I don't understand the appeal of Harry Potter (1 Viewer)

[JonZ]

Id never ever heard of Harry Potter until I saw the DVD reviews here at HTF.

I was picking up the DVD for my G/Fs kid and decided to watcht it. Liking it I decided to read the books.

I dont understand all the love for Lord of the Rings, so to each his own you know.

"The latter role has generated significant media interest, as Radcliffe will appear nude in one scene in the play"

I thought I read somewhere that it isnt going to happen(I think the same artcile mentioned that Lindsey Lohan will have topless scenes in her next film, which she will be playing a stripper)

BTW, dont know if this was mentioned or not but book 7 has a title. I saw it on amazon the other day.

 

[Ray_R]

Perhaps it's because people are more comfortable with something that's been around for decades and has been clamoring for an adaptation? Some people just don't care for films where the main characters are children. Also, The Lord of the Rings is far more epic in scale than Harry Potter. Whilst Harry Potter is simply family friendly kiddy fare and LotR is "true fantasy". You'll always find The Lord of the Rings in the Fantasy section and HP in the Family section. Methinks HP got it far too easy coming to the silver screen whilst it took a huge undertaking to finally bring LotR to it for a far longer period of time.
It also feels highly awkward that a fantasy film with all these creatures and the like also takes place in contemporary times. I just can't fully grasp the concept. Must've been all those years playing RPG video games. I'll just stick with LotR, LEGEND, Dragonslayer and other "true fantasy" films for awhile.
When HP is much more "lived in" for several more years and doesn't feel so new to me, I'll get around to watching them. I'll rewatch the first two then watch the rest hopefully with an open mind. Hopefully by then I'll be much more comfortable with "family" films than I am right now.

 

[TravisR]

So you'll like the same movies more in 10 years simply because they're older?

And, unless you're making either movie, who cares if LOTR had a harder coming to the screen than Harry Potter?

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The books are a fun read and Rowling has some story telling chops. The movies OTOH are a mixed bag and have not been able to capture the magic of the books. If the Potter movies are one's first exposure to Rowling's creation it is easy to understand the difficulty of getting into the story or understanding the appeal of the franchise.

 

[Ray H]

It took me a while to get on the Harry Potter bandwagon. I simply read the first book because the movie was coming out and everyone else had. With that said, I enjoyed the first book. I guess the biggest appeal is about being transported to another world and having a darn good adventure unraveling in front of you. After reading the first, I went on to the second, and to the third and so on. Really, I think they're just fun books. Despite some of their lengths, they don't require too much effort and you can develop a strong attachment to the characters. Harry himself may not be everyone's cup of tea though. He goes from being a sweet little boy to a slightly angst ridden teen. He's by no means a good, wholesome kid who always does the right thing. He tries and usually succeeds, but he's got his own set of problems. so maybe that's part of why some don't get into it.

The films are pretty good. Actually, I find the first film to be a bit of a bore to sit through myself. Just very little happening. But to answer some of the criticism of watching a kid say "whoa" all the time, the first one is the introduction to the world both for the audience and the character. The kid went from living in a closet for all his life to being thrust into a world of magic. The second one is more interesting since it has a better mystery. I think most of my problems with the first two films is due to Chris Columbus' dull direction. The guy just doesn't add much and fails to bring life to the world of Rowling's books. Personally, my favorite film is the third largely because it feels like the most cinematic. Here, the franchise was handed over to someone who could actually bring some magic to the material while also making it seem more realistic. The fourth film followed similarly, though my main complaint is that it gets a bit too dark and grim. While there are some nice moments, it's not the most fun to sit through. The fourth also suffers from being adapted from a 700+ page book. So the story feels a bit rushed at times.

Anyway, Harry Potter is just fun. Maybe it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I welcome the series. It's a refreshing and fun set of books/movies that are entertaining and well written.

 

[kraZi]

I seen some of them but never a whole movie.

 

[Claire Panke]

I find the HP books charming. The idea of a parallel magical world, a wizzarding English public school etc...well you either dig that kind of thing or you don't. I do. When well done, kid lit can be very entertaining. A good story is a good story and HP hits a lot of my hot buttons (magic, Britain, school days, dry wit).

They're written for kids, of course, and the first couple books especially show this. That's not necessarily a bad thing IMO. Starting with Prisoner of Azkaban the books get more dark and complex. I find I enjoy Rowling's offhand and dry sense of humor, which is evident in all the books. HP is an archetypal quest tale, peopled by memorable characters, in an intrigueing setting...but it's hardly Shakespeare.

The movies were produced with the idea of creating a highly commercial franchise for Warner Brothers, with the selection of Chris Columbus confirming it. Pottermania was rampant and WB was looking to CC to satisfy the core group of fans, the 13 & unders. Which he did.

There were good things about the first two HP movies. The art direction and set design is well done. The movies are wonderfully cast, with many of the best thespians in Britain interpreting the characters. The scripts by Steve Kloves are better than decent.

The first film suffered not just from lack of FX budget (the producers hadn't allowed enough time to finish the CGI before the holiday release date and some of the work in the film is a bit dodgy) but more seriously from the uninspired direction by Columbus. HP1 was very faithful to the book as far as plot and dialogue, but rather lifeless and indifferently shot by its famously pedestrian helmer. I think literal adpatations retain the details but stifle the spirit of the source material, and that's what happened here. Without a strong visual style the movie remained a kid flick. Which was fine with Warners as they made tons of money. So who needs art? What kids wanted to see was a laundry list of characters and events from the book and that's exactly what they got.

