At least he was a great actor -- better that than a judge of film music!

Still I feel compelled to read this -- might have to import it:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/s ... rry-potter

Before beginning filming Sorcerer’s Stone in 2000, he described “feeling a bit nothing about HP which really disturbs me.” He wrote of decent working relationships with the films’ directors, but can be highly critical of the results: Sorcerer’s Stone, on the big screen, “acquires a scale and depth that matches the hideous score by John Williams,” with the afterparty being “much more fun.”

After seeing Half-Blood Prince, he complained of “the need to bang the three Davids’ heads [Harry Potter producers David Heyman and David Barron, and director David Yates] against the nearest wall. I get the character development and the spiffing effects (dazzling), but where is the story????”

His favorite of the bunch seemed to be Prisoner Of Azkaban, praising future Oscar winner Alfonso Cuarón as doing “an extraordinary job.” “It is a very grown-up movie, so full of daring that it made me smile and smile,” he wrote. “Every frame of it is the work of an artist and storyteller.”

Pre-order:

My favorite Williams' score of the three he did was Prisoner of Azkaban followed by SS and then CoS. The rest of the music for the films sucked. Lol...as did the films. I hardly remember anything about the films after Azkaban.

Same here Michael. I didn't even bother seeing the last few movies in theaters and really only find the first few installments engaging. The last one I saw in theaters was the Half-Blood Prince, which I fell asleep on.

Ironically though what Rickman seems to have disliked about the early Columbus movies is the reason I'd rather sit through them again as opposed to the rest of the increasingly boring -- and not very cinematic -- later films. David Yates has proven to be a total hack, as evidenced by the banal FANTASTIC BEASTS franchise which followed the bloated, boring later Potter films.

Seeing as Rickman approved Michael Kamen’s themeless keyboard noodles for The Winter Guest, I would take his opinion on John Williams with a grain of salt.

Mind you, Rickman was going through other things by the time HP5 came along. But as the professional he was, he was determined to see it through. The show must go on, you know.

But he wasn't crazy about the early movies either. Only the Cauron film since he was the auteur

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:14 pm Same here Michael. I didn't even bother seeing the last few movies in theaters and really only find the first few installments engaging. The last one I saw in theaters was the Half-Blood Prince, which I fell asleep on.

Ironically though what Rickman seems to have disliked about the early Columbus movies is the reason I'd rather sit through them again as opposed to the rest of the increasingly boring -- and not very cinematic -- later films. David Yates has proven to be a total hack, as evidenced by the banal FANTASTIC BEASTS franchise which followed the bloated, boring later Potter films.

I love the Harry Potter films -- warts and all. Of course I am a huge fan of the books.

But I'll be honest, taken as a whole, I think they are better than the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises. Potters 5 and 6 were a low ebb -- but still better than Attack of the Clones, Star Wars 7-9, Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Certainly as a continuous narrative they are more interesting and hold together better.

The first Columbus film is a bit static in the area of camera placement / movement -- but redeemed by a great story, a wonderful (and well-directed) cast, amazing sets and of course John Williams' magnificent score. Columbus invests the second film with considerably more pizzazz -- tho I find #2 a little slow at times.

I like Cuaron's turn at the wheel much more now than I did in 2004 -- but it is a bit overpraised, and it was really Curron's socialist perspective that impressed most critics (whether they realize it or not). The first half-hour of that film is a mess tho, and there are things which are confusing if you haven't read the book. But it does look great (the final freeze-frame notwithstanding!).

I felt Mike Newell's entry was more even than Cuaron's, yet just as visually stunning. I rate it the most gorgeously-photographed of all the films. Plus the non-fantasy story elements of the kids experiencing puberty made for some compelling character development. Patrick Doyle's score is a huge comedown from John Williams' scores, and does compromise the movie, but I think Newell does not get enough credit for his entry.

The Yates era -- well, I do think he is an excellent director of actors and very skilled with camera placement / movement. At the same time he isn't very original. The widely varying lighting style of all his Potter movies suggests he just let the cinematographer "do his thing". The "mise-en-scene" of his films is also really bland, with bare set decoration and little of visual interest.

Films 5 & 6 are the weakest in the series I agree, with a more unceremonious "this week's episode" quality (and I still want to know how a TV composer with negligible credits was hired to score these movies). 6 is also the ugliest-looking of all the films, and its style of photography obviously modeled on Lord of the Rings, while the the whole visual style of Deathly Hallows Part I is cribbed from Twilight!

That said, I think Deathly Hallows Part II is one of the best films in the series -- mainly due to Rowling's story. Had John Williams (or just anyone decent!) scored it, it might-well be my favorite.

Please don't take this the wrong way Paul but you're wrong. I kid, I kid.

Of course I am a huge fan of the books.

I think this, more than anything, explains a great deal of the divide some of us feel for this series. The people who truly love these films do seem to be readers of the books, and you can see this from how each film performed commercially, wherein the Potter fan base supported the movies early and often before they tailed off (though not before making a fortune). That fan base has dwindled through these lame Fantastic Beasts movies, while they have cultivated no "outside" viewers at all. Yet people love the original Potter movies because they also love the books and the story they tell.

But I'll be honest, taken as a whole, I think they are better than the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises. Potters 5 and 6 were a low ebb -- but still better than Attack of the Clones, Star Wars 7-9, Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Certainly as a continuous narrative they are more interesting and hold together better.

I just look at them all a little differently. The Potter movies are book adaptations, with a pre-established story line, and I'd argue that's a whole different thing (not to mention a major advantage for putting a coherent string of films together). I'd also say they were adaptations that, reportedly from everything I've ever heard, very rarely took any chances and veered off the path of the books -- they are slavish (likely to a fault at times) to the source material, and were made not long after the books were published. They didn't take liberties with the books and they weren't meant to -- they were intended to deliver a movie mostly for fans who already knew where the story was going, to "respect" what was already there, and obviously they succeeded wildly on that level.

I do know what you mean in assessing a narrative that holds together over the course of a group of movies -- but again, the Potter pictures are adapting source material that already existed, made all consecutively pretty much over a set amount of time (not, in the case of Star Wars, many years removed between installments). I'd say their degree of difficulty was lower, not to mention the Star Trek movies never set out to tell a 9-movie narrative (and Lucas can say whatever he wants, but he clearly figured out Star Wars for the most part as he was going along too. The pre-established blueprint he always claimed to have was pretty loose there lol).

The Trek and Star Wars movies may have had lower points, no doubt, but -- and this is entirely subjective -- the higher points hit much higher than the Potter films...for me. Personally I do like STAR WARS, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI better than any of the Harry Potter films. I like several of the Star Trek movies more than any of the Harry Potter films also.

I just feel like the Potter movies mean a lot to their fan base and I wouldn't ever argue otherwise. Yet for "casual viewers" or anyone who didn't read the books, they are less appealing and did not engage so much outside that group -- especially as it progressed after the first couple of movies. They are more successful in my mind being "good book adaptations" than really great works of cinema.

And I do think STAR WARS, the original, as a piece of cinema is on a whole different level than anything in the Harry Potter film series. George Lucas had to go out and create a galaxy basically all on his own for those movies that didn't exist on the printed page. Yes Star Wars was inspired by Flash Gordon yet it's a milestone of cinema for its technical elements, editorial work, FX, sound effects, its scoring, even its script -- as a standalone entity people forget how integral the movie was to the language of contemporary cinema and raised the bar, far above other genre movies Hollywood had ever made before. That's something that was realized on film, created for that movie, and wasn't around before it -- certainly not in "that way." Nothing looked like it, or sounded like it either (even the sound design was something entirely unique).

The Potter movies adapted something Rowling had laid out for them on a silver platter in terms of narrative, language, and everything else. Yet they work because the story works, less so because the movies themselves (at least many of them IMO) are particularly inspired. If that makes sense.

Again just my two cents!

