Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

darthorcrux ✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • I still stand by it: David Yates killed it.

    And in a good way. His films are still easily my favorite Potter films. When I read the last few books I felt like whoever was directing had a daunting job ahead of them, and I cannot but help admire what Yates and Goldenberg and Kloves achieved. They're amazing films that better damn well be fucking applauded for years to come. I rewatch HBP, DH1 and DH2 frequently and as a huge book fan myself I can't help but feel totally satisfied and elated with how the films were handled. I love Azkaban and I love Alfonso, but beyond its cinematography I just don't think it's quite as great as what Yates did. 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. Gravity was awesome but very barren and empty, IMO. It was cinematically awesome but once it was over I felt like it was good but that Children of Men and Azkaban were better.

    That being said, again, I think in years, no decades on down the line Yates' work should be well appreciated and acknowledged. He bit off a huge chunk that few dare to, and absolutely ran with it and nailed it.
  • Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

    Best superhero film I've seen.
  • Re: Is the Harry Potter fandom dying?

    Sorry but millions of people can't show super excitement for every thing every day. It's easy for a new book or movie to generate excitement and get people railing on each other on forums and what not, both about the material and arguments and this and that but when there's not really much to talk about it's not like it's always going to seem like the most hip and cool subject of the day. It has nothing to do with what people think about Harry Potter or whatever else, but having excitement or a lot of discussions require triggers to be pulled, and all of the triggers have already been pulled unless someone does something else with it.

    Like with Jurassic Park 4 coming out next year, I mean you never hear people talk about Jurassic Park anymore, but where principal photography begins in a couple of months we'll be getting casting and more information in general beyond who's directing it and whatnot. When people actually have something to talk about, they'll talk, and the hype will fire right back up. But we got like over 10 years of Potter goodness, 7 quality books and films for the most part, it established itself in the annals of entertainment and storytelling.

    I don't think anyone thinks lesser of Harry Potter or don't respect it as much anymore or whatever, but it left its mark and we only live for a certain amount of time and most people, reasonably, want to take in as much as they can-- that's why the "hype of the minute" franchise is always front and center, like Hunger Games is now. It's just hard to act like you're still 100% into something every day and like I said people want to explore other venues of entertainment now that one thing is over. It doesn't diminish what's already happened.
  • Re: HPF, come in here, I've changed my mind about something.

    Fuck you Newell.
  • Re: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 - Official Thread


    One of the main reasons I couldn't get into the first movie was because of how jarring the complete lack of a visual was. The cinematography had no general aesthetic to it. It was plain in every sense of the word with a ton of shaky cam to establish the illusion that it's gritty. The art direction was terrible and all over the place; again it lacked visual consistency. I found it jarring how every location looked like it belonged in an entirely different universe. And I realize that there's a specific point to say, okay, the districts are poor and the capitol is economically dense, but what I'm talking about is more to do with the tone (or lack thereof) that Ross was unfortunately unable to find a sure footing about. You can have economically varying locales in a singular film without feeling as though there is a separation of vision between them.

    And that isn't to say it wasn't shot well. Plenty of scenes were "shot" well but there's so much more to it than just pointing cameras and getting good shots. The entire vision must be a unified whole and the director has to communicate that to the DP, editors, art department and everyone involved in the visual design of the movie. It kind of looked like Ross was just like "oh, woods, and there's kind of a big expensive capitol place, just make it big, dense, rich... dull." That's why it looked very amateurish to me. It isn't a terrible movie and it has a handful of really good scenes, but Gary's direction was complete ass and lacking in vision. I'm somewhat excited for the next movie because there's only one direction to go after the first one: straight up.

    Oh, and let's not get Taylor Swift to write another supremely forgettable song.