Which is the better scored movie? Philosopher's Stone or Phantom Menace?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

EIII is by far the best one

 

Yes, and that's barely a recommendation.

[publicist 4,643]

Lucas looked hard for intriguing ways to muck it up. 'Romance' came up inevitably.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

 

I tend to agree, but I was watching the first one over the holidays and again I was taken with how successful the world building is in that film...there's not much plot, but it sets up the characters and situations brilliantly, so that in latter movies (starting mostly with the third) we're already completely comfortable and familiar with that world.

 

 

 

It is magnificent and immersive. The sets, costumes, the staging and score all have a superb old world hand crafted analog charm - precisely the slightly wonky and kooky feel that the books had. The first movie's world feels the most lived in and you can believe that all these wizardly traditions date back a 1000 years.

 

The films from 3 onwards were all way too modern. I think 3 was the first film where the leads basically wore jeans and t-shirt for the entire thing.

 

The first film is about the wonderfully imagined world. The latter films are about plot or action and suffer from it.

 

To me the first Harry Potter is the most successful one.

[Chen G. 3,940]

But films aren't about creating a world. They're about conflict and character growth.

 

That's what books are for. When you adapt that kind of book to film, you have to be willing to make changes for it to fit the cinematic format.

 

If you want to talk about being immersive - Cuaron's long-takes through the wizarding world cannot be beaten.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, Chen G. said:

But films aren't about creating a world. They're about conflict and character growth

 

Says who?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The movie people.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

2 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

It is magnificent and immersive. The sets, costumes, the staging and score all have a superb old world hand crafted analog charm - precisely the slightly wonky and kooky feel that the books had. The first movie's world feels the most lived in and you can believe that all these wizardly traditions date back a 1000 years.

 

The films from 3 onwards were all way too modern. I think 3 was the first film where the leads basically wore jeans and t-shirt for the entire thing.

 

The first film is about the wonderfully imagined world. The latter films are about plot or action and suffer from it.

 

To me the first Harry Potter is the most successful one.

 

While I disagree about the later films, I agree with every word you said about the first one.  And absolute success in introducing us to this ancient world mostly looks completely lived in, full of both wonders and terrors. I'm not sure people appreciate the sheer amount of information is delivered, often effortlessly and usually without endless exposition. The first film pulled off a LOT more than people give it credit for.

 

The only bits that don't look authentic to me are some of the exterior shots of the Hogwart's grounds and definitely the Quiddich field, both of which look like they're taken straight from a video game. I understand it's 2001 CGI, but I think they could have done better.

 

I do remember being somewhat disappointed with the POA film when they were dressing like ordinary teenagers, but I got used to it pretty quickly, and obviously they stuck with it. I can't remember...are the kids wearing street clothes in the latter books, or still running around in their robes?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Even in 2001 this was bad CGI. The film had a rushed post production.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

The best HP movies are the third and the seventh. Surprisingly the eighth is the worst which is just like "okay, let's get this behind us".

[publicist 4,643]

Gilliam would have been a catastrophe for WB - probably a very public parting with the director would have been in order if Rowland had her wish - but his mise en scène would have been more imaginative than Columbus'/Warner's ersatz-Dickens that looks like an overstuffed department store (the gross effect work came on top). Even if you like the cutesy colors etc, there are scenes like the Voldemort introduction and some others that are shot like a tv movie. Missed opportunity.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

12 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

The best HP movies are the third and the seventh. Surprisingly the eighth is the worst which is just like "okay, let's get this behind us".

Deathly Hallows 2 is garbage.  

[publicist 4,643]

Which one is that?

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

19 minutes ago, publicist said:

Gilliam would have been a catastrophe for WB - probably a very public parting with the director would have been in order if Rowland had her wish - but his mise en scène would have been more imaginative than Columbus'/Warner's ersatz-Dickens that looks like an overstuffed department store (the gross effect work came on top). Even if you like the cutesy colors etc, there are scenes like the Voldemort introduction and some others that are shot like a tv movie. Missed opportunity.

 

You can argue the first book is very very Dickensian - young orphan with great expectations who goes on to a life of happiness and success after battling grim odds - all the while populated with a colorful cast of characters.

 

She kinda moved to a more YA feel I think later in the series (5th book onwards).

