Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread

[John Crichton 4]

Yeah, I suppose he and Goldilocks could be Maia that took human form and decided to keep to themselves.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

LOTR geeks have been discussding this in homes, pubs, the interweb and even universities for many dacades now.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Tolkien consciously wanted Bombadil to remain a mystery, I just don't have the proper quote right now.

[Morlock 11]

Yeah, well hindsight is 20/20. I'd generally prefer taking a book at face value, I have no use for the author's comments on the book afterwards, they can change, fix, and misrepresent things.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

It ain't just authors who do that. :cool:

~Sturgis

[Vaderbait1 1]

If Tolkien didn't set out to make anything symbolic, then why is Sauron and co. reminicent of the Axis of Evil? Tolkien fought in World War I, and he put his experiance into LOTR. Whether or not he intended for there to be symbolism and allegory in his books, they are there anyway.

The Axis of Evil is Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

The Axis was Germany-Austria-Japan in World War II.

World War I was the Central Powers. :cool:

[John Crichton 4]

Er, that would be Italy, not Austria.

[King Mark 3,631]

I liked OotP a lot.Saw it ion IMAX 3D too.

I found it was much more in the spirit of the books(despite what it was missing) than GoF.Performances in general were convincing.It's the first movie where I think Dan Radcliffe IS Harry Potter.Hermione seemed back too,after beeing odd in GoF..

i don't think the dude who plays Vernon is going to make it to the 7th film

also,Am I the only one who thinks the CGI area under Voldermorts nose wasn't finished

[Morlock 11]

Saw the film today. Thought it was terrific. Easily the best of the lot, other than PoA. I feel so reaffirmed in my loathing of Newell's film!

Obviously, the film left out tons of material. But, while, I would have liked a bunch of it in there, there were only one or two parts of the film that I really felt left too much out, to the detriment of the film. Most of what was left out may have made less faithful (in the traditional sense) film, but a better film. I thought it was paced well, and I liked just about all of it. Loved the begining, loved the progression, loved the climax. It was such a relief to see a Potter film again with some real style to it. Performances were good by everyone. Only one I wasn't crazy about was Emma what's-her-name. She was still too huffy in the begining, leftovers from her unbearable presence in the last film. Can't say I notied her all that much as the film progressed, I loved Rupert Grint's performance. I just know that character so well.

The biggest porblem with the perfromances, as with all the films, is that there are so many likable ones, and all of them are so severly truncated. But, that was unavoidable and to be expected. It does take away from the film, but, what was on the screen was very magical.

The music worked quite well in the film, though I did of course get a pang every once in while while imagining what JW would have done with certain scenes.

All in all, quite a successful film, in my book.

Film 6 is the first film since film 3 that I actually have confidence will kick ass! Can't wait!

***1/2/****.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention the stellar job by Stuart Craig and Slawomir Idziak.....Craig does a magnificent, detailed, stylish jobs with the sets, GREAT look for Ministry of Magic. And Idziak does a beautiful job of capturing, making it dark, but not faded, not too bleak. Great look to the film. I love the trend of using DPs who made their names on artsy European films in big budget films like these.

[Trent B 337]

I don't know if I ever mentioned this or not but I must say I never understood all the hype around Harry Potter. I really have tried to get into the films, hell even watched Prisoner Of Azkaban once on TV but had to turn it off after 30 minutes because I got bored with it. I even tried watching the first Harry Potter film when it came out with my family and I had to get up and walk out of the room I got bored with it. To me the Harry Potter films are like those boring ass documentary films you had to watch in high school.

I won't ever read the books because honestly I hate reading books. Reading books bore me to death than anything else on this planet. I am more of a audio and visual person...and when it comes to reading books I can't keep my attention set to the book... I always end up falling asleep too while reading a book.

Again I just never understood all this hype around Harry Potter...

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yes you've mentioned it, remember you told us you don't read before.

[Trent B 337]

All right... well as I said I couldn't remember. I've got a crappy memory.

