-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

I don't understand the appeal of Harry Potter


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
52 replies to this topic

#1 of 53 Jon Baker

Jon Baker

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 233 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 22 2006

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:29 AM

I picked up the first DVD in this series after hearing rave reviews. I hadn't read the books, but I figured I'd give the movie a go just to see what all the hoopala was about. I tried, but about halfway into the film I lost interest. I don't think this was due too much to the story itself as much as the way this movie was made. I didn't see anything different in this movie that I'd seen in several other big productions - the special effects, the monsters, the musical score, the dialogue...I've grown so tired of it all that it's become boring to me. I was thinking that this movie might appeal more to children, but it seems that every adult raves about Harry Potter. I noticed on the back of the box that it is compared to the Wizard of Oz, but this is nothing like that. In fact, compared to so many films of today "The Wizard of Oz" seems more 'cutting edge' and fantastic in its dated special effects and overall filmmaking that it's more of an escape than Harry Potter. I just felt like Harry Potter was more of a special effects show than anything else and I couldn't get past that when watching this film, as if the director was thinking "lets see what we can 'wow' them with next". Maybe if I had read the book....I dunno. I've never cared for films like 'Shrek", "Ice Age", "Polar Express"...etc. and I think it's mainly due to the fact that these films are just carbon copies of each other and there are so many of them made. These films are so raved about, heavily advertised and commercial that I don't find much 'escape' in them. I can't even count the amount of times I've watched a film with some child actor (animated or otherwise) going "Whoa!!" everytime he see something levitating in the air? To me all that ended with the flying bicycles from "ET".

Is there anyone else here would could not get into Harry Potter who could explain their reasons for not liking it as well? Is there anyone else bored by the special effects of Hollywood movies today.

#2 of 53 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Producer

  • 6,102 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:30 AM

Try the books, they're much more old fashioned.
 

#3 of 53 Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,801 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:44 AM

I'm with you Jon. I haven't been able to watch any of the Harry Potter films for more than 30 minutes. I invariably find that films with constant action and computer effects become uninvolving and boring. Neither do I like having children as central characters. Definately not for me.

#4 of 53 JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer

  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:45 AM

The first two films are straight adaptations from the book-- and of course what works in prose, doesn't always translate that well into celluloid (and vice versa). The third film is done in a rather different style, and it's quite good. I haven't seen the second film, and I haven't gotten around to importing the sixth book.

#5 of 53 TheLongshot

TheLongshot

    Producer

  • 4,119 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2000

Posted December 22 2006 - 02:48 AM

Most of the appeal of the movies is bringing to life the words of JK Rowling. So, the movies may have more appeal to those who are fans of the books, rather than just standing alone.

That being said, there is more going on in the books than there is in the movies. There is a level of depth that is missing. It isn't a fault of the filmmakers, but the limitations of film.

Jason

#6 of 53 David_B_K

David_B_K

    Screenwriter

  • 1,442 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted December 22 2006 - 03:19 AM

I've seen all the films; have read none of the books. Like some of you, I do not find them terribly compelling. I enjoy them while I watch them, because of the effects, art direction and atmosphere; but I never feel the need to revisit them.

I guess I liked the one with Kenneth Branagh the best. I thought he was quite amusing as the narcissistic matinee idol wizard. Still, I only saw that one once.

#7 of 53 Ray_R

Ray_R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,559 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 2004

Posted December 22 2006 - 03:49 AM

I've seen the first two exactly once in theatres. The second one was more not of my own volition. I would've chosen to go see The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. To me, it's just far too over-hyped and I'm getting mightily tired of all the publicity it's been receiving. Like my signature says, I'm not going to care about the series until at least 2015-2016. It's also too new to me unlike The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, which have been around for decades. Figure what I'm trying to iterate is I'm going to give it more time before I feel comfortable watching them.
And I've never quite understood the appeal of it all except for the younger audience. Too bad the actor who's been playing Harry Potter will be type-casted for that sort of role for a long while to come. Perhaps he'll take a break after filming all the HP films then work on something radically different?

#8 of 53 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,520 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted December 22 2006 - 04:52 AM

Quote:
I don't understand the appeal of Harry Potter
Who says you have to? I don't understand the appeal of most things in popular culture, but I do like HP. I read the books first, so likely that's a big difference. The films are but a shell of the actual story.

Quote:
Too bad the actor who's been playing Harry Potter will be type-casted for that sort of role for a long while to come. Perhaps he'll take a break after filming all the HP films then work on something radically different?
Typecast? Radcliffe’s upcoming schedule:

Radcliffe's most recent film is the independent Australian drama "December Boys," scheduled for a December 2006 release. Radcliffe will also appear in a revival of Peter Shaffer's play "Equus" as Alan Strang, a stable boy who has an obsession with horses. The latter role has generated significant media interest, as Radcliffe will appear nude in one scene in the play. Radcliffe has also signed on for the ITV drama "My Boy Jack" as Jack Kipling, son of author Rudyard Kipling.

I don't see any evidence of typecasting.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#9 of 53 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,649 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted December 22 2006 - 06:04 AM

To answer the question in the title of the thread, it's because you're not a child. Sure, adults can enjoy them (I do) but they're made for kids and adults can come along for the ride.