 

It is like I said excessively old-fashioned and even outdated film-making but the form fits the content in the case of the first 2 books.

[Chen G. 3,940]

18 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

You can argue the first book is very very Dickensian - young orphan with great expectations who goes on to a life of happiness and success after battling grim odds - all the while populated with a colorful cast of characters.

 

That doesn't mean that its a good idea as far as a cinematic adaptation goes.

 

Its so easy with these British stories to go for a Dickensian design, by which I mean that it is cliche.

[Obi 404]

I absolute love both but... HP score is a little more repetitive... (hard to find a good reason)

I vote THE PHANTOM MENACE

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

Most things are cliche. Cliche done well is rare and admirable.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The first film is as solid as a woodburning stove!

[publicist 4,643]

19 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

It is like I said excessively old-fashioned and even outdated film-making but the form fits the content in the case of the first 2 books.

 

I think old-fashionedness is not a problem per se, but the way the movie lingers on every bit of its own costly fabricated magic and the gross caricatures (the foster parents) as well as the elephantine running time make it a bit of a chore to sit through.

[Chen G. 3,940]

2 minutes ago, Obi said:

I absolute love both but... HP score is a little more repetitive... (hard to find a good reason)

 

That's what I was saying.

 

There should be a law that goes something like "thou shalt not repeat thy main theme more than 15 times in a film."

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nonsense!

[publicist 4,643]

Both movies could have done with less music!

[Chen G. 3,940]

Not necessarily less music, but certainly more variety. If your main theme overstays its welcome, it becomes tiresome and monotonous.

[publicist 4,643]

Less music.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Both are great score-wise, but SS gets my vote. The film had more of an impact on me as a kid (though I also loved seeing Phantom Menace in the cinema, quality nonwithstanding), and the music played a big part in that, in fact I'd wager that it was Sorcerer Stone not 

 

As for Potter films themselves, I more appreciate that 3 and beyond they tend to get more "mature" story-wise. The first two are fun, but it's pretty clear they're way more kid-friendly, and I'm more invested in the story as it goes. Helps that I was such a big fan back in the day though.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

Both are great score-wise, but SS gets my vote.

Steven Spielberg? He hasn't directed either film.

[Wojo 2,453]

Schutzstaffel. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

2 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Steven Spielberg? He hasn't directed either film.

 

But he got close to directing the first, in fact. 

 

In actually I was referring to Sorcerer's Stone, which is the U.S. title for Philosopher's Stone, because dem dumb Americans didn't know what a philosopher apparently actually meant. 

[Ollie 1,059]

POA is the only Potter I saw in the theatre that I didn’t spend parts of the film looking at my watch. I quit watching them after 4.

 

AOTC was on TV the other day and it basically looked like live actors on a Pixar set.

 

I vote for HPSS.

[John 2,032]

That's an insult to Pixar!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

10 hours ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Deathly Hallows 2 is garbage.  

Deadly Hallows 1 is brilliant.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

12 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Deadly Hallows 1 is brilliant.

It's ok

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

16 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

But he got close to directing the first, in fact. 

 

In actually I was referring to Sorcerer's Stone, which is the U.S. title for Philosopher's Stone, because dem dumb Americans didn't know what a philosopher apparently actually meant. 

 

I think it was because "Sorcerer" just sounds more dramatic than "Philosopher".

[publicist 4,643]

But the joke still stuck.

 

Is Hallows Uno the one where the go camping?

[Chen G. 3,940]

That's the one.

 

Certainly one of the better entries.

[Ollie 1,059]

15 hours ago, JohnSolo said:

That's an insult to Pixar!

 

 

You’re right, my apologies.

[Trent B 337]

If Lucas had nailed down the editing better in time then Williams could have scored or re-scored scenes accordingly. I haven't watched the Harry Potter movies so I can't comment on them.  Aside from the clunky edits, looped material and some material tracked into other scenes the score for the film for TPM isn't too bad.  Again if the score had been able to play it's original intention then it would have fit fine in my opinion.

 

On listening to them outside of the film I definitely prefer the Phantom Menace.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

19 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

But he got close to directing the first, in fact. 

 

 

And thankfully, than never happened. What Spielberg had planned for Harry Potter would have killed the franchise in the first film.