[John Crichton 4]

You have to read the books to get it. The movies pale in comparison to them, and I know almost no one who's a fan of the movies but not the books. So if you don't like to read in general, then there's really not much that can be done. You're hopeless.

[Admiral Holdo 16]

It's actually a bit sad to hear Vosk dosen't like reading... I guess we can't all be enlightened.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

reading is FUNdemental. but its also a discipline, and if you are not diciplined at all, then it is a chore

Now more than ever It is imperitive that John Williams score the Deathly Hallows, only his talent is up to it.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Now more than ever It is imperitive that John Williams score the Deathly Hallows, only his talent is up to it.

Et tu, Joe?

Saw the film today. Thought it was terrific. Easily the best of the lot, other than PoA. I feel so reaffirmed in my loathing of Newell's film!

Obviously, the film left out tons of material. But, while, I would have liked a bunch of it in there, there were only one or two parts of the film that I really felt left too much out, to the detriment of the film. Most of what was left out may have made less faithful (in the traditional sense) film, but a better film. I thought it was paced well, and I liked just about all of it. Loved the begining, loved the progression, loved the climax. It was such a relief to see a Potter film again with some real style to it. Performances were good by everyone. Only one I wasn't crazy about was Emma what's-her-name. She was still too huffy in the begining, leftovers from her unbearable presence in the last film. Can't say I notied her all that much as the film progressed, I loved Rupert Grint's performance. I just know that character so well.

The biggest porblem with the perfromances, as with all the films, is that there are so many likable ones, and all of them are so severly truncated. But, that was unavoidable and to be expected. It does take away from the film, but, what was on the screen was very magical.

The music worked quite well in the film, though I did of course get a pang every once in while while imagining what JW would have done with certain scenes.

All in all, quite a successful film, in my book.

Film 6 is the first film since film 3 that I actually have confidence will kick ass! Can't wait!

***1/2/****.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention the stellar job by Stuart Craig and Slawomir Idziak.....Craig does a magnificent, detailed, stylish jobs with the sets, GREAT look for Ministry of Magic. And Idziak does a beautiful job of capturing, making it dark, but not faded, not too bleak. Great look to the film. I love the trend of using DPs who made their names on artsy European films in big budget films like these.

Oh, you're hopeless. I really don't agree with that - which may have a lot to do with the fact that this is the only Potter book that I enjoy. The film was very apt, very clever, and a lot of the scenes are among the best of the saga (Fred and George departing from Hogwarts; the Umbridge montage; the newspaper headlines). Everything relating Umbridge and Dumbledore's Army was very well done, too. But still, it's not the adaptation I'm complaning about.

Things I complain about: The awkward beats between lines of dialog in some scenes (especially relating Emma Watson), which makes them seem unrehearsed and break a lot of the pace; odd camera angles at some points; an uneven score (which, when good, is very good and very adequate for the film - I don't wish to complain about Hooper's excellent effort)... And this may be nitpicking, but I don't like the way Dumbledore is presented in this film. He seems constantly overwhelmed by what's going on around him - which is how the character feels, true, but I never got the impression that he displayed it in the outside. I thought the final duel was about Voldemort angrily casting spells, and Dumbledore quietly defending himself while talking to his opponent.

And on to nitpicking: what the hell was that final line about? Did they want to take over Spider-Man III's title for cheesiest final line ever? The whole Harry/Sirius relationship seemed to be stressed a bit hastily, but that's Mike Newell's "fault" for not finding time to develop it a bit more in the previous movie. End of nitpicking.

I really disliked book 6, so I selfishly hope Yates does whatever the hell he pleases with it.

Oh, and also. HPFAN_2 said Harry should have screamed more in the posession scene? I find that ridiculous and totally against character. Harry's not the kid he was before, he's becoming quite a fighter, and screaming would have only made for a more effective, "movie monster" moment.

[robthehand 3]

Now more than ever It is imperitive that John Williams score the Deathly Hallows, only his talent is up to it.

When I was reading it, it did occur to me how many of his themes he could re-visit if he did score it. It would be wonderful if he could score it.

