Is Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets underrated?

[Pieter Boelen 740]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Film theory poses very clear criteria according to which a film is tested, so it’s more than just “opinions.” The Chris Columbus entries effectively don’t have scripts: they have an abridged version of the book. As such, they - objectively - lack the narrative thrust that is required of film.

Unless the books are good enough to be close to being a workable script by themselves.

Perhaps books written by someone who a few years later actually became a script writer?

 

Seriously, with books like that, the scripts should very nearly write themselves.

The only question is: what to leave out so the necessary story can still be fit within a movie of sensible length?

 

For an example of this exact same thing happening exceptionally well, refer to the original Hornblower film with its script written by C.S. Forester.

They sure knew what they were doing there!

[Josh500 1,615]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Film theory poses very clear criteria according to which a film is tested, so it’s more than just “opinions.” The Chris Columbus entries effectively don’t have scripts: they have an abridged version of the book. As such, they - objectively - lack the narrative thrust that is required of film.

 

It's called being very faithful to the source material. Nothing more or less. And that fact alone says nothing about the quality of the movies themselves. 

 

Get outta here with your "film theory." When all is said and done, it's just opinions. And most people have different ones. Again, there's no right of wrong here.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

You "there's no right or wrong" people are what's wrong with this world.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

OSA (= Old Subjectivity Argument)

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, Margo Channing said:

You "there's no right or wrong" people are what's wrong with this world.

Depends on the subject.

If we're talking about stuff related to maths, physics, chemistry, etc. then indeed there is some sort of "actual truth" to be found.

Films and music are an artistic medium, where "right or wrong" are far, FAR less clear.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

49 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

If we're talking about stuff related to maths, physics, chemistry, etc. then indeed there is some sort of "actual truth" to be found.

 

"What is truth?" *

 

 

 

 

* Pontius Pilate

[Chen G. 3,949]

 

2 hours ago, Josh500 said:

It's called being very faithful to the source material. Nothing more or less. And that fact alone says nothing about the quality of the movies themselves.

 

With the expection of a few books that were intentionally written to read like a screenplay - it means a lot. The goal of the adaptation is to serve the film, not the source material.

 

A faithful adaptation is one that makes for a captivating, cinematic story, while capturing the tone, the themes, the style of dialogue, the main cast and their principal characteristics and the basic contuor of the plot from the source material. Anything else can and should be shuffled around, trimmed, removed, embellished, created from scratch or re-imagined - all in favor of making the best film possible. In other words: the best adapted screenplay, is the one who is closest to an original one.

 

As long as we’re not discussing comedies or possibly horror films, I feel like we can ground large parts of this discussion, and others, in objectivity. There are identifiable (and therefore objective) elements in the writing and directing of a film that can elevate drama, suspense, tension and action.

 

That such elements are objective doesn’t always make them, or rather their impact, quantifiable. One will put more weight on the positive elements, and another will put more on the negative.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

27 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

With the expection of a few books that were intentionally written to read like a screenplay - it means a lot. The goal of the adaptation is to serve the film, not the source material.

Ideally, yes.

But I'd say a fair few changes in the Harry Potter films compared to the books hardly served their respective films either.

It seems more like "changes for the sake of changes".

[Chen G. 3,949]

I didn’t read the books after the third one, and I have a very faint memory of those, as well, so I’m coming at it from a purely cinematic viewpoint: i.e. if there’s something I don’t like, I won’t accept the defense that “that’s how it was in the book” unless it’s something very, very crucial to the nature of the story. That’s how all adaptations should be examined: as a film.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I didn’t read the books after the third one, and I have a very faint memory of those, as well, so I’m coming at it from a purely cinematic viewpoint: i.e. if there’s something I don’t like, I won’t accept the defense that “that’s how it was in the book” unless it’s something very, very crucial to the story.

If something is bad in the book, then of course ideally it should be improved for the film.

But more often than not, it is the other way around: It's good in the book and it is messed up in the film for inexplicable reasons.

