Potter 7 vs Narnia 3

[Muad'Dib 1,800]

Just for fun... Which one do you prefer? I think I like Narnia 3 a little better, but neither are that remarkable as we expected. At least, from my point of view.

Let the rant begin!

Edit: Scores, of course.

[King Mark 3,624]

I'll give the edge to Narnia 3 too (scores NOT the movies)

[crocodile 7,974]

Potter is still more interesting. They both lack something that you might call "a genuine heart and soul", but there is more going on in DH. Narnia is nice, I guess, but quite "obvious" at the same time.

If there is something I learned from these scores is that I'm not interested in the fantasy genre anymore. It is simply too limited and people involved play it too safe. At least these days. And if have to pick something from the genre, I generally find my enjoyment in smaller and more off-kilter scores. Like Parnassus, for example. Which is better than either one of them.

Karol - who enjoys both to some degree.

[scallenger 481]

Is this for score or film? Or both as a whole?

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I'd take any Potter film over any Narnia film any day. The Narnia films almost certainly wouldn't have been made if not for Harry Potter(and Lord of the Rings) anyways.

[joelparnis 0]

Go check the tomato meter for any of the HP films vs any of the narnia films. There's your answer.

And if we're talking about the scores, i'd still vote DH... but just by a hair

[Richard Penna 3,664]

Based on listening so far, definitely Potter.

And I'd agree with crocodile that fantasy scores are becoming less interesting because the composers aren't allowed to really let themselves go and have fun. A lot of Narnia is inspired, but then Arnold goes and inserts a predictable passage, possibly where Apted asked for something.

DH on the other hand just never bores me, and often surprises with its direction. It's definitely the fresher score.

[ChuckM 1]

Wait, are we talking about the scores or the movies?

Assuming it's the movies, this is a truly difficult choice. I love both franchises (and both books). The storyline in HP7a is maybe a bit more interesting, but then it is currently incomplete. And I am far more in line with the beliefs portrayed in Narnia.

Both were excellent movie adaptations but in different ways—HP7a being relatively exact to the book and VotDT being a very well done plot adjustment.

As for the scores, there's no question that Arnold wins this one. Desplat's score still just doesn't do anything for me. Edit: And Zimmer's works wonders in the film but is purely grating on its own.

Then there's the simple fact that Narnia is C.S. Lewis. It's perhaps a bit of a personal bias, but Lewis is just about my favorite author.

So I'm going to go with The Dawn Treader but not by much.

Then there's Inception—fantastic movie, probably the best this year, but is it really fair to put it in this poll? Doesn't seem to fit.

[King Mark 3,624]

were talking about the scores

for the movies HP7 by a million miles

[ChuckM 1]

were talking about the scores

Oh well. In that case, just read the fourth line of my post. My same vote still stands.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Inception, since you gave me the option.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

VOTDT gave me several eargasms. DH did not. Although Inception cured my insomnia.

[indy4 155]

I can't vote, as I haven't heard Narnia. But, I agree that Inception > DH.

[fommes 153]

Thanks for including the Inception option! Had a good laugh.

[King Mark 3,624]

Inception = Most overrated movie of the last several years

[Samuel Walters 0]

I tend to agree that Inception (both the film and the score) is overrated. The film itself has a *lot* going on ... but the mindless slow-mo action sequences just when the film should be getting interesting kills the overall effect for me. And I agree with Chuck that Zimmer's score works very well in the film, but as a soundtrack album ... not so much.

As for Potter vs. Narnia soundtracks, I give the nod to Potter. VotDT certainly is much more grandiose, which I like, but it feels like more style than substance to me. DH1 has more substance than style and, comparatively speaking, is much more engaging to listen to.

[Uni 306]

Inception = Most overrated movie of the last several years

Hardly. It was most original and well-executed film in ages.

And that's about all I can comment on in this thread, since I haven't seen (or heard) HP7 or Dawn Treader yet.