[Morlock 11]

Oh, you're hopeless. I really don't agree with that - which may have a lot to do with the fact that this is the only Potter book that I enjoy.

And I'm sure my liking it so has a lot to do with my lukewarm opinions of the book. What I liked was in there, I didn't miss what I didn't like. And, frankly, after the mind blowing ineptness and artistic bankruptcy of the fourth movie, anything that had style, theme, character, good acting, good look, is already a huge step back in the right direction.

And this may be nitpicking, but I don't like the way Dumbledore is presented in this film. He seems constantly overwhelmed by what's going on around him - which is how the character feels, true, but I never got the impression that he displayed it in the outside. I thought the final duel was about Voldemort angrily casting spells, and Dumbledore quietly defending himself while talking to his opponent.

I never felt that. I thuoght he felt extremely confident in the trial, and, at the end, I thought the finale was done very well (And, again, I loved how the production design worked for that sequence).

And on to nitpicking: what the hell was that final line about? Did they want to take over Spider-Man III's title for cheesiest final line ever?

Aw, it could have been worse. Much worse.

The whole Harry/Sirius relationship seemed to be stressed a bit hastily, but that's Mike Newell's "fault" for not finding time to develop it a bit more in the previous movie. End of nitpicking.

First of all, of course, everything is Newell's fault.

Second of all, that relationship, like every other relationship was shown hastily. It's probably because I love Gary Oldman, but I thought that relationship was right there the instant we saw him. And it may not have been too pervaiding in the film....but whenever Oldman was there, it like I was watching the Harry-Sirius movie.

I really disliked book 6, so I selfishly hope Yates does whatever the hell he pleases with it.

Ooh, I can't wait for the end! That Hardy Brothers stuff is gonna kick ass!!!!!!!!!!!

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I'm not Alexcremers!

[Morlock 11]

Okay.......

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I don't know if I ever mentioned this or not but I must say I never understood all the hype around Harry Potter.

I won't ever read the books because honestly I hate reading books.

[Red 75]

I think Vosk answered his own question.

[Morlock 11]

Very succinctly put.

[Morlock 11]

http://video.the-leaky-cauldron.org/video/536

Parusing the leaky cauldron siter for videos, i found this very amusing one with Jason Isaacs. Love him on screen, love him in person.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Indeed! I struggle to keep Isaacs out of my mind whenever Lucius appears in the books. He captures the slick, snaky evil of the character so well.

Ray Barnsbury

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I keep seeing Richard Harris as Dumbledore.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I actually always had a very distinct image of Dumbledore from the beginning, so I've fortunately been able to keep the films and books separate as far as he's concerned. But in Deathly Hallows, I did keep picturing McGonagall as Maggie Smith, which is odd because she is quite different from how I normally envision the character.

Ray Barnsbury

[Morlock 11]

I probably see most of the characters as their screen personas. Definitely Isaacs as Lucius (Love how he calls him Luscious), Smith as McGonagall, Mark Williams and Arthur....the Weasleys in general. With Dumbledore, I always see and hear Harris.

[standbyfax 0]

I always hear Harris, but for some reason see Gambon....

[John Crichton 4]

Richard Harris is still definately my image of Dumbledore as well.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

He's so feeble looking to me. I especially can't imagine him in the OotP duel.

Ray Barnsbury - who still thinks that Gambon conveys Dumbledore much better

[King Mark 3,631]

Yeah,pretty much everyone on screen has become the book image to me.Even Hermione now...before I imagined her more plain than Emma Watson

[John Crichton 4]

He's so feeble looking to me. I especially can't imagine him in the OotP duel.

He looks awful in CoS, for obvious reasons, but I can see the Dumbledore in SS surprising us.

[King Mark 3,631]

Richard Harris looked pretty much at death's door in CoS.

And so does Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon) in OotP

[John Crichton 4]

And so does Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon) in OotP

Yes, I noticed that when I finally saw it today. I wonder if that was makeup designed to make him look unpleasant, if not he really does look bad.