 

For equally inexplicable reasons, the third film doesn't make coherent sense even within itself.

Based on what is said on screen, logic dictates that Hermione is a werewolf. But she's not.

This is because of an extra line of dialog added to the film that wasn't in the book ("A werewolf only responds to the call of its own kind").

Why was this added? I'll never understand. It adds only confusion and doesn't serve to improve anything.

And I'm left to wonder: What were they thinking?

[Brundlefly 2,385]

20 hours ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

And I'm left to wonder: What were they thinking?

I'm left to wonder why you focus on that, while seemingly ignoring the outstanding film around it.

 

20 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I didn’t read the books after the third one, and I have a very faint memory of those, as well, so I’m coming at it from a purely cinematic viewpoint: i.e. if there’s something I don’t like, I won’t accept the defense that “that’s how it was in the book” unless it’s something very, very crucial to the nature of the story. That’s how all adaptations should be examined: as a film.

The best example of what you say is the difference between the original Girl with the Dragon Tatoo film and the remake.

The original is a perfect copy of the book and the remake recognizes its substance and depicts it on an intellectual level that exceeds the original.

[Paul Andrew MacLean 7]

I've seen people dismiss the Chamber of Secrets score because they interpreted the music credit as meaning it was a case like "Superman II" -- i.e. merely someone else's adaptation of the first film's score, with no new music (or any input) by John Williams).

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Those bloody pricks!

[Pieter Boelen 740]

21 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

I'm left to wonder why you focus on that, while seemingly ignoring the outstanding film around it.

For some reason, I find those many small things in the Harry Potter films tremendously distracting.

I wished I could ignore them, but that's a difficult task indeed.

It also doesn't help that I'm failing to see what is so outstanding about especially the Prisoner of Azkaban film.

I tried and I just don't know what to look for in order to see it...

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

9 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

For some reason, I find those many small things in the Harry Potter films tremendously distracting.

I wished I could ignore them, but that's a difficult task indeed.

It also doesn't help that I'm failing to see what is so outstanding about especially the Prisoner of Azkaban film.

I tried and I just don't know what to look for in order to see it...

 

Prisoner of Azkaban is a film absolutely bursting to the seams with style and detail. It's stunningly executed; clearly made by a uniquely talented filmmaker. The plot is lean and unencumbered, but the film itself is oozing with thematic flourishes and visual motifs that add to the film in clever ways.

 

One of the main motifs of the film is "time", which is reinforced throughout the film in subtle and obvious ways. Clocks and timepieces feature in many scenes, from the chirping Cuckoo Clock at the Dursley's to the giant swinging pendulum of Hogwarts' clock tower. A background character is shown reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". This neatly foreshadows the time-travel sequence that makes up the bulk of the final act.

 

Several short sequences are scattered through the film that serve multiple purposes; the Whomping Willow scenes show the passage of time throughout the film (again reinforcing the time motif) as well as subtly implanting the importance of the tree in audience's minds for its role in the climax.

 

Scenes of heavy exposition (often the bane of many mystery films) are staged with emotion and momentum. Harry discovers he is Sirius' godson while overhearing a conversation between McGonagall and Rosmerta. The conversation is heated and emotionally charged; the characters talking are clearly pained by the story they share which deepens their own subtextual relationship to Harry and his parents. The Shrieking Shack sequence is staged in a similar manner, with vast amounts of character backstory, motivation and plot twists all delivered with the same urgency and achieving the same level of emotional insight.

 

These are just some of the reasons I find the film outstanding. It was the first (and dare I say the only) film in the franchise that was not simply an adaptation, but a piece of art that celebrates and contributes to the rich tapestry of cinematic tradition. 

[Pieter Boelen 740]

Thanks for that, @Docteur Qui!

 

I think I am burdened by really liking the book, while the script of the PoA film diverged quite substantially from that.

It is also the shortest of the films while leaving out a lot of important (I reckon) content.

 

But indeed you're right: A lot of the execution is artfully done, with the music being exceptionally good.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

There's also the motif of light and darkness, warmth and cold. The film plays with that by using the dementors as opponents of love, family and joy.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

There's also the motif of light and darkness, warmth and cold. The film plays with that by using the dementors as opponents of love, family and joy.

I especially like the part where they show that with the water freezing over in a way that defies all physics.

Let's just say that was magic water. It IS harry Potter, after all! 

(Though it seems more likely that the SFX people didn't fully think it through.)

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

6 hours ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

I especially like the part where they show that with the water freezing over in a way that defies all physics.

Let's just say that was magic water. It IS harry Potter, after all! 

(Though it seems more likely that the SFX people didn't fully think it through.)

 

How does it defy physics? I'm genuinely curious, not a sciency-type here.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The third one was the best because it had shrunken heads.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

9 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

 

How does it defy physics? I'm genuinely curious, not a sciency-type here.

It's the bottle of water that freezes over on the Hogwarts Express early in the movie.

Water expands when it freezes, so the surface should have gone up or the bottle exploded.

It is understandable that they'd forget about this though, because water is one of the very few substances to do that.

 

6 hours ago, Philippe Roaché said:

The third one was the best because it had shrunken heads.

Those were indeed a curious addition compared to the books!

I still haven't made up my mind whether I like them or not.

Bit odd they didn't show up in any of the subsequent movies again...

[Holko 9,526]

There is a throwaway mention of a shrunken head in the 6th book, though, which I believe was put in because of the movie. 

[Pieter Boelen 740]

5 hours ago, Holko said:

There is a throwaway mention of a shrunken head in the 6th book, though, which I believe was put in because of the movie. 

Never noticed that; I should pay attention to that if I end up reading those books again.

I do remember J.K. Rowling said something that she liked them and wished she had come up with them herself.

[Holko 9,526]

I don't doubt that, it's REALLY throwaway: Hermione says once that Crabbe or Goyle tried to bring one in form Hogsmeade to Hogwarts but Filch took it from him. But the dates match up, and she did like them, 

[Arpy 4,145]

Part of Prisoner of Azkaban's charm has to be how Cuaron shook things up after Chamber of Secrets definitely felt like a continuation from the first film. Visually, thematically and musically, it was different in a way which informed us that Harry was maturing and that the story was growing darker with each chapter. Both Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire manage to bring these darker stories to life whilst keeping the warmth, magic and familiarity that I love about the earlier films in a way that Order of the Phoenix onward felt like it was missing.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I love how dark The Order of the Phoenix can get. It gives it a much greater sense of stakes, but it’s the kind of movie that took me a couple of rewatches to fully appreciate.

 

It’s also a much better directed movie than The Goblet of Fire.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

34 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Part of Prisoner of Azkaban's charm has to be how Cuaron shook things up after Chamber of Secrets definitely felt like a continuation from the first film. Visually, thematically and musically, it was different in a way which informed us that Harry was maturing and that the story was growing darker with each chapter. Both Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire manage to bring these darker stories to life whilst keeping the warmth, magic and familiarity that I love about the earlier films in a way that Order of the Phoenix onward felt like it was missing.

Isn't an ordinary sequel supposed to neatly follow the film that came before?

I admit CoS was a bit too similar, but PoA went quite extremely the other way.

It felt akin to half a reboot barely halfway into the series, after which it all became quite schizophrenic.

Like it never knew anymore whether to follow the example set by the first two films or the third one.

That led to, what I believe, is a wildly inconsistent tone not just between films, but even within the same film.

[Chen G. 3,949]

What you call inconsistent tone, is tonal variety to others, which I always find welcoming.

 

And yes, between the second and third film you had wildly different filmmakers, so they don’t really feel like they’re in the same franchise. But I have that “problem” with Kirshner directing Empire Strikes Back, and it’s an issue people now have with The Last Jedi.

 

Really, the only way to craft a truly cohesive series is to go the Jackson-route

and outline, write, prepare, previsualize, cast, shoot and essemble the entire thing in advance, with the same director and production crew throughout.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

It’s also a much better directed movie than The Goblet of Fire.

