Harry Potter strikes back

theefer writes "Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News has posted a link to the Harry Potter & Chamber of Secrets trailer. RealVideo, WindowsMedia and Quicktime versions available. Looks better than the first movie. Muggles, start your crossover plugins."

Comments

Better than the first movie?

[tcc]

I didn't like the first movie, I don't think it did justice to the book.

Maybe it was due to the fact that I saw it on DVD instead of movie theatre, but I think the movie wasn't that great compared to expectations. Of course if you are a kid, chances are you were enchanted to see the book character comming to life. So in that perspective it was probably good. But they did mention targetting the whole family, and I saw disney movies that caught me way more than this one, and most are far less violent or adult-oriented (if I can say it like that).

I thought maybe it was because I couldn't be impressed anymore with special effects and storylines and so on, but when I recall my reaction seeing LOTR, it proves to me that it's not true, that I can still be amazed. Problem is I can't point precisely what I didn't about harry potter... maybe it's the linearity of events, maybe it was the actors...

maybe someone else was stuck with that feeling afterwards and could spring in some discussion as well.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[DaytonCIM]

I took my nephew and some of his friends to see the 1st Harry Potter movie. I thought it was pretty good (although I have not read any of the books), but they all agreed that it wasn't quite as good as they expected.

I think that expectations for some of the bigger films (i.e. HUGE ad campaigns) outgrow the film. We are inundated with print ad and TV spots for 2 or 3 months before the film is released. We are teased with quick shot after quick shot. And by the time the film is released, it doesn't meet with our overgrown expectation. In addition, any movie taken from a best-selling novel tends to not live up to the original novel.

Re:Better than the first movie?

[epukinsk]

Director Chris Colubus is the reason Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was as poor as it was. From where I was sitting, the continuity was crap and all the subtlety in the characters in the book went in one of Columbus's ears and out the other.

Take for example the scene where Madam Hooch drags Harry off for his horseplay in flying class. In the book the scene was extremely tense because you are wondering how Madam Hooch will react. The scene in the movie--because of the music choice, the way the scene is cut and the coaching of the actors--comes of completely flat.

It's sometimes hard to see because the story is so enchanting, but most of the scenes are just completely flat because of Columbus's shoddy directing. Thankfully, the third Harry Potter installment won't be directed by Columbus, but most likely Alfonso Cuaron, director of the current release "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and the 1998 remake of "Great Expectations" with Gwyneth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke.

Though Cuaron might not be the best director in the world, perhaps he will avoid Columbus's biggest mistake. There are certain things that make a good movie that simply aren't necessary to make a good book. Chris Columbus took the parts of Harry Potter that make it a great book and put them on the screen, but he didn't make the necessary changes to make it into a great movie.

Erik

Re:Better than the first movie?

[denshi]

There are a wealth of reasons to dislike the first Potter movie. It was, on the technical level, a piece of crap.

First and foremost, Chris Columbus's direction of shot construction. That movie had the least mobile camerawork of any film I can remember. Even "My Dinner With Andre" was more fluid, and it's just two guys sitting around a table! I can't overstate how significant this is: working the camera *into* a scene, instead of locking it down and having characters face the camera and narrate, is the very foundation of a good scene. Hell, half the movies discussed here on /. are notable b/c the staff are mostly camera nerds: the Matrix brothers had to hack together their systems for the stop-n-rotate scenes, there's so much being done with DVcam for portability, etc. Go watch the Potter movie again, and see if you can count more than 5 tracking shots in the whole freakin' film. Columbus had full lockdown for almost all footage, and tried to fake fluidity in editing. He's a hack.

The casting was mostly remarkable, except for Dumbledore. The guy playing him isn't going to live to the third movie! What was Columbus thinking? Oh, wait, we covered that deficiency already. Nevermind that for a minute. The actors were very good, but they were constrained by camerawork that was no better than a TV soundstage. So excellent casting and delivery, hobbled by poor framing.

Similarly, the stunts were crap. In the Quidditch scene, did anyone else get the feeling they were watching a late-80's graphics demo? Like from 2nd Reality or something?

The score was repetitive and totally forgettable. I intellectually recall the existence of background music, but can recall and feel none of it whatsoever. The best score this year, btw, is in The Bourne Identity, if you like scores.

Costumes & set construction was unusual: I wasn't expecting steampunk. But that's only stylistic, and not a point of contention, unlike the stupid 'flying staircases' scenes: they 1) weren't in the books, and 2) didn't develop anyone's character. It was typical kids-movie tripe: pointless onscreen toys for gefingerpoken und mittengrubben. Besides that, I was thinking, "didn't I already see this in Labyrinth?" Although, if they added David Bowie in tight pants to the later films, you bet you'd find me in the theater more often.

Secret Chambers.

[_ganja_]

What is this? Slashdot "Secret Chamber Day" or something?

Work of the Devil

[Lord Apathy]

Since the bible thumpers seem to be asleep at the switch, I'll go a head and start the ball rolling for them.

Harry Potter is Evil, its the work of the devil. teaches the children the ways of satan and witchcraft. your all going to hell for this ungodly sin.. its EVILL i tell you EVILLLLLLL.

but of course you can help save the children, just send a love offerign.. call 1-900-sucker.. just think of the childrennnn not to mention my doghouse needs a new air conditioner... and I could use a bigger pool.....

Hows that? Kind of lame but I haven't had my coffiee yet.

moderators note: this is to be moderated as funny, not troll or flamebait. If you don't get the joke just go on and come back to it later

Curmudgeon death blow

[Demona]

I haven't read any of the Potter books, nor did I see the first movie. Yesterday I downloaded the trailer at my wife's request (obligatory direct link to the 17Mb Quicktime) and watched it with her. She has read all the books and seen the first movie. Now she shrugged this off, surprisingly enough, so I want your reaction to my statement made immediately after watching it:

"I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that Harry Potter has not been Hollywoodicized, when you see a fricking HONG KONG SPIN IN THE TRAILER."