- Uni

[King Mark 3,624]

Part of it's "complexity" is just bad storytelling. Your not supposed to see a movie several times to fully get it's main plot

[ChuckM 1]

Part of it's "complexity" is just bad storytelling. Your not supposed to see a movie several times to fully get it's main plot

I absolutely disagree. Those are the best type of films. If everything is fully apparent the first time around, there isn't much left to make you want to rewatch it right away. I like movies that force me to pay close attention and really think to understand them.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The film really isn't that hard to follow. There's just so much to explain, that if you miss something or don't understand, you're gonna fall behind. Most of the dialogue is pure exposition, it shouldn't be a big problem. Anyway, the third act is one of the most gripping and entertaining sequences I've seen in a long time. The hotel fight still amazes me.

I at least hope you guys appreciate Nolan's lack of everything CGI a la Michael Bay.

[King Mark 3,624]

I find Nolan's movies (this and TDK) do a poor job at exposing the plot/story and the action sequences are non thrilling

He's definitely not in my top directors at the moment

[Ollie 1,059]

I still don't understand what was so difficult about TDK's plot.

[ChuckM 1]

Yeah, that one was pretty easy to get the first time around. Although, there is plenty of deeper stuff (the stuff not essential to the plot) to be gleaned on multiple viewings.

[King Mark 3,624]

it was the way the scenes were set up

Like the multiple bank robberies at the beginning .You don't really know where everyone is or what they're doing. why is the Scarecrow there? why are there fake batmans? the editing isn't clear.your kind of shuffling all this in your head and lose attention to what's going on on screen

and don't get me started on the night goggle thingy near the end of the film

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah, that one was pretty easy to get the first time around. Although, there is plenty of deeper stuff (the stuff not essential to the plot) to be gleaned on multiple viewings.

But it doesn't detract from the initial viewing.

it was the way the scenes were set up

Like the multiple bank robberies at the beginning .You don't really know where everyone is or what they're doing. why is the Scarecrow there? why are there fake batmans? the editing isn't clear.

The multiple Batman's are vigilantes and the Scarecrow, while unnecessary, is to tie up his character's arc from BB.

The bank robberies are for the Joker to establish his power and throw a wrench into things.

[King Mark 3,624]

yes I know that afterwards. I said it was a mess the way it was presented and distracted me

[Ollie 1,059]

and don't get me started on the night goggle thingy near the end of the film

Night goggles?

Batman was using them to see who were the hostages and who were the Joker's henchmen.

yes I know that afterwards. I said it was a mess the way it was presented and distracted me

I thought it was clear from the start.

[King Mark 3,624]

and in Nolan films they'll like show you a half second shot of an object on a table or something written on a piece of paper a character is holding and if you somehow missed it , you screwed understanding the next 20 minutes of the film

[Quintus 5,399]

Nolan tends to excel in speeding you along at a breakneck plot-pace and keeping you entirely gripped whilst ever so slightly confuddled. I find myself backtracking in my mind during key moments, hastily tying plot threads together and managing (mostly) to come to the correct conclusions. It's part of the fun, I guess.

And then you have Inception, which was just conceited shite.

[crocodile 7,974]

Here we go again.

Karol

[Uni 306]

Part of it's "complexity" is just bad storytelling. Your not supposed to see a movie several times to fully get it's main plot

Nor do you have to, at least in this case. My wife and I followed every turn of the plot from beginning to end. We even knew exactly how it was going to end halfway through the film (as soon as DiCaprio started describing what Limbo was). Not that it detracted from the film at all; it was watching how they pulled it off that made the story so much fun.

Of course, we didn't understand everything that was happening at the beginning of the movie . . . but that's also what made it great. Too many filmmakers feel they have to explain everything expositorially so they don't lose the audience. They hand you everything preconstructed and wrapped with a bow. Some of us still enjoy engaging our brains at the cinema. We like learning about something as we're watching it (the same thing goes for good books). And that's what this one did so well. It was like working a good puzzle: Nolan & Co. put the pieces on the table one at a time and allowed you to connect them in whatever order you wanted. Gradually the picture came into focus--and what a picture it was.

That's not bad storytelling at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. . . .

- Uni

[Quintus 5,399]

Of course, we didn't understand everything that was happening at the beginning of the movie . . . but that's also what made it great. Too many filmmakers feel they have to explain everything expositorially so they don't lose the audience.

