Why did the harry potter films fail as a film series? I don't mean in terms of gross...

Why did the harry potter films fail as a film series? I don't mean in terms of gross, I mean in terms of them being worth watching

Was it the actors or something else? The actors are terrible, granted, but are they not solely to blame?

Dull

The first two are pure comfykino. The third is alright but not as good, and everything after that I've never bothered watching more than once when they were first released. But I could watch the first two right now and enjoy myself thoroughly.

At least the books were good.

they rushed the plot and cut too much out. In the process some of the magic was lost and it became mediocre.


the third is the best you stinking pleb.

Where is the pasta guy?

The third is the best but it's still terrible cinema. It's not the kind of film where you say "Oh yeah, I have a night off, totally want to relax and watch the third HP film". All it is is the best HP film. It still sucks

kinda hard to put everything that was in the book into the movie, though they really captured the environment well, with the school & wizarding world as whole

but then the 6th movie came out, right around the time twilight was getting big, and they decided to pivot and go full on teen romance with it instead of staying closer to the books

Twilight's biggest film earned significantly less than Harry Potter's poorest commercially performing installment (at least before the finale of each series). And HBP really had a lot pf teenage romance even in the books

care to elaborate? you might as well say it's terrible kino.

Didn't Rowling veto Spielberg from directing the movies?

Ew i can barely watch the first two these days. Looks too childish

I don't know why.

I remember the feeling that came from reading HP. It was the feeling that you were part of an interesting world, where there was intrigue and mystery and it was cool.

Rowling is an idiot but she struck gold and created a world which people wanted to be a part of. It was high school but there was magic to it.

The movies make me feel like there is no magic in the world, and that the only experience you're allowed to enjoy is this on the surface, and there's no history or meaning to anything. Like it's there for such a short period of time that you can't even feel connected to it.

Why wouldn't the series fail when Harry Potter has been one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? 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 r-right
"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.

NO!

Why did the harry potter films fail as a film series? 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.

Somebody post this pasta. I just got off ban for posting it and dont wanna risk it again

Third was the best lmao

weak opening desu
2/10

They tried to make them too dofferent from the books
Which is a shame because JK may suck at writing and worldbuilding and staying relevant but the stories would have actually worked decently on screen

They couldn't have known that Emma would end up a terrible actor and Grint + Radcliffe would end up manlets. Hard to complain though because I love Daniel Radcliffe.

>tfw people are always saying "lol I can't take daniel radcliffe seriously, all I see is Harry Potter!"
>I've seen all his films, can't wait to see him in The Modern Ocean
>was rewatching PoA recently and kept having "lol this is Daniel Radcliffe"
it's like he exists as Dan the adventurous indie film actor and also Daniel Radcliffe from the Harry Potter series.

meant
>"lol this is Daniel Radcliffe" *moments

Because in the books, Harry is a likeable protagonist who is powerful but not infallible

In the movies, Harry and Ron are both fuckups who can't do anything right without Hermione The Goddess carrying their useless asses

You're some kind of queer, right?

no lol

Of the trio he's easily the best actor, but that's not really saying much

I hate the fuck out of Daniel Radcliffe because people always used to tell me I looked just like him when I never even liked HP.

>They couldn't have known that Emma would end up a terrible actor
And not even good looking at that.

>Alan Rickman dies

>Daniel Radcliffe writes a short story recounting the great things Rickman did and what impact he had on Daniel's life, in a personal and touching farewell to someone he deeply respected

>Emma Watson promotes feminism and says k miss u cya l8r

Why did Dan end up with the less successful career
It isn't fair

lol my brother had the same issue. Didn't even look like him he just had dark hair and glasses.

That was kind of the point, and that's why they're the best. I didn't bother after 3.

>when I never even liked HP.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Acting I agree on, but this is pure b8

I had the same issue, only I had round glasses so I REALLY got it fucking bad

I mean, it was kind of offensive to me.

How about explaining why it failed instead of just stating it and acting like its true?

Some of them are good, some of them are average, none of them timeless cinematic classics but the series will never be forgotten just like the dollars trilogy wasnt . The only things I truly dislike about the franchise is the last few (6,7) due to the forced romance and plot threads starting to feel forced

You resembling an actor whos movie you havent watched offends you. 90s born faggots were a mistake.

>man face
>clipped dyke haircut

The first three were perfectly fine. The first two were like a comfy fantasy blockbuster and the third had just enough seriousness to offset the more lighthearted parts. Then it became an edge-fest with gloomy visuals and even gloomier actors that only became worse as the series went on.

Women have it easier nowadays. Just say the right things and the industry is gonna kiss your feet.

The main problem is that a lot of it ended up rushed due to time, which lead to things like the romances coming out of nowhere, though in the books they'd been much more obvious

It would've worked better as a television show like GoT (though probably not as long) but the idea at the time would've been laughed at

>Atlas Shrugged not anywhere on the list

An enormous change of style and feel of the movies.

>though in the books they'd been much more obvious

from what I remember from the books, they werent exactly good in there either. The only "romance" part of the entire series that feels well handled is the ball in goblet of fire, everything else was badly handled. Ginny+Harry and Ron+Hermione is basically just "were the main characters so we will end up together eventually oh and rons sister is harrys gf since there is only one hermione"

This, never understood the appeal after the third. First two were the best.

Yes, because Spielberg wanted pic related to play Harry

Why did his carer fail?

>The actors are terrible
you try and act in a convincing manner whilst having to wave a wand and utter phrases like "stupefy", "expecto patronum" or "avada kedavra"...

I just watched all of them and I thought they were pretty alright.

