David Yates

Recently I decided to re-read a few Harry Potter books and rewatch their respective movies, just for a nostalgia trip. I like the books despite how mediocre the writing is, sue me.

So anyway, who the fuck thought it was a good idea to give the last four movies to David Yates? The directing is all over the place. They skip over important things and dwell too much on shit no one really cares about. Crucial events are happen too fast, some key scenes look and feel super awkward, it's all rushed and lacks any real tension and emotion. And then there's Hallows Pt.2 which is basically "Harry Potter and the completely unnecessary and inferior re-imagining of the Battle of Hogwarts by David Yates". Like, fuck, I know these kind of movies always change some stuff, but this guy made virtually EVERYTHING up with that one, including some remarkably retarded scenes.
>hallows book: Harry sneaks into a castle run by Voldemort's people and tries to remain unseen for obvious reasons
>hallows 2nd movie: lol harry shows himself as soon as snape asks because yeah let everyone know harry potter is here!
Just fucking why?

And then there's the tone. I get that the movie is portraying dark times but that doesn't mean literally everything has to be grey and washed out, fuck these movies are so UGLY.

And I'm sure he even had something to do with Radcliffe's atrocious acting in these movies


Is this guy a complete hack or what? Are his other movies good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=z8pFS8e5Lgc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Harry Potter 1-3 is pure kino, 4 is ok
David Yates ruined the series, but so did Rowling with that abomination known as Deathly Hallows

Really I don't get why they didn't give all the movies to Cuarón after how well he did in the third one, but somehow this guy was called back to direct the whole series after 5.

This. 1-3 are great
1 and 2 are like budget Spielberg but not in a bad way

The 6th movie was great though, definitely the one that elevated the source material the most.

David Yates hired some GOAT cinematographers and he approached each film with a different perspective. Half Blood Prince is one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen.
>muh bright colors
>muh high key lighting
>blaming the screenplay not covering scenes from the book on the director and not the screenwriter
>blaming Radcliffe's alcoholism on th director
Kys

Considering the shallowness of the source material he was given to work with, its hardly a surprise that even a director as talented as Yates couldn't salvage one of the dullest franchises in history. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

the only other movie I have watched is fantastic beast and it was awful

Who is this guy and why does he care about how children's "literature" translates to the screen?

You're late

>anything by jane austen
>not irredeemable shit tier
That slut had the most boring and insufferable writing and the genre of stories she wrote about didn't help

Hate him as much as you want but Deathly Hallows Part 1 is geniunely the only time HP was ever good. A nice slow-burner that actually spent time on characters instead of "we have to find tha plot device!1!" stories.

Aesthetically Yates is shit. Say what you will about Chris Columbus, but the Hogwarts in the first two movies felt like the Hogwarts described in the books. It felt fantastical but also dangerous. Yates just made everything muted and dark. Like not edgy but all the colors are washed out and all the monsters like Dementors and inferi are so fucking bland. I was surprised the beasts in Fantastic Beasts were as good as they were.

so in the deathly hallows... the time travel created an infinite loop right?

Hallows 1 is okay I guess but fuck me Hallows 2 left too much of a bad taste in my mouth

FUCK i mean prisoner of azkaban

Who's more based, the DULL poster every Harry Potter thread or KROGAN COCK in the sfm threads?

never forget

They almost did
He didn't do the fourth because it would have required him to direct as soon as he finished the third, but he wouldn't do that because he wanted to oversee the edit for quality assurance purposes
>I'm not making this up

Not to mention the Hermione in the books is supposed to be a plain jane whose defining traits are her intelligence and discipline in studies, so naturally in the movies she's just a hot chick.

>we didn't get more Cuaron movies because the guy wanted to do his job properly and that's a sin

For a series that's all about magic, magic duels and wizard battles in the newer movies look like shit
>everyone just shooting generic magic bullets with no incantation or anything, like wands are just handguns, while in the books you know every spell anyone uses
>le red beam vs green beam

>Radcliffe's atrocious acting
flat wat
his last truly shitty moment was "HE WAS THEIR FRIEND", which was hardly his fault and besides he was just a kid then
his acting in 6 7 and 8 is really good

This in addition to

Half blood prince is horrible
Its nothing like the book

A shitposter is never late!

To be fair, they couldn't know the young Emma Watson would grow up to become adult Emma Watson.

>remove the first battle at hogwarts because "can't have two battles at hogwarts so close to eachother", despite the difference in scope between the battles
>instead put in the fight where some deatheaters just fucking 9/11 the Weasley house for fun, which means that they've actually been able to get at Harry the entire time he was there and Voldemort has just not been bothering with getting him or using the Weasley family against him
>then they go ahead and add another movie anyway, making the Hogwarts-battle problem nonexistent
How hard can it be to adapt a book without introducing plotholes? We never got to see Hagrid tanking spells because of it either. Half-Blood Prince was an absolute shitshow.

>reducing Grindelwald to just a guy who tells Voldemort where to go because he asked nicely
>changing Voldemort's meaningful way of dying like everyone else, EXPLICITLY to shill 3D

They should have just cut Grindelwald entirely and cut down on the runtime, there's really no point in him being there if you're not going to contrast him with Voldemort in any way.

>breaks elder wand before repairing his own wand
fucking why it would be a 2 second shot goddamit

Yet another thing they made up in the movie for no fucking reason. Really, it's like their thought process was "let's grab these characters and the general theme and write an entirely new story"

>changing Voldemort's meaningful way of dying like everyone else, EXPLICITLY to shill 3D
That as such bullshit.

they they did, she was hot when they hired her

Nigga they absolutely did. She was one of those kids that you can clearly see they're going to become hot when they hit 16.

To play the doubles advocate, she was pretty hot when she put her mind to it, but otherwise wasn't remarkable.
They could have pulled it off pretty easily with Emma if they'd been willing to do some work

>doubles advocate

...

It's a diamond dozen expression.

you mean remain hot when they turn 16

Could be worse. The last 4 movies could have had shrunken heads and a frog choir

I could care less.

They're just kids at first and she has big teeth.

When she shrinks them and does her hair up for the ball both Ron and Harrys jaws drop.

Ironically you could call out Rowling for writing her as a female who needs to conform to male desires or some stupid feminist shit if you really wanted to.

My favorite part of this pasta is the "No!" in quotation marks.

My second favorite part is when people get triggered by the book classifications.

My third favorite part is speculating about the poster's shitty life

>"No!" in quotation marks.
Is that part of Harold Bloom's quote too or was it added by the original pasta creator?

JKR had a massive say in those movies.

You mean turn me on when they're ten

No idea.

That's pure Bloom

I bet you think you're original, when really that's part for the course on this doggy dog site.

>JKR had a massive say in those movies.
So she willingly allowed them to destroy almost everything she had created? I guess people do that when they're getting a check for a quadrillion dollars.

he had a protective spell on him til he was 18 you stupid sack of literal shit

Getting so mad and then you're just wrong hahahaha

We don't actually know what the implications of that spell are other than Voldemort can't kill Harry. But he COULD capture him and just keep him locked in a dungeon until his birthday.

>dude he's got a protective spell
>but they can still blow the whole house up and Bellatrix and her gang can nearly catch him
That's the problem, you idiot. He's supposed to be safe, either because of the protective spell on him or because the Burrow itself has protective charms on it, just like Hogwarts and Sirius' house. But it he clearly isn't safe because Bellatrix nearly gets him and they can fucking blow the Burrow up without any problem. They had to just pretend that the house where Harry was hiding wouldn't be protected just to facilitate a big fight-scene for the movie, instead of just having the big fight-scene that was already written.

Yates is a bad director, and bad directors are like McDonalds, they produce in mass and the quality is not very good; good directors, on the other hand, are like a 5 star gourmet dish prepared by Gordon Ramsey, they don't produce in mass quantity, but the few things they do are gold. Yates was a Mcdonalds director, hence we got fast food movies, Colombus, Cuarón, and Newell were Gordon Ramseys, hence we got gourmet films.

>the Burrow itself has protective charms on it
In Hallows pt 1 the Burrow has every manner of protection on it so the death eaters can't even SEE it, and yet the minister for magic can casually walk into the boundaries of the spell and into the house like it's nothing

>Newell
Eh, Goblet wasn't great.

Shouldve been speilberg

Yates must be great with budgets and easy to work with/control.
just imagine if we got the Terry Gilliam harry potter that Rowling originally wanted

I'm glad you plebs are finally waking up and realizing that Columbus was perfect for the franchise and Yates was absolute shit.

david yates is a drug addict, you know what that shit does to your brain. i don't know why they let this coke snorter have any sort of directing power over anything, especially something like the multimillion dollar franchise that HP was.

is this an ability you have put to good use?

Cuaron is exactly what you described, the guy always takes his time and it's always worth it, the rest are just garbagemen

I usually deride remakes but I'd honestly be perfectly fine if they remade the HP movies starting next year, with Gilliam doing them all. They could only be better.

Hell, a high-budget tv-show would probably do it better than some of the movies.

>a high-budget tv-show would probably do it better than some of the movies
Seeing how they made TWO movies out of the last book and they still skipped things and made important scenes feel short and lackluster, yeah you're right.

Blame YatesDonalds

yates was great for Order and Part 1, he sucked for Half Blood and Part 2. Very strange, must've been studio meddling then.
books
4 > 1 > 3 > 2 > 6 > 7 > 5
movies:
3 > 1 > 2 > 5 > 7.1 > 4 > 6 > 7.2

6 is the best book though

>the book where they retcon everything to DUDE MCGUFFIN SEARCH LMAO
the voldemort backstory was good but the rest was annoying.

Dunno I like 5, 6 and 7 the best because it's where the series is at its darkest. Even if every situation in 7 is saved by deus ex machina

Yates Potter is legit kino.

agreed
youtube.com/watch?v=z8pFS8e5Lgc

Retcon what? We didn't really know jack shit about Voldemort up until then other than the reason he failed to kill Harry. And I think the Horcrux is a really neat concept in the dark arts field

Yates could have had John Williams for the last two movies

He's a hack and he's confirmed for 4 more Fantastic Beast movies


It's bullshit

>4 more Fantastic Beast movies
What? Was the first one not bad enough?

I can at least hope that that means Colin Farrell will be getting a steady paycheck and opening him up to do good movies for the hell of it, never having to bother with cash again.

don't you know user? Colin Farrel was playing Johnny Depp the entire movie. Depp plays the role now that he's been revealed

>implying they won't bring back Colin as the police-guy who now wants revenge for being stuffed in a locker and having his hairs pulled out every morning
They didn't get rid of Brendan Gleeson after the The Goblet of Fire was over, now did they? The smart thing would obviously be to have Grindelwald as a distant villain, while Colin's character provides an antagonistic-ally role for whatever his name was, as they both have to deal with Grindelwald for whatever reason. That way you don't dump the most interesting character of the first movie.