I saw the new Harry Potter film last night…

[quade 4]

Quote

So Sean Connery should still play James Bond?

Well, duh!

He has no problem playing mature action heros today and he's clearly the best Bond there -ever- was, so why the hell not? He certainly could have played Bond -much- longer than he did (other than the fact he was getting sick of it).

Think of how "interesting" it would have been to see the character evolve naturally over the years.

So, you've sort of picked the wrong example there. Lemme pick a better one for you.

Should Adam West have played Batman in the 1989 movie by Tim Burton? The clear answer is no. The entire style and tone of the story and character had changed from the campy TV series into something far darker and more interesting.

Contrast that with the current Harry Potter film series and there's very little change in the basic universe in which the story takes place, so, no nothing should really have changed too much. Simply changing stuff to change it detracts from telling the story, because it takes the viewers a few seconds to realize what has changed and then they're thinking about the changes instead of the story.

However, this type of change is to be expected whenever you bring new creative people into the mix. They all want to put their own "fingerprints" on the project. This almost always pisses me off as a fan.

Let me give you an explanation and example of this entire "fingerprints" thing. No creative person -ever- wants to simply reproduce what has come before by another creative person. For one, it's seen as being non-creative, but more importantly, if you're only recreating something somebody else did, then you really get no credit for the work as an individual and you really can't parlay that into money or awards (which mean more money). So, notice the overall art design for the Batman movie series. The original designs by Anton Furst were -amazing-. He created a really believable "gothic comic" universe on screen -- really beautiful and solid looking design. He has other issues and is replaced as art director for the series (as a result is psychologically crushed and commits suicide too), but from that point forward the series begins to look more and more toy-like. The Batmobile gets redesigned in every movie and looks more flamboyantly pimpish in each iteration.

Let's flip over to live theater. You'd think a really solid movie such as "The Lion King" wouldn't need additional music, but put it on stage and suddenly it needs a couple of new tunes. Why? Because that's the only way it can grab another Tony for original music.

Mary Poppins is going to come to Broadway in the near future. In spite of the fact that the movie runs 2 hours and 20 minutes and is filled with music, yep, they're writing new stuff to make the "creative" people happy. Mary Poppins doesn't "need" anything to "improve" it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

So Sean Connery should still play James Bond?

Well, duh!

He has no problem playing mature action heros today and he's clearly the best Bond there -ever- was, so why the hell not? He certainly could have played Bond -much- longer than he did (other than the fact he was getting sick of it).

Think of how "interesting" it would have been to see the character evolve naturally over the years.

So, you've sort of picked the wrong example there. Lemme pick a better one for you.

Should Adam West have played Batman in the 1989 movie by Tim Burton? The clear answer is no. The entire style and tone of the story and character had changed from the campy TV series into something far darker and more interesting.

Contrast that with the current Harry Potter film series and there's very little change in the basic universe in which the story takes place, so, no nothing should really have changed too much. Simply changing stuff to change it detracts from telling the story, because it takes the viewers a few seconds to realize what has changed and then they're thinking about the changes instead of the story.

However, this type of change is to be expected whenever you bring new creative people into the mix. They all want to put their own "fingerprints" on the project. This almost always pisses me off as a fan.

Let me give you an explanation and example of this entire "fingerprints" thing. No creative person -ever- wants to simply reproduce what has come before by another creative person. For one, it's seen as being non-creative, but more importantly, if you're only recreating something somebody else did, then you really get no credit for the work as an individual and you really can't parlay that into money or awards (which mean more money). So, notice the overall art design for the Batman movie series. The original designs by Anton Furst were -amazing-. He created a really believable "gothic comic" universe on screen -- really beautiful and solid looking design. He has other issues and is replaced as art director for the series (as a result is psychologically crushed and commits suicide too), but from that point forward the series begins to look more and more toy-like. The Batmobile gets redesigned in every movie and looks more flamboyantly pimpish in each iteration.

Let's flip over to live theater. You'd think a really solid movie such as "The Lion King" wouldn't need additional music, but put it on stage and suddenly it needs a couple of new tunes. Why? Because that's the only way it can grab another Tony for original music.

Mary Poppins is going to come to Broadway in the near future. In spite of the fact that the movie runs 2 hours and 20 minutes and is filled with music, yep, they're writing new stuff to make the "creative" people happy. Mary Poppins doesn't "need" anything to "improve" it.

I think this one got it right. The first two were altogether too Disneyesque. I think the change was a distinct improvement.

Mary Poppins, however, is practically perfect in every way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Malfunction 0]

Quote

Mary Poppins, however, is practically perfect in every way

Except she is a bit old for me...

I liked the changes to the movie with the exceptions of the ones I listed before, and the fact they are in street clothes most of the show. But, it is acceptable since they are 3rd years now, and have more freedoms. It makes sense. You can't change it, so live with it. It happens in movie sequels that are not all shot at the same time (ala Lord of the Rings).

Still, good movie all around. I was pleased, though not ecstatic, when I walked out.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
- Voltaire

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Its a huge cinimatic no no to screw with stuff that big and noticable in a series of 7 movies

I didn't have a problem with the physical appearance of Hogwarts changing. My problem was that Hagrid's hut, a place that wasn't / isn't magical, moved and changed, and the Whomping Willow physically changed locations. Hogwart's changing I can live with, and I expect to see it change as the more in depth the books get, different areas of the school need to be emphasized.

It took me a few moments to realize the Willow and the Hut were the same from the first movies due to the change of location.

Good movie - my favorite of the three so far. But then again, I am only on book two right now

The camera work was great - the movement, the crossfades, the black iris wipe. The camera seemed to respect the majestic nature of what it was showing. Very well done.

Also, ILM out did themself this time on the blending of the CGI and the real world. I found myself looking at Buckbeak a lot trying to find errors...but there were very little.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Viking 0]

Quote

So Sean Connery should still play James Bond?

No i don't think Sean Connery should still be Bond. Thats a character not a fixed location in a scene. I bet people would be super pissed if someone started fucking with the way middle earth looked from movie to movie.

Quote

Sorry, but if you suspend disbelief enough to accept wizards and hippgriffs, what's wrong with a metamorphosing castle?

Yes the books movies are fantasy. That doesn't mean its ok to move rather large and important pieces of the story line (womping willow, and hagrids hut) The book tells them where to generally place stuff in the world of hogwarts and the director was like "Nah i think i'll put it here instead even though the willow is clearly shown right next to the castle and the hut didn't have a mountain between it and the school.

Am i the only one that thinks consistency is extremely important in long multiple movie series like this?

I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver
My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin

[Dougiefresh 0]

So was I the only one who yelled "ARCH!" when Harry fell off his broom?

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams

[Viking 0]

I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver
My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This is like the people that grumble that Star Trek violates laws of physics. Get a life!

thanks for that one. I go nuts when someone complains about fiction not being 'realistic'

Edit: I liked the overall feel of the third film over the first two. They were way too juvenile

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Casurf1978 0]

Saw it too and loved it. You know they're filming HP and the Goblet of Fire right now, due out next year. Also on the board is HP and order of the Phoenix some say maybe 2007 for that one. As far as I know only Lucious has signed up for it.