#10 of 53 Qui-Gon John

Qui-Gon John

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 02 2000

Posted December 22 2006 - 07:08 AM

I have enjoyed all the HP movies, and have never read the books. I just found the characters and stories interesting. Was a bit disappointed that they changed Dumbledore's, how dare Richard Harris go and die like that. (Not being insensitive, just facetious). I think McKellen would have been a better replacement than Gambon, but oh well.

I also really liked LOTR. But as to Narnia, I gave it a chance, but it just didn't catch my interest like the others.

#11 of 53 JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer

  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted December 22 2006 - 07:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
Who says you have to? I don't understand the appeal of most things in popular culture, but I do like HP. I read the books first, so likely that's a big difference. The films are but a shell of the actual story.


Typecast? Radcliffe’s upcoming schedule:

Radcliffe's most recent film is the independent Australian drama "December Boys," scheduled for a December 2006 release. Radcliffe will also appear in a revival of Peter Shaffer's play "Equus" as Alan Strang, a stable boy who has an obsession with horses. The latter role has generated significant media interest, as Radcliffe will appear nude in one scene in the play. Radcliffe has also signed on for the ITV drama "My Boy Jack" as Jack Kipling, son of author Rudyard Kipling.

I don't see any evidence of typecasting.

He's being typecast as a boy. Sad, really.

#12 of 53 Josh Simpson

Josh Simpson

    Supporting Actor

  • 926 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2002

Posted December 22 2006 - 07:55 AM

The movies haven't done too much for me, but I caught on late with the books and have really enjoyed them. I really don't like the replacement Dumbledore at all, but I think the movies have gotten a bit better. I think part of it may be that there is just more in the later books that works well on screen, or maybe I just like darker stuff.

Basically, try the books. I think the books get much better as they go along, so read the first two or so.

#13 of 53 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer

  • 3,162 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted December 22 2006 - 07:59 AM

Hey, not everything is up everyone's alley. There's nothing wrong with liking Harry Potter, and there's nothing wrong with not liking it either. It's a big wide world with lot's for all.

#14 of 53 Terry St

Terry St

    Second Unit

  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2002

Posted December 22 2006 - 08:11 AM

My sister is a raving potterhead, so I heard all about the movies well in advance and had the books thrust upon me. I decided to read the first book before watching the movie, which I did. The book is okay. It's not some new age classic. It's basically this generation's hardy boys, except with magic rather than detective work. It's probably dumb luck that this particular series of books got all the global hype and another didn't.

The first movie is merely good. As you say, it's no Wizard of Oz. However, it's obsequeously faithful to the source material and was extremely well marketed. The experience of the first book and movie was good enough to prompt me to start reading the second book, but I got bored and quit halfway through. (By halfway through that book it seemed like Rowling was just marking time before she could stop writing filler and have Harry go defeat Voldemort again.) I mean to finish it before going on to see the second movie, but that might not happen anytime soon.

So, IMHO, Harry Potter is not a classic, but rather, a good children's franchise that's not quite so braindead as to be offensive to adults. The first book and movie are perhaps undeserving of their success, but they're inoffensive for the most part and not a bad way to spend time. I think you just went into them with expectations that were far too high.

#15 of 53 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Executive Producer

  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted December 22 2006 - 08:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Baker
I don't think this was due too much to the story itself as much as the way this movie was made. I didn't see anything different in this movie that I'd seen in several other big productions - the special effects, the monsters, the musical score, the dialogue...I've grown so tired of it all that it's become boring to me.
Remember, the first movie did not have the budget of the others. They had to do a lot of "Fudging" in the first. The newer movies are definitely better than the first.

I've never read the books and I liked all the movies so far. The newest one looks really good, but as was said, why does it matter if you don't like it. Not everyone is going to. To me, they're just fun movies. No more, no less.

#16 of 53 JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer

  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted December 22 2006 - 08:37 AM

The budgets:
Philosopher's stone: $125 million
Chamber of Secrets: $100 million
Prisoner of Azkaban: $130 million
Goblet of Fire: $150 million

#17 of 53 harryk

harryk

    Auditioning

  • 11 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 22 2006

Posted December 22 2006 - 08:57 AM

i dont understand it either Posted Image

#18 of 53 Garrett Lundy

Garrett Lundy

    Producer

  • 3,764 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted December 22 2006 - 09:53 AM

Its all algebra: A+B=C
A: Posted Image
B: Posted Image
C:Posted Image
"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

#19 of 53 Josh.C

Josh.C

    Second Unit

  • 469 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 2005

Posted December 22 2006 - 10:21 AM

I don't understand why you park in driveways and drive in parkways. I'm not sure I see the point of your thread.

If you want to bash Harry Potter, why don't you just pull up one of the many Harry Potter Threads and share your opinion.

I love everything about the books, and the movies are pretty darn good too, and I'm not a kid. I don't feel the need to elaborate, because you have already stated that you don't understand HP appeal.

#20 of 53 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,520 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted December 22 2006 - 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyErwin
He's being typecast as a boy. Sad, really.
Posted Image Posted Image
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow