CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Harry Potter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harry Potter

post #1 of 15
11/19/05 at 6:11am
Thread Starter 
I might be hated, hexed, vexed and had a voodeedoo doll made out of my illustrious fat ass for this but it's a franchise now. 4 films, 3 directors and while quality may be up for debate, it's a solid name and product being put out there. So..discussions?
Reply
post #2 of 15
11/19/05 at 8:30am
And?

I'm not sure why you think that was a contraversial statement.
Reply
post #3 of 15
11/19/05 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
It's not that I thought it'd be a controversial statement, I just was a little suprised it wasn't included here already and thought it wasn't because there were enough people that would tear the thread a new asshole.

I've read some of the posts around here, and well, for every decent person around here there's 3 people who ya just can't please. It's either not good enough, not sfx'y enough, not "real" enough or just plain "I don't like it". So yeah. Not trying to be controversial, more than I was cautious.

Lunchbox
Reply
post #4 of 15
11/19/05 at 6:05pm
Wow, Harry Potter is a film franchise . I never would have guessed.
If you want to raise a controversy here, you will have to something better then that.
Try saying some favorable about the Bush admnistration if you want to get people riled around here.
Or say the "Meg" is gonna suck.
Reply
post #5 of 15
11/19/05 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunchbox
It's not that I thought it'd be a controversial statement, I just was a little suprised it wasn't included here already and thought it wasn't because there were enough people that would tear the thread a new asshole.
Yes, but why would they? It's just a fact. How does saying that Harry Potter is a franchise create controversy any more than saying that it's a series of still frames projected at 24 frames a second? I'm just not sure why you think it would be an inflammatory statement to anyone.
Reply
post #6 of 15
11/19/05 at 7:07pm
Thread Starter 
I'm NOT tryin' to start a controversy for crissakes. If I wanted to do that, I'd be going out on the CHUD main thread trying to drum up support for Brett Ratner for a People's Choice award or something.

And the only reason I posed my opening post the way I did, dudalb, is purely as a conversation starter. Now, figuring you're going to say something along the lines of "If you wanna start a conversation around here, you better.." I figured letting people who were actually interested in a discussion of the movies as a progressing series start chiming in.

LB
Reply
post #7 of 15
11/19/05 at 7:18pm
There is already a Potter discussion going on in the "Featured Films" section.
The "Franchise" section was really started when it seems as though "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" discussions would flood the boards, so it was decided to give the long term franchises their own board.
As it is, the rules are not set in concrete and you often have franchise films discussed in the main film sections. The idea was too keep every post on the Main section being a "Star Wars/LOTR/Star Trek" post.
So check the other sections before starting a conversation.
We have , IMHO, a bit too many repetive discussions going on at CHUD as it is.
Reply
post #8 of 15
11/19/05 at 7:20pm
Well, if he wants to talk about the success, impact, future, and relative merits of the franchise as a whole, I think that's an appropriate topic for discussion here. And that seems to be what he's aiming for. But the unfortunate thread title and first post don't really make that clear.
Reply
post #9 of 15
11/20/05 at 10:41pm
The thing i'm wondering at the moment is, which directors should take a crack at 6-7? I thnik by the time they hit 7 they could make it 3-4 hours and they'd still get 300+ million
Reply
post #10 of 15
11/21/05 at 12:40am
If it were a perfect world? Terry Gilliam. Seeing as how he didn't get 1 though, despite both Rowling and Heyman's backing, that's not exactly possible. Personally, I'd love Cuaron too return for 6.
Reply
post #11 of 15
11/21/05 at 2:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Chocula
The thing i'm wondering at the moment is, which directors should take a crack at 6-7? I thnik by the time they hit 7 they could make it 3-4 hours and they'd still get 300+ million
Firstly, thanks To Richard Dickson for saying exactly what I was thinking when I wasn't here to reply. A discussion about GOF or the other three is fine, but in in this particular thread I'm thinking about how thees films are going to affect other epic-sized book series. There's not gonna be another series of books approached for film development where this won't be looked at as a model of how to do things, even above and beyond LOTR.

That said, I'd heard rumblings that Chris Columbus was considering a return for six and/or seven. I won't say that would be the WORST move to make, just WAY far from smart.
Reply
post #12 of 15
11/29/05 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunchbox
That said, I'd heard rumblings that Chris Columbus was considering a return for six and/or seven. I won't say that would be the WORST move to make, just WAY far from smart.
What?! I hope it isn't true. These movies are no longer the cute kiddie flicks with neat magical stuff, but are more violent, mature and deal with adult themes - with the worst yet to come. The Chamber of Secrets was a step in this direction, and Chris Columbus' involvement as director is why it's the weakest of the films.

As for who should take a crack at the series, I think Christopher Nolan would do a fine job.
1. He's English (one of the reasons they went with Mike Newell)
2. He can do action, drama and pull some terrific performances from actors
3. He keeps the same cinematographer (imagine the look of the castle and landscape in the hands of these two!)
Reply
post #13 of 15
12/2/05 at 4:08pm
I think bringing Columbus on for the another movie would be a step back in the series. Granted, he was charged with making the first movie and appealing to both fans and then general public, but the characters have moved on so much since the first two.
I wasn't a big fan of the pacing for 1 and 2, and those books were relatively short compared to the last half of the series. I think that Chris Nolan would be an interesting choice, and the cinematography on "Insomnia" was amazing, but after seeing Mike Newell find success with "GoF" I will not pass judgement on new director choices until I see them in action.
Reply
post #14 of 15
12/2/05 at 5:51pm
I watched SS for the first time last night in a long while....and I was amazed at how dated it looked. The overall quality of the last two films under different directors has been astounding.

I think Cuaron would be great to bring back for 6...but who to handle 7? Given that we don't know it's exact content I suppose that question can wait.

One thing IS clear. Columbus must not be brought back. It would be a terrible mishap.
Reply
post #15 of 15
12/2/05 at 7:52pm
[edited and taken forth]
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Harry Potter