Yes? No? Maybe? Am I just a curmudgeon, or is there a proper time and place for everything -- and are we sick to fricking death of seeing Hollywood turn the classic Hong Kong Spin into an overused whoring technique that turns everything into everything else and the Matrix?

My wife thinks it'll be during the "Duelling" bit.

Re:Curmudgeon death blow

[Animats]

From the trailer, it's been overdone. The whole point of the Harry Potter books is that magic is [I]routine[/I], and Harry has to deal with it. The trailer has way too much moving camera work.

Rowling is likely to feel about this the way Tom Clancy did about the movie version of "Patriot Games". It's customary in Hollywood to ignore the writer, but Rowling and Clancy write books that translate well into screenplays. Rowling, in fact, is better at it; Clancy's books have several times as much material as will fit in a movie, but Rowling's books translate well scene for scene.

This is the SECOND trailer

[Masem]

There was a first trailer back in June (and shown with several movies, including MIB2, back then) which you can get from Apple's QT site as well as WB's site. This is a different trailer, and shows several new scenes (most which appear to be straight from the book).

(And coincidence or not, Pete Abrams has been doing a Potter parody at Sluggy Freelance for the last couple of weeks, based weakly off the first book/movie).

"Muggles, start your crossover plugins." ??

[samoht]

Tsk. That can't right. Everybody knows that muggles use Windows. It's the wizards who use Linux and thus have need of the Transversus Celeritum Tempus incantation.

When does Darth Vader...

[Wag]

announce he's Harry's father?

Harry Potter vs. LoTR

[NaveWeiss]

So what's worse - HP or LoTR?

LoTR has shallow characters, and everybody knows that (even the fans). Tolkien prefered to concentrate on his universe rather on the characters, and the result is that I don't care about the protagonists, so why would I care about the story?

HP has much more interesting characters, and they develop through the books. The main problem is that it's childish. There are gags which repeat through the series, like for example the usual mess Harry Potter leaves in the Dursley's place before his school year start. I get sort of an industrial feeling when I read it.. especially during the fourth book.

But what, at least HP is a page turner. I couldn't finish the first LoTR book - I had an urge to fall asleep each time I read it.. (especially after the gang left the Elven village).

And about the movies.. HP was more interesting than LoTR.. but what, I think the HP book is more enjoyable. After all, the movie has to cut a lot of stories.. and besides, it's still fun to imagine the story yourself.

Opinions, I got opinions...

[A nonymous Coward]

... so mod whores, here ya go :-)

Harry Potter in the book is a spunky little kid, always tweaking his cousin, always getting into trouble, even when it's not intentional. The movie Harry Potter is too damned cautious or timid. I can't imagine him pissing off Dudley even by accident.

The movie left out Hermione's contribution to the final part, and also changed a bunch of it around for no particular reason.

Re: Crossover

[Nailer]

I was thinking about this earlier today and realized I'd be happier to have to pay Apple for a native Linux Quicktime player than pay to own Crossover Plugin (as I do now).

This is great

[JFMulder]

The Harry Potter books are the best books that I read in the last few years. I've read many good fantastic books (including, LOTR, evidently) and what striked me with the Harry Potter books is that they are so much fun to read. The Harry Potter's universe is very magical with a lot of funny touches and mystical creatures. It's a world you'd like to be part of. I can't wait to read the fourth book which I bought yesterday since I heard it covers even more the magical world of Harry.

It took me a month to go throught the first book since I wasn't so much in it, but it took me a week to go through book 2 and 3. They are that good.

People shouldn't put anyway Harry Potter books because the first books are written toward a younger audience. They are for everyone, as Bilbo the Hobbit, a book Tolkien had written for his kids.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[JFMulder]

I asked the same question at a bookstore yesterday and I was told that it was comming out in 2003. The book is donem, but J.K.Rowling wants all translations done before selling it. So the book could be done, but it's not out yet since the translations aren't finished.

Re:Chamber of secrets?

[Hast]

Perhaps you should try reading more books. IMHO the HP books have been pretty bad so far. Mostly it's been a silly version of a child detective story. The last one did make me want to read number five though, so it may be that they are shaping up.

But compared to SF stories like "Do androids dream..", "Enders game", "Speaker for the dead", "Use of weapons" etc they are really simplistic. Just get a list of other nebula winners and you see a lot of books that are way better than any in the HP series. (So far at least.)

Re:Are you CRAZY? [AC reply / nvws]

[Hast]

Well what would you know? You didn't even finish the first book. There is character development, particularly with Sam and Frodo, in the later parts of the triology. Read it, then comment.

Three hours?

[Schnapple]

I've read the first HP book and, though I'm not a hardcore reader, I could probably put away the other three in less than a month, so I'll do the "read book quickly before movie comes out" routine for this one.

That having been said, I noticed that the books get longer and longer, with the fourth one going over 700 pages. At this rate Harry Potter 7 may give War & Peace a run for its money (W&P, BTW, makes for a hilarious gag on the back of your toilet). However, the first movie was three hours long and we all know that audiences don't have an attention span longer than that (myself included). I assume that HP2 will be 3 hours as well, but given the "faithful/not faithful" debate, doesn't it stand to reason that the movie series is doomed to become less and less faithful to the books as the movies have to cut more and more out?

Am I the only one that thinks they shoukd have made the first movie 2 hours and left themselves some room?