Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by oscar_merkx, Jul 27, 2003.
http://filmforce.ign.com/harrypotter.../430469p1.html very interesting development indeed
Hmmm. I'll wait until I hear something official.
Same appeared on MSNBC today. http://www.msnbc.com/news/944135.asp?0dm=L34IL
That's interesting. That means that either Cuaron is over budget or over schedule on the current shoot and being difficult about it (the only reason this stage in the game Warners would be unhappy with him) or he's already told Warners he doesn't want to come back. Doesn't matter much, this series seems to be on auto pilot as it is, and I doubt we'll see that much difference between the directors.
I would wait until the third movie comes out before declaring "autopilot." Cuaron has more chops than Columbus, as does Newell. Columbus came across as a hired hack while the newest two have more artistry between them that the series deserves. We will have to see what comes of Azkaban, but I am sure it has a lot of potential to be a great film (seeing as how it is the best of the books, too). Phil
Has anyone else seen the Newsweek article from the Azkaban set? Obviously not, if you think the franchise is on auto-pilot: http://www.msnbc.com/news/943721.asp
Great article. Thanks Adam. Apparently the Potter series is on anything but auto-pilot.
yep thanks for the link to that intriguing article
Sweet. Maybe Cuaron will make a Potter movie that I can stomach more than once. Love the books, but Columbus really needed to learn what should and shouldn't be left in a film.
With Columbus still attached as producer, Kloves still the writer on all of them and Rowling so protective of her baby, I'd still say auto-pilot. Sure, the actors might talk about the different style to directing, but that doesn't mean we'll see a vast difference on the screen after Columbus and Rowling have their say about the final cut.
a bit risky putting a one-hit-wonder in on something of this scope isn't it?
The Strokes are an edgy band? Ok... (Yes, it's not related to the film, but I just found that comment funny :p)) As for the films themselves, here's hoping the three leads stick with the series till the end. They may have been unknowns when they shot the first one, but now it's hard to imagine anyone else playing Harry, Hermione, and Ron.
From reading the Newsweek piece, it has become clear that Cuaron has forgotten a major point in the setting of the novels-Azkaban takes place in 1993 (I believe-give or take one or two years), yet he is dressing the actors in 2003 clothing. While Rowling's herself has slipped in her setting a little bit herself (when I reread Goblet of Fire a few nights ago I noticed she mentioned a PlayStation-obviously not around in 1994), so I am sure it will go unnoticed. Also, is that just me or is that a tattoo on Sirius's neck?
AFAIK, the books and films are not set in any particular year other than the present. Sorcerer's Stone was written in 1997 according to the text copyright, Chamber in 1998, Azkaban in 1999, and Goblet was written in 2000, when millions of Playstations were available, btw. Could you list a passage in any of the books when the year it is taking place is mentioned? I don't recall any. And IMO, the style of clothes being worn would be a very minor issue.
I don't recall any passages regarding the time that the books take place in either.
In Chamber of secrets, Sir Nicholas gives his deathday as oct 31 1492, and he is celebrating is 500th deathday. Mark
Mark, could it be that Rowling hadn't particularly thought about that particular piece of continuity when she wrote it? I'm with the camp that says that the books don't take place in any particular set of years. The Playstation that was mentioned could be the Playstation 5 for all we know. I don't think it's anything to get all worried about.
And the events in Chamber of secrets speak of Tom Riddle and Hagrid attending Hogwarts fifty years ago, this makes both of them near 70, and Dumbledore would need to be 100 or above (since I got the impression that he was already rather old.) Then in order of the Phoenix, one of the OWL testers mentions testing Dumbledore in his Newts, making her at least 130 or so. The chocolate frog card also mentions Dumbledore aiding Nicholas Flamel in discovering (or was it ascertaining the properties of? I can't remember) the Sorcerer's Stone, but Flamel is 665 years old, making Dumbledore even older (as well as that witch). He also helped defeat a major dark wizard in 1945 (!) suggesting he was already quite accomplished at probably in his late twenties or thirties at that point at least. If you really want to get into trouble, ask yourself why the creators of Hogwarts castle designed W.C.s with modern, muggle-like sinks and toilets. Especially the sinks, which had to be around for Salazar Slytherin to hide his entrance to the chamber. If you start examining years and dates there are all sorts of little authorial errors I"m more than willing to forgive. I don't think Rowling intends for it to be set to a specific era other than modern.