The second HP also suffered from Columbus plodding visual style, but the kids had grown as actors and showed a lot of improvement. Branagh was a hoot. The regular adult cast was again impeccable. Not a great movie but better than the first in many ways, and again, highly profitable.

However, the inevitable comparisons to LOTR , with HP coming up woefully second best, stung WB executives. When Columbus stepped down as director, they hired an actual *filmmaker*, to helm HP3. Alphonso Cuaron is a strongly visual director who had already made an excellent movie adapted from a classic children's book (The Little Princess). It was an inspired choice and Prisoner of Azkaban is the only HP movie that attains (or even aspires to)any cinematic distinction. It is also the only one that captures the spirit and offhand humour the books for me. Unlike Columbus' telegraphing of every big moment and - his "WAIT, here it comes - there's gonna be MAGIC" schtick, the magical world in PoA is more integrated and textured, with asides and funny magical stuff happening in the cormers and periphery of the frames. (It may be a kid movie but Cuaron still crafted a REAL movie.) PoA also had one of John Williams best scores in ages.

The 4th HP, directed by Mike Newell, has some good character moments, some good bits and pieces, not to mention Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson, but it suffers from some awkward staging and the pacing seems off. The book was very long and much had to be cut or condensed, thus HP & the Goblet of Fire feels rather uneven - the climax seems off.

So, if you're not into it, move on. PoA (HPIII) is really the only HP movie that is interesting *as* a movie.

 

[Ronn.W]

I can't think of one "classic" Disney cartoon or movie I've ever enjoyed as a child or adult. Films like Wizard of Oz and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory have always left me wondering what I missed, because I never found a point to them, or any entertainment value in them -- again as an adult or child.

I do like HP though. It might have to do with reading the books, I read the first one before the first film came out and got hooked immediately by the characters. My wife has never read any of the books, but she loves the films. The typical child films listed in the first paragraph always fell flat with her, too. I think the appeal of the HP films and books to adults is that while they are about children, they are not childish. It should be said that I'm much closer to 40 than I am 30, and I have no children.

As far as likes and dislikes go, who cares? What floats your boat doesn't float mine, you know? This is why there's both Coke and Pepsi.

 

[Jon Baker]

I don't understand the appeal of a film that's made like every other film today. The way everyone was raving about Harry Potter gave me the impression that it was going to be something different, but it wasn't. All it was was another big commercially-hyped CG special effects show.

 

[Jon Baker]

Me neither. I prefer Bugs Bunny.

 

[BarryR]

I can't get into HP or the LOTR trilogy for one reason--to me they require a big commitment of time and "study" to truly get the most out of them, and I don't have that burning curiosity to begin with. To me it'd be almost insulting and disrespectful to drop in casually on any of these films and expect to "get it," since I haven't read the books either. I have nothing against them other than polite indifference.

 

[MarkHastings]

To be fair, HP is like every other movie to you because you don't like it. If you did like it, you probably would see it as being different.

In the same way that someone (who hated Narnia) would view it as "Just another LOTR movie"

or how someone (who hated The Incredibles ) would view it as "Just another Disney movie".

or how someone, who hates a particular genre of music, to view the genre as "every song sounds the same".

etc. etc.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I like the three Harry Potter movies I have seen on DVD. I have purchased the 4th but haven't watched it yet. All of it seems like good entertainment to me but I doubt if I will ever read any of the books. Her fame and fortune is well justified, she created great light entertainment and based on my daughter's account of the novels, she vividly tells her stories. The big budget special effects extravagance works great for the filmed versions. I understand not everybody will like this fantasy nonsense, but so what?

Chris

 

[TheBat]

I never read the books for lotr.. and I enjoyed the movies very much.
in some ways I am glad that I never read the books..with all the twists stuff with one of the main characters in the first movie.

Jacob

 

[Ray_R]

I prefer Mountain Dew and/or Canada Dry Ginger Ale. Don't even get me started on Schweppes g.a. though.
I figure I might as well give it more time to try them again. I did actually see both Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in theatres when they came out though. Just thought I'd give myself a break for awhile then probably rent all seven films and go at them. I really really enjoyed the LotR films, including the EE's (except for RotK more because I want to complete my 6.1 sound system before I watch it). They felt like it ushered back the return of epic scale films. Perhaps when I do watch the HP films, I'll watch them in large groupings so they seem more "epic" like instead of coming off as single-handed kiddy-films. I figure it's all in my mind-set I have about the films right now. Might as well clear them from my mind or summat before actually wanting to go back watching them and the rest of the lot. Know what I'm saying? I did actually want to see the third or fourth one since it has Gary Oldman innit. I've no idea... I find now that I've not been bashing HP much lately and have kept an open mind about it. Preferring to wait until a few years after the last one to get around to watching them for this unsure duder seems fine to me.
In other words, hopefully there're be another adaptation for The Wonderful wizard of Oz. Albiet due to the fact Return to Oz is actually far more faithful in tone and such to the actual books. It'd be difficult to market as people immediately think of the 1939 musical when they think of The Wizard of Oz. No idea...

 

[Jon Baker]

...or the 1978 musical disaster "The Wiz".

 

[Ronn.W]

There's just no accounting for some people's taste. :rolleyes

 

[SteveGon]

Artemis Fowl rules
Harry Potter drools

 

[JeremyErwin]

Or monetary policy...

 

[Don Solosan]

"I understand not everybody will like this fantasy nonsense, but so what?"

Why is it nonsense? Obviously it speaks to people on a level other than mere entertainment, or it wouldn't be so successful.

If anything, you can say that fantasy (or science fiction) is more ambitious that standard drama, since it carries the extra burden of having to create a world that is not our own but still makes sense.