Goblet has similar problems like the first two movies.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

What you call inconsistent tone, is tonal variety to others, which I always find welcoming.

Depends on how much it is.

In Harry Potter, it seems a bit too much for my liking at least.

Plus I find it weird that it happens even within the same film...

 

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

And yes, between the second and third film you had wildly different filmmakers, so they don’t really feel like they’re in the same franchise. But I have that “problem” with Kirshner directing Empire Strikes Back, and it’s an issue people now have with The Last Jedi.

For whatever reason, it doesn't bother me with Star Wars.

With the exception of RotJ, where the contrast between the Ewoks and Muppets with the epic finale is quite jarring.

 

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Really, the only way to craft a truly cohesive series is to go the Jackson-route

and outline, write, prepare, previsualize, cast, shoot and essemble the entire thing in advance, with the same director and production crew throughout.

That indeed helps.

And with Harry Potter being a series with a fixed beginning, middle and end, I would expect something like that.

Star Wars is different, because those are intended to be serials in the first place.

[Jay 37,363]

The best way to do justice to Rowling's books would be to do a new 7 season long TV show, each season covering one book.

Seasons 1 and 2 would only need to be 6 episodes each, but then you could do the rest as 10-13 episode seasons.

The child actors would age with the filming and there wouldn't be strange changes to the sets since they'd know everything they need ahead of time now that all the books are out

They'd be able to not only cover all the subplots from the books the films left out, but add in more character development and stuff too.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

No series, please. The books need the scope and the dramaturgy of a movie. A bunch of 4-hour movies would be suitable.

[Chen G. 3,949]

You don’t necessarily need to include everything from the books. Not a film, nor in a television series. You only need what: a) works and b) has narrative utility.

 

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

Goblet has similar problems like the first two movies.

 

In many respects, yes. But not nearly in a similar magnitude. The acting, for instance, is way better all around. I love how nuts Gleeson is in it.

 

44 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

Plus I find it weird that it happens even within the same film...

 

My point exactly. a film can be very tonally diverse. One of the best filmmakers to look for in that respect is Spielberg: for a horror movie, something like Jaws sure has a lot of levity. 

 

One of my very favorite movies, Braveheart, can be a very harrowing experience, at times, and a hilarious film in others.

 

I think where we risk falling into the hazard of tonal inconsistency is where moments of great humor and moments of great levity are sandwiched right after one another. But than, that is exactly what happens in The Order of the Phoenix when Harry sees Sirius captured by Voldemort, and it works, so...

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Just now, Chen G. said:

In many respects, yes. But not nearly in a similar magnitude. The acting, for instance, is way better all around. I love how nuts Gleeson is in it.

Agreed. The acting in Goblet is generally quite... succinct.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

16 minutes ago, Jay said:

The best way to do justice to Rowling's books would be to do a new 7 season long TV show, each season covering one book.

Seasons 1 and 2 would only need to be 6 episodes each, but then you could do the rest as 10-13 episode seasons.

The child actors would age with the filming and there wouldn't be strange changes to the sets since they'd know everything they need ahead of time now that all the books are out

They'd be able to not only cover all the subplots from the books the films left out, but add in more character development and stuff too.

 

This. Great suggestion. Especially due to the way the films are structured.

 

They are extremely episodic and unspool gradually. 

 

I think 10-13 episodes might be a bit much but something like a max of  6 episodes would be good.

 

And now that they would plan the entire series at once, it would have so much more consistency and the payoffs would be higher character wise.

 

And lastly the density of something like Goblet can only be captured in a series. That book is overflowing with extremely interesting subplots. A series would capture all the criss-crossing storylines of something like that very well.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

50 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

My point exactly. a film can be very tonally diverse. One of the best filmmakers to look for in that respect is Spielberg: for a horror movie, something like Jaws sure has a lot of levity. 

True, it can certainly work wonders when done by an expert movie maker.

