Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
- Last Active
I'm not against the idea of Kloves helping Rowling with the screenplay. I'm not his biggest fan, but keep in mind that she has zero experience with screenwriting. Kloves at least knows what doesn't work in a cinematic sense, for instance the scene at the astronomy tower in which Harry is immobilized under the invisibility cloak. Kloves gave Harry the choice to trust Snape in that scene, which is a clever adaptation choice in keeping the protagonist somewhat pro-active in the scene. And we got to see his reaction when Dumbledore was murdered! I'm not certain Rowling would have changed that if she had adapted the book herself. I think Kloves will be helpful in re-writing some scenes or story elements that Rowling perhaps thinks works in the screenplay, but in reality don't.
As for Yates directing, it's a safe and dull choice. The producers know what they will get from Yates, but I hope he only directs the first film. I want to see other directors' interpretation of the universe.1
Yeah, they went a bit too far with the color grading in post-production. Same with that shot from Godzilla where I prefer the 3D version.
HP 7 was also quite colourful when you got to the forest scenes.1
I think it would be called Harry Potter and the Elder Wand. Basically remove the Deathly Hallows subplot and emphasize the all powerful wand. I think they could have included Harry's parents briefly in the limbo scene with Dumbledore in a way that would make Harry's choice to return to life harder.
I would love to adapt Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. There are so many ways you could do it and I think a liberal approach would be the way to go.2
Agreed about Hooper's score for HBP. Certainly the pacing for HBP was better than OotP's, which was just choppy, but it didn't always flow as elegantly as I'd wished. For instance the repetitive shots of Draco brooding rather than actually trying to fix the cabinet (which he did in a scene afterwards) is just bad storytelling. It would make more sense to show him work on the cabinet and show him brood afterwards to convey that he doesn't know how to fix it. I'm not sure what Yates was trying to communicate with that panning shot from Ron and Lavender to Draco brooding at the astronomy tower; it seemed to be all style over content. If it was trying to emphasize Draco's isolation from the rest of the students who are kissing and having fun, it was a waste of screentime considering the same point was repeated later on in the film, but I guess it was a little bit of foreshadowing. I do wish there was some actual narrative or thematic purpose behind the shot though.
I can't say I agree about the transition in DH 2 from the kiss to Voldemort's fury. It was awkward I thought. Watch this video from 1:45:
Obviously anyone is free to disagree, but I think the love for what Cuaron did is mostly driven by his other works as a director and not necessarily the film he did make.Not at all. I loved Azkaban before I watched his other films. What makes it better to me is how much more complete it feels. Not only in terms of having a stand-alone storyline, but everything is well-thought out and put in for a reason. Not once did it feel like fan service like in the first two films or on the rare occasion in the last two. Not once did it feel compressed and rushed like Goblet and Phoenix did at times. Azkaban takes its time to tell the story without rushing through it nor delving far too much into details. The pacing is glorious as it flows smoothly from scene to scene and the visual metaphors in the film are a well-thought out addition missing in the source material.
Granted, Cuaron and Kloves had an easier task on Prisoner than Yates and Kloves had on the last massive books, but on the other hand Yates was given better source material and heavier themes. I'll be the first to admit that Yates' films are more complex, but that's to be expected in a maturing series. Cuaron's direction outshines what the other directors did in my opinion. Columbus was just bland and Newell made several strange directorial choices with his film that seemed rather arbitrary. Yates came closest to Cuaron. He is a talented and versatile director, but not without his faults. Most importantly Yates lacks Cuaron's superior intuition of pacing. Take the scene in Order of the Phoenix where the trio are laughing after Harry kissed Cho. A fine spontaneous moment which highlights one of Yates' strengths, but then he decided to cut to a nightmare scene for no apparent reason. Where is the connection between the two scenes? The scene fades to black and suddenly we are back to one of those dark hallways at the ministry. It has this terrible episodic feel to it. Maybe the point of it was to emphasize the contrast between good and darkness, but the cut just feels jarring and gives off the sense that film finally picks up the pace again after a little breaker. Thus the editing somehow makes the kissing scene and the previous scene seem totally unecessary in the context of the film. Basically the snake attack comes out of nowhere. It's just as bad as the transition from the yuleball to Harry's nightmare in Goblet of Fire.1