[standbyfax 0]

I think it may have had something to do with it being hot. In the book the day is described as very hot and no air-conditioning. Also, is he wearing some kind of fat suit to make him look even larger? Because his extra luggage just seems "odd".

[Henry B 50]

Richard Harris looked pretty much at death's door in CoS.

And so does Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon) in OotP

Yep.

I think it may have had something to do with it being hot. In the book the day is described as very hot and no air-conditioning. Also, is he wearing some kind of fat suit to make him look even larger? Because his extra luggage just seems "odd".

And mostly definitely no.

Also, not shown in the picture, he walks with a cane.

With Dumbledore, I always see and hear Harris.

I used to too until around the time I read Half-Blood Prince (and by that time had seen Goblet of Fire, and Gambon, despite some weird opening moments, is quite good in it). Then I watched Chamber of Secrets recently, and, god, Richard Harris is so frail. I've only recently caught the opening of Sorcerer's Stone, and while he does much better when not dying, it's just a respectable performance. Venerable but predictable and kid-friendly. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore exudes curiosity, excitement and power (to be fair, the part has been a bit rewritten to support him, e.g. "Did what? Good night..."). In The Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore in the book confronts the Death Eater Crouch with "cold fury" or something like it and Harry understands why Voldemort so fears Dumbledore. Gambon does this pretty well - a strangehold? Crazy, but it works! Harris would have slowly walked into the room, looking mildly displeased and talking a little more quickly than usual, calmly asked "Moody" who he was and sagely explained how he had inferred that "Moody" was an impostor.

I actually always had a very distinct image of Dumbledore from the beginning, so I've fortunately been able to keep the films and books separate as far as he's concerned. But in Deathly Hallows, I did keep picturing McGonagall as Maggie Smith, which is odd because she is quite different from how I normally envision the character.

Maggie Smith is awesome. I can't not imagine her awesome voice as I read. It's a small part, but Smith always nails it.

[Red 75]

Yeah,pretty much everyone on screen has become the book image to me.Even Hermione now...before I imagined her more plain than Emma Watson

Emma Watson has always been too pretty for Hermione, except in Sorcerer's Stone.

[John Crichton 4]

Maggie Smith is awesome. I can't not imagine her awesome voice as I read. It's a small part, but Smith always nails it.

Yes, and it's too bad McGonnagal is always one of the most neutered parts in the movies.

John- who missed all the great McGonnagal moments in the OotP film

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I used to too until around the time I read Half-Blood Prince (and by that time had seen Goblet of Fire, and Gambon, despite some weird opening moments, is quite good in it). Then I watched Chamber of Secrets recently, and, god, Richard Harris is so frail. I've only recently caught the opening of Sorcerer's Stone, and while he does much better when not dying, it's just a respectable performance. Venerable but predictable and kid-friendly. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore exudes curiosity, excitement and power (to be fair, the part has been a bit rewritten to support him, e.g. "Did what? Good night..."). In The Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore in the book confronts the Death Eater Crouch with "cold fury" or something like it and Harry understands why Voldemort so fears Dumbledore. Gambon does this pretty well - a strangehold? Crazy, but it works! Harris would have slowly walked into the room, looking mildly displeased and talking a little more quickly than usual, calmly asked "Moody" who he was and sagely explained how he had inferred that "Moody" was an impostor.

Yes! Gambon captures the great power about Dumbledore's presence, while also conveying that twinkle in his bright eyes. Indeed, he was given some great moments in PoA especially (his opening speech about turning on the light, the line about dreams when they're all sleeping in the Great Hall, "Good night" and the subsequent humming!) I just love it. He went a little too crazy/mean in the following films, but overall he's still great.

Maggie Smith is awesome. I can't not imagine her awesome voice as I read. It's a small part, but Smith always nails it.

I did keep hearing her ringing voice during

those calls to arms at the start of the battle

in Deathly Hallows.