 

1 hour ago, Jay said:

The best way to do justice to Rowling's books would be to do a new 7 season long TV show, each season covering one book.

Seasons 1 and 2 would only need to be 6 episodes each, but then you could do the rest as 10-13 episode seasons.

The child actors would age with the filming and there wouldn't be strange changes to the sets since they'd know everything they need ahead of time now that all the books are out

They'd be able to not only cover all the subplots from the books the films left out, but add in more character development and stuff too.

Yep, that would be very awesome!

I should invent a time machine so that they can do it with the actors and set designers of the movies.

Plus John Williams to write the music for all episodes.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

It'll be interesting to see what the next Potter adaptation will look like. It's unlikely to be any time soon, but give it a couple of decades and I wouldn't be surprised if a series is in the works, aimed at the millennials like me that aged as Harry did while we read. Just like how right now the cinematic landscape is dominated by the wealthy and nerdy Gen X-er's comic book films.

[bollemanneke 3,348]

I don't know how I feel about a series. Part of me won't be able to forget Radcliffe, Watson etc., but another part of me is already anticipating the idea of one composer tackling all seasons.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

13 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

I don't know how I feel about a series. Part of me won't be able to forget Radcliffe, Watson etc., but another part of me is already anticipating the idea of one composer tackling all seasons.

 

I frankly think both Radcliffe and Grint can be easily improved upon. But Watson and literally all the adults were on point.

[Chen G. 3,949]

It’s not the actors who determine the quality of the performance, it’s the director! Look at Dumbeldore: it’s not that Michael Gambon is a better actor than Richard Harris - it’s that the directors he worked under in those films were better.

 

Radcliff was more than alright in some of the later films, while Watson was unbelievably theatrical in the first two films, as were many of the adults.

 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

True that but I would say that's true of only the very great directors - of which HP arguably has had none save perhaps Cuaron and even he more excels at mis-en-scene than actors I would say.

 

Watson was a bit pompous in the first two but I think it works very well with the very Dickensian way the first two movies were made. They were about very broad and colorfully drawn supporting characters in a story about doing the good thing and defeating evil. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think the acting in the first two Harry Potter films, especially as far as the kids are concerned, is acceptable for any reason, other than people trying to be apologetic about the films because they’re not being sincere in their assessment of them for whatever reason.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Wasn't Radcliffe "recommended" (and for that, read "foisted upon") Rowling, and the producers, by his agent father?

Ok, so he was alright in that Dickens adaptation, in a quaint kind of way, and his contribution to THE TAILOR OF PANAMA was...low-key, but...the lead in eight very big-budget films..?

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

I think the acting is passable and nothing very objectionable. 

 

I personally don't have a high opinion of acting in the first place. I would say acting rarely impresses me or seems transcendental to me. Actors that people usually qualify as great don't work for me at all - eg. Meryl Streep.

 

So I am generally okay with passable acting as long as casting is on point. 

[bollemanneke 3,348]

3 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

I frankly think both Radcliffe and Grint can be easily improved upon. But Watson and literally all the adults were on point.

On second thoughts, agreed, Radcliffe isn't good.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Radcliffe never got better, he just got older.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

It’s not the actors who determine the quality of the performance, it’s the director! Look at Dumbeldore: it’s not that Michael Gambon is a better actor than Richard Harris - it’s that the directors he worked under in those films were better.

Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is one of the most distracting things about the later Harry Potter films.

Strange, since I do quite appreciate him as an actor in other films.

The only explanation I can think of is that the direction didn't fit the character for some reason.

[Chen G. 3,949]

There are times, especially in The Goblet of Fire, where his intensity is way too much. But he’s much better acting as Dumbeldore than Harris, simply because Harris had to take direction from an incompetent director.

[Jay 37,363]

[Alex 2,835]

Never really warmed to Gambon as Dumbledore however I do think a mix between Harris/Gambon's Dumbledore would have been great. Gambon's performance did improve as the films went on. Will be interesting I see what Jude Law does.