I found Inception to be terribly bloated with exposition.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,489]

Yeah, that one was pretty easy to get the first time around. Although, there is plenty of deeper stuff (the stuff not essential to the plot) to be gleaned on multiple viewings.

What on Earth is "deep" about a murderous psychopath going around slaughtering people? As for the stuff not essential to the plot: what's it doing there?

[crocodile 7,974]

Of course, we didn't understand everything that was happening at the beginning of the movie . . . but that's also what made it great. Too many filmmakers feel they have to explain everything expositorially so they don't lose the audience.

I found Inception to be terribly bloated with exposition.

Welcome to the heist/caper genre, mate.

Part of it's "complexity" is just bad storytelling. Your not supposed to see a movie several times to fully get it's main plot

Nor do you have to, at least in this case. My wife and I followed every turn of the plot from beginning to end. We even knew exactly how it was going to end halfway through the film (as soon as DiCaprio started describing what Limbo was). Not that it detracted from the film at all; it was watching how they pulled it off that made the story so much fun.

Of course, we didn't understand everything that was happening at the beginning of the movie . . . but that's also what made it great. Too many filmmakers feel they have to explain everything expositorially so they don't lose the audience. They hand you everything preconstructed and wrapped with a bow. Some of us still enjoy engaging our brains at the cinema. We like learning about something as we're watching it (the same thing goes for good books). And that's what this one did so well. It was like working a good puzzle: Nolan & Co. put the pieces on the table one at a time and allowed you to connect them in whatever order you wanted. Gradually the picture came into focus--and what a picture it was.

That's not bad storytelling at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. . . .

- Uni

I just finished my seventh viewing and it all makes even more sense. People complain that the dreams are too... mundane and such. And yes, there is some explanation about it being important for the team to complete the task. But there is also different purpose, much more obvious. Nolan said he was obsessed with creating a "dream feeling". That it feels real but at the same time not really. It's just after the fact you just realize how ridiculous it is. The film does the same. The levels seem realistic, but they're not. And if you watch closely there are some things that just don't make sense if you think about it. The most obvious being the hospital in the third level. It just doesn't make sense to create fortress like this, does it? And yet it taps into what's the subject is thinking (Fisher character) at this point. He knows he's dreaming and that he tries to break into somebody else's subconcious. Hence the Bond feel. But, still, it is a hospital. So the architect did a good job to make subject feel as an active participant. It replicates what dreams do pretty well. And yet the film is very coherent, tone-wise. Brilliant!

Another thing I notice (unintentional, I guess) is that at the end Cobb did the same thing to Saito that he did to his wife. Cruel and ironic.

Yeah, that one was pretty easy to get the first time around. Although, there is plenty of deeper stuff (the stuff not essential to the plot) to be gleaned on multiple viewings.

What on Earth is "deep" about a murderous psychopath going around slaughtering people? As for the stuff not essential to the plot: what's it doing there?

You see... exactly nothing! That's the point. It is just the catalyst that moves everything else around. Nolan compared it to the shark in Jaws. Joker is a McGuffin and the least important element of the plot.

Michael must regret his choice to even mention Inception in the poll.

Karol

[bondo 33]

I would've picked NARNIA if it weren't for Inception... :cool:

Otherwise, Narnia is leaps and bounds above Harry

[King Mark 3,624]

Well I'm off to see Narnia ,so I can make a real choice

[Demondm810 398]

Inception>Narnia>Potter

::ducks::

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Inception doesn't belong in this poll. Now's it's skewed the results like Ross Perot.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

For some reason, I lost all interest in seeing the new Harry Potters! I've theorized it has to do with two things:

1. The Wizarding World at Universal. I literally went to Hogwarts. That experience has ruined the movies for me. They seem dull in comparison and I feel I've gotten everything I possibly could from Harry Potter with the exception of sex with the Kerri Greene lookalike. But I'm working on it since she moved to my town for some reason.

2. God hasn't composed the music since movie 3. He and his crazy trailer music was a major (well, main) reason I went to see the original movie. It's possibly (probably) the best thing to come out of the Harry Potter franchise, with the exception of getting young people reading again.

[King Mark 3,624]

holy shit what a total waste of time that was (Dawn Trader the movie)

[Matt C 452]

Why isn't there a 'both' option? I liked both scores.