[Fancyarcher 350]

2 hours ago, Denise Bryson said:

 

I think it was because "Sorcerer" just sounds more dramatic than "Philosopher".

 

As part of an actual title, it also stands out more. 

 

19 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

And thankfully, than ever happened. What Spielberg had planned for Harry Potter would have killed the franchise in the first film.

 

Well Rowling certainly didn't like his planned changes, and what he was going to do sounded like it was very far removed from the Potter of the books. I was actually fine with him not directing the first film.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

1 hour ago, Fancyarcher said:

Well Rowling certainly didn't like his planned changes, and what he was going to do sounded like it was very far removed from the Potter of the books. I'm actually glad he didn't direct the first film.

 

Well, yeah. He wanted to take elements from several of the books and make it animated, which obviously would have killed the franchise. Though he did later get to try this idea out with Tintin (barely broke even, franchise dead). Then he tried his hand at a children's book again with BFG (lost loads of money).

 

Anyone who had a problem with what Chris Columbus did should just be thankful Spielberg didn't get a crack at those books.

[Fancyarcher 350]

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Well, yeah. He wanted to take elements from several of the books and make it animated, which obviously would have killed the franchise. Though he did later get to try this idea out with Tintin (barely broke even, franchise dead). Then he tried his hand a children's book again with BFG (lost loads of money).

 

Anyone who had a problem with what Chris Columbus did should just be thankful Spielberg didn't get a crack at those books.

He also wanted to make Potter American and have him be played by Haley Joel Osment, which Rowling of course objected to. 

 

Regarding Tintin, that was more successful worldwide, really its overall intended audience. The sequel fell in development hell because both Jackson and Spielberg got more interested in other projects. Shit happens, I guess. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

If there's ever a Tintin 2 (and I doubt there will be) Spielberg should let Zemeckis do it...it would be perfect for him. But the material is all wrong for Jackson's sensibilities. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

Honestly I'd much rather Zemeckis stick to live action films for now. His mo-cap period was less then great. If they do ever make a sequel, they should get some well-trained animator involved or something. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

40 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Well, yeah. He wanted to take elements from several of the books and make it animated, which obviously would have killed the franchise. Though he did later get to try this idea out with Tintin (barely broke even, franchise dead). Then he tried his hand a children's book again with BFG (lost loads of money).

 

Anyone who had a problem with what Chris Columbus did should just be thankful Spielberg didn't get a crack at those books.

Spielberg is a shell of his former self. Oh he will be praised for the Post which looks dull and self important but of no consequence.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

All films are dull and self-important but of no consequence, but...some are a lot of fun to watch 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

18 minutes ago, Richard said:

All films are dull and self-important but of no consequence, but...some are a lot of fun to watch 

Not true. Ferris Bueller is never dull but self important. All the Presidents men is dull but not self importantn  it is self righteous but effectively so.

The Post and fun shant be used in the same sentence. 

[publicist 4,643]

10 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

And thankfully, than never happened. What Spielberg had planned for Harry Potter would have killed the franchise in the first film.

 

She wanted Gilliam. How that would have turned out...

[Oswin Pond 58]

Well the phantom menace is definitly a better movie and the score is obviously better than in harry potter

[idril 86]

I love Phantom Menace despite its flaws (it was kind of my childhood SW, I saw it in the cinema, I was too young to care that JarJar was annoying or Anakin being so young was irritating) - I still enjoy watching it and of course one of the main reasons is the score. I voted for Phantom Menace primarily because Duel of the Fates...but with all that said, I definitely appreciate that Philosopher's Stone is overall the better scored movie (as has been mentioned, within the movie the score is allowed to shine in a way it isn't in Phantom Menace). I am more of a HP book fan than movie fan overall but JW's music in Philosopher's Stone is truly wondrous and set a precedent for many many gorgeous scores to come.

Basically this is an impossible question! But I stand by Phantom Menace overall. If it were Prisoner of Azkaban vs. Phantom Menace, I'd have to choose PoA.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

3 hours ago, publicist said:

 

She wanted Gilliam. How that would have turned out...

 

Dodged a bullet with that one was well, and Warner was right to reject that out of hand. Gilliam may have made an interesting and entertaining film, but probably not something you could build a franchise off.