I echo Andy's thoughts above. I admittedly stopped reading the books after Azkaban because I lost interest...that was all my fault because I read the first three books in a month, and by the time I got to the fourth book I complained that the basic story was the same in each novel and just lost interest. I have no emotional attachment to the movies or the books, but I completely understand why some would and respect that.

It's not your fault Michael, if these were truly outstanding movies they should captivate viewers who didn't read the books. That's where I feel there's a discrepancy there. I shouldn't have to read the book to feel something but these movies just did nothing for me. And maybe it would help if I were part of the key demographic of being 10 or whatever back at the time too. Not saying adults didn't read these but they were intended for younger readers first and foremost. I tried but I just couldn't get into it. A few pages of the words and I was out. Lol

Also you can't neglect the fact these Fantastic Beasts movies exist. If we are going to talk about the Disney Star Wars movies as part of the franchise the Fantastic Beasts movies are just as much if not more a part of that conversation. They were all made by the same Potter creative team pretty much and I'd rather watch The Last Jedi again than be punished by having to sit through them. Even the Potter fan base has left it.

You ALL WRONG! I'm QUITTING this board!!!



No just kidding. I actually find this an interesting discussion.

mkaroly wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:57 am I echo Andy's thoughts above. I admittedly stopped reading the books after Azkaban because I lost interest...that was all my fault because I read the first three books in a month, and by the time I got to the fourth book I complained that the basic story was the same in each novel and just lost interest.

It's true most of the books deal with Harry coming up against "this year's nemesis". But I find there is also a lot of variety -- new characters, the evolution of existing characters (especially as the protagonists start out as children and mature into young adults). Also, the final book veers in a much different direction, with probably 80% of the story not taking place at Hogwarts, and instead concerning the three main characters on run while trying to find the various horcruxes.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:10 am It's not your fault Michael, if these were truly outstanding movies they should captivate viewers who didn't read the books. That's where I feel there's a discrepancy there.

In my case, I did not actually start reading the books until after I got hooked on the movies. I decided to start reading Goblet of Fire a couple of months after seeing the forth film, and continued with the remaining books (only years later did I finally read the earlier books).

I do know people who love the Potter movies and have never read the books. But I concede it does seem to me that most of the fans of the films were fans of the books first. Or (like me) started on them after seeing the first couple of movies.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:10 amAlso you can't neglect the fact these Fantastic Beasts movies exist. If we are going to talk about the Disney Star Wars movies as part of the franchise the Fantastic Beasts movies are just as much if not more a part of that conversation.

They exist, but as they have nothing to do with the character of Harry Potter, they are really more spinoffs -- I don't see them as part of the Harry Potter series. The Fantastic Beasts movies are on a certain level analogous to the Star Wars prequels -- but when I refer to the "Harry Potter movies" I mean the films which are titled "Harry Potter and the..."

At the end of the day I guess I just prefer Harry Potter over Star Trek or Star Wars or comic book series, because I prefer fantasy to sci-fi, and I'm a total Anglophile and the Potter stories are as British as you can get. I love Scotland and the Potter movies were filmed in some of my favorite places in that country. I love British Shakespearean actors and and British comedy, and the Potter films feature a good number of my favorite Shakespeare and comedy performers.

I got a kick out of how Chris Columbus interpreted all those consummately British elements with a Spielberg-esque approach, which recalled Spielberg's early 80s work (which I've always loved). I describe the Columbus films as "Dickens meets Indiana Jones". And while the later films admittedly veered from that "Amblin'" aesthetic , I do think Columbus' initial stamp remained largely extant.

On top of all that, we have John Williams' scores for the first three films -- which are among his best in my estimation (and I have slight preference for the HP scores over those of Star Wars -- tho not Superman!).

So the Potter films are pretty close to being "tailor made" for my tastes. The only thing I would change about them would be for Peter O'Toole to take over for Richard Harris, and for better composers to have taken over from John Williams (and Williams coming back for the final film).

I also want to add that I'm more impressed with Harry Potter because the level of writing. The stories, the characters (and their development) and the complexity of plotting toward the end of the series -- is twenty times more intricate and involved than that of other "escapist franchises".