The heroin

Stfu with ur obvious b8

The last couple were absolute garbage. Teen drama for undeveloped characters. I guess people projected what they read in the books on to these characters.

I enjoyed Goblet of Fire though, no idea why it gets so much hate here. Visiting schools and a wizard tournament that's been corrupted? Dope

Just as the book, the first two are innocent childrens book with interesting world building, the third has great world building and a story that makes sense and everything else dogshit.

>child actors
There's your problem

Does anyone understand why Harry doesn't have any post-traumatic stress after he kills a man by burning him with his hands in the first movie?

The plot to Goblet of Fire was retarded. Why would Dr Who kidnap and imprison a famous wizard, use a seemingly limitless supply of Polyjuice Potion to imitate him for a number of months (until he conveniently runs out at the end of the film), illegally enter Harry into a dangerous tournament where he could easily die (even though he needed him alive) and turn the trophy into a portkey (which would mean his plan relied entirely on Harry winning the tournament despite being up against more experienced competitors)? Why not just secretly turn one of his everyday items into a portkey to the graveyard? He could have even turned Harry's broom into a portkey so he would have been teleported when he accio'd it during the first challenge.

Why didn't dunbledore just apparate to mordor

>The Modern Ocean

this movie is either a meme or a money laundering scheme, it will never happen. There have been literaly zero news about it for the last two years.

Post Emma?

>Why did the harry potter films fail as a film series?
They didn't. This franchise has a unique personality of having creative and distinctly different directors interpreting the source material in various ways. The last 3 are pure kino, French cinematography. Most of the films are great, only 2 are sub par, and one of that pair sucks.

Ice cream

Rupert seemed like he had the most potential out of all of them

Fourth Goblet of Fire is the comfiest one after the first desu

wouldnt doubt it desu

Half Blood Prince was dark, classic gothic aesthetic kino.

As a fan of the book the GoF movie was laughably bad

What's on Emma Watson's "I need feminism because..." sign?

>forced romance
Where are you retards getting this from? Who? Ron and Hermione? You realize that is in the books right?

>I mean in terms of them being worth watching

lol. Let me guess, everyone in this thread has seen all 8 films in this "failure" of a franchise.

Even in the books Ron and Hermione was forced and JK admitted that.

Watching the movies, I was wondering why Harry ended up with Ginny instead of Luna.

She never admitted it was "forced", stop with that meme buzzword. She said it was a mistake. They spent their entire school career together, fought a dark lord together...it doesn't break my immersion that they would fuck.

This.

Ginny wasn't as lame in the books. And she looks like Harry's mom

Looks like Kiefer's vampire in Lost Boys.

>literally the epitome of comfiness

Say what you want about this movies, but you can't deny this truth

It absolutely does when it's clear that now way in hell would Ron and Hermione could ever possibly fucking work.

Book Ginny was an uppity cunt and a slut. And Also still a Weasley so at the most a 6/10.

Even Harry's attraction to Ginny in the books was forced and made no sense.

100% agreed. All of the HP films are shit, at least those two are comfy. Too bad they decided to move to a darker tone for the rest of the franchise, I guess they thought because of their audience getting older they should go into a more mature atmosphere, which pretty much ripped that one thing the films had going for them.

I've never understand why Harry Potter book series was even popular.

It's not that greatly written and the setting is literal childish. It is literally a children's fantasy novel and nothing more.

How did it blown up so big?

>It absolutely does when it's clear that now way in hell would Ron and Hermione could ever possibly fucking work.
So, because it doesn't work in your goofy headcanon, these two kids who spent almost every together, wouldn't develop feelings?

You read the books. You saw their personalities. There's no way in hell those two are together for decades.

Well, they are...

jewish viral marketing
literally everyone i know who read the books did so because someone else reccommended them

And it's forced.

Because of children man, what else? I was 10 when they got me the first book for Christmas and I loved it, so I just kept getting the rest as presents, by the age of 19 I got the last book, a special edition, gift from my uncle. Now I know I was a bit too old for Harry Potter, but you can't just not read the last chapter of a series you literally grew up with and got sucked into its world so many times. Never liked the movies though tbqh.

that's how people learned about things before the internet though

They're best friends and polar opposites who share similar views/morals. It makes pefect sense

Lack of a single unified vision for the entire series due to the director changing several times, rushed pacing in 4 and 5 due to the books being too long, filler-padded pacing in Deathly Hallows due to the movies being too long.

Imposter

The forced aspects of the book series and film series were pretty forced.

Forced things always seem so fucking forced.

I'd give my third nut to go back in time and force the author and directors not to force anything.

Too bad he grew up to be ugly af
For some reason I enjoy watching him on screen tho

forgot pic

I was 10yo when first book came out, Harry was 10 or 11 so I could relate.
No Internet back then so good book was a nice time-killer.
With every book Harry was older, I was 'growing up' with him.
I understand why older/younger people don't get this.

To you.

they were targeting children, children will watch anything

He actually went to see all of Radcliffe's plays and shit?

What a guy.

Truly one of the greats

Goblet of Fire was good, but it was a continuation of the trend of trimming too much fat from the books. It was a lurking problem in the first two films that came to a head in the third. Goblet of Fire was lucky in that it could fall back on superior world building to mask the fact that almost everything that didn't have to do with the main plot was extracted from the story. Then we get to Order of the Phoenix and even the main plots are getting to be too long so we're forced to rush through those as well.

Dude has a net worth of $50 million. I don't think being ugly keeps him up at night. And even if it does, he can just sleep during the day since he doesn't need to work another day in his life.

I can't imagine how sweet it is to be worth 50 mil...