John- who missed all the great McGonnagal moments in the OotP film

Same here. Her terrific confrontations with Umbridge, along with the Christmas dinner and her dry interaction with Trelawney in PoA ("Tripe, Sybill?") are some of the greatest/funniest character moments in the books. I hope she's given her due in the 7th film.

Ray Barnsbury

[Elmo Lewis 6]

John- who missed all the great McGonnagal moments in the OotP film

Oh God, yes. Although the stair scene seemed to want to make up for that.

[Morlock 11]

The scene I missed most is her giving Peeves tips about wreaking havoc in the castle ("It unscrews the other way"). Don't know why, but I just love that line. Of course, no concievable way for that to be in there by any stretch. But still.

[John Crichton 4]

John- who missed all the great McGonnagal moments in the OotP film

Oh God, yes. Although the stair scene seemed to want to make up for that.

It tried to, but it was just a bare shell of the great McGonnagal/Umbridge moments in the book.

John- who also enjoys the Peeves scene

[Datameister 2,042]

I mostly have hybrid or purely original mental images of the characters in the books. Dumbledore is always one part Harris, one part Gambon, and one part my own imagination. While I prefer Gambon's performance in PoA and GoF, I've always thought Harris looked the part a lot better than Gambon. (Well, not as much in CoS, but that's a given.) So my Dumbledore is a slightly modified semblance of Harris, but with a tweaked version of Gambon's performance that uses a different voice altogether.

Hagrid is really the only character who I see exactly as he appears in the films. That's top-notch casting, IMO. The other characters invariably differ at least slightly in my imagination from their onscreen counterparts. Fleur, Mad Eye, and Ron are three who I imagine quite differently. (Although I did very much enjoy Brendan Gleeson's performance as Mad-Eye, I imagined him in a wildly different way.)

[Henry B 50]

Well, there's no shame in reimagining Fleur as you read, as that actress in Goblet of Fire was totally not that hot.

[John Crichton 4]

Fleur, Mad Eye, and Ron are three who I imagine quite differently. (Although I did very much enjoy Brendan Gleeson's performance as Mad-Eye, I imagined him in a wildly different way.)

Yes, I imagine Mad-Eye as very different from what we got in the films. Lupin too.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Well, picturing Sirius, Lupin, and Snape differently from the films is especially understandable, as Oldman, Thewlis, and Rickman are all between 10 and 25 years older than the parts they play.

Well, there's no shame in reimagining Fleur as you read, as that actress in Goblet of Fire was totally not that hot.

Indeed; Hermione shouldn't be prettier than Fleur!

Ray Barnsbury

[John Crichton 4]

Well, picturing Sirius, Lupin, and Snape differently from the films is especially understandable, as Oldman, Thewlis, and Rickman are all between 10 and 25 years older than the parts they play.

I can't get Alan Rickman out of my head for Snape, he's just too good. But yeah, my Sirius has a touch of what Oldman's done but not too much.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

To be honest I actually cared more about Oldman's Sirius than my own. I just couldn't connect with the character in the book for some reason, but seeing him on films was totally the opposite. Strange, but true.

[Datameister 2,042]

Indeed; Hermione shouldn't be prettier than Fleur!

Agreed, but I dunno if I'd say she is in the films. It's rather close, I'd say.

I can't get Alan Rickman out of my head for Snape, he's just too good.

His performance varies wildly in its quality--I think mostly because of the occasional spurt of poor directing, not because of his own deficiency. I believe he, as Snape, hasn't yet topped his performance in the first film. He carried himself with a delightful combination of malice and collected calm. I hated his performance in CoS--he sometimes reminded me of an angry grandmother. I can't really remember how he did in PoA or GoF--I'm off to watch the former. In OooooooootP, he was all right, but I was bothered by his understated reaction to Harry's accidental perusal of Snape's memories. In the book, it really seemed like Harry'd struck a nerve...like he'd set off something buried deep in Snape. All that shame about his childhood and so on. In the film...well, it seemed more like Snape was bored of the lessons and this was just the last straw. Again, I'm guessing this was the director's choice, not his.