closely matched my vision of Harry's world. Rowling's book was full of the same colorful flourishes on the periphery that Columbus delighted in, and I always pictured the Wizarding universe as a technicolor world. By contrast, POA and OOTP exist in a largely cold and dreary universe. POA, especially, feels more real because of that — I think I'd be hard to argue that Cuarón has had the most on-screen flair — but I'm not sure I'm looking for magic made realistic. I enjoy a little pagentry to my fanstasy.

Quote:

That said, I like all of the films to one extent or another, but the quality of the films (directorially and art direction-wise) took a huge jump with Cuaron (and Newell and Yates readily admit that), so they had that to build from.

The quality of the films took a definitive left turn with Cuarón, but I'm not sure it's all for the better. Directorally, the performances weren't always the deepest with Columbus by they were always dead on to the characters as written. I don't recognize some of the characters in the latter films when compared to the book. And while no other director could the dementors as rendered by Cuarón (looked at OOTP; Yates tried and failed) I'm not sure any could have executed Fawkes with such wonderful simplicity as Columbus did.

Quote:

Oddly enough, Newell's film is one that most felt like scene/sub-plot->done, and next, and next, etc. I still enjoyed it. It felt the most rushed to me.

I just watched it again last night, and I will concede that point. To my surprise, Newell cheats just as much as Cuarón and Yates when it comes to jumping ahead within scenes. Two things help Newell's edits over Cuarón and especially Yates: GOF, while framed by the three tasks, weaves character threads in and out throughout the film. This breaks up the linearity that gives POA and OOTP the two-hour+ montague feel. We keep coming back to the same characters and storylines. The second thing Newell's edits do, which was started by Cuarón and furthered by Newell, is he edits to a rhythm and gives every major cut a meaning. When we cut away before the match starts the World Cup, it works because we've been given everything we need to fill in the blanks. When we cut from the Dark Mark in the sky right to the train, it works because Hermione is reading the Prophet with that image on the front page. All of the cuts are connected. By contrast, Yates cuts against the rhythm. This not only highlights the cheats in continuity, but it leaves the scenes feeling disconnected from one another. The scenes don't flow into one another the way they do in GOF and to a lesser extent POA.

Quote:

Chamber felt the least rushed, but it had the best page-to-minute ratio of the five films.

That's a very good poin