It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I can't see the first two films being ranked that high. I'd set them at the bottom, with a few empty ranking spots above them. They're childish, albeit intentionally. And it became a cliche that various competitions were won by HP, or HP and friends, and "Yay !"
A few things.
1) I regret that your parents were initially against the HP series, @FoxRox. I honestly don't understand what's eating Christian fundamentalists when it comes to a pleasant work of fiction that pretty much all children seem to enjoy. I know that some even went so far as to organise book burnings of the Potters, which makes it tempting to lump them in with another crowd that used to enjoy book burnings a few decades before. Such medieval practices are inexcusable in my opinion. It's good to know that you were at least allowed to read them eventually. I'm sure they didn't cast demonic spells on you. ;-) I didn't read them until I was a 35-year-old man, and even I had a blast with them then.
2) I think Rowling is a bit unfairly maligned over her opinions. I don't believe the problem is her views on women's rights; I believe the problem is the heavy politicising of said views and the wars they seem to incinerate in the sewer pits of the Internet. Granted, she does continue to poke the bear herself, so I'm not going to defend her entirely. It's become much more of a battle over principles and "freedom of speech" anyway, so I'm happy to leave it at that.
3) I, for one, agree with your list. I will also add that the FB series doesn't even come close to the average quality of the Potter films.
Funny the kid playing Harry played a Oliver before too like Daniel did. Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton where only one of kids i have heard/seen before there playing in Harry Potter. Those kids are complete new, but i hope there not already be to old. I hope there be smart and mabey film so soon as possible and film things for second season. Also with Dominic my first thaught was i wil choose earlier for Nevill (Marcel in Dutch) or young version of Voldemort. The girl looks smart and oldest of all three and mix of black and white. I also think about it who can play the parents, mabey Rory Kinnear can play James Potter in the mirror.
The girl has already played a wizzard before in theater version of Matilda.
I still think earlier Paapa Essiedu have been a better choose for Kingsley Shacklebolt, in the movies played by George Harris. Background story of snape as refeald in 7th novel and explain his other name in previously book. James Potter was not really a good guy with atack Snape only because Lilly and others don't liked his dark inside.
I knew the hate was coming. It’s disgustingly predictable at this point.
Having a massive transphobic arsehole as its author, waiting to make further millions from it opens it for further horseshit.
What was she expecting to find on X, anyway?
People go there to behave like that. It's owned by a person who bought it exclusively so people could resume behaving thus.
An absolute stain on humanity.
First look at Dominic McLaughlin as Harry Potter and Nick Frost as Hagrid as filming begins at Leavesden Studios, UK.
I'm not a massive fan of the books but I think remaking them is fair: the films are really quite old now and kids want their own version (with better effects!), and the films had to chuck out a lot of material. It's good for the country too, will bring in a lot of money.
The photos are furthermore taken from behind the scenes. I'm sure that everything will me made to look special when all the editing is being done.
That said, I do believe the films are still not that old. Star Wars is more than twice as old as the first Potter film and remaking that almost 50-year-old film would still feel a hundred years too soon. I think kids today can still discover the Potter films and enjoy them. When I discovered Star Wars, Raiders and the first few Bonds as a kid, their effects were already seriously outdated, yet that didn't stop me, and probably many folks here, from becoming huge fans of these proporties. I do not so easily subscribe to the notion that kids need their own generation's effects and whatnot. I give them a lot of credit to figure out what they like about a film other than its modern visual flair. I wish the people making this new Potter thing all the luck in the world, but I, too, believe it's too soon.
Lastly, if they stick close to the books, what's the point? The "old" movies did that too. If, however, they take too many liberties with the books, the purists will have their pitchforks out. I predict some more culture wars, sadly enough.
I have no problem with different adaptations of books in this particular instance. If Chronicles of Narnia can have multiple versions between film and tv (including one being developed currently for Netflix) then Harry Potter can have a tv adaptation. It’s not as though filmmakers called it quits after one adaptation of, say, Oliver or any other Dickens book. I doubt anyone would care if they adapted the Harry Potter books for theatre, or did a podcast/radio version of them. Ultimately it’s limited source material that can be reinvented in different mediums. The films certainly aren’t perfect either - I like the first three (although even in the third certain plot details seemed a bit vague to me, as if they hadn’t been adapted very well) but I thought the David Yates ones were often quite badly directed. The stories lose me a bit anyway by a certain point and become a bit convoluted.
But I’m not a Harry Potter fan (some of the worst memories of my childhood are from well meaning adults trying to get me to read those books, and even today trying to read that prose irritates me). Many people are fans though, and I can understand them being excited for a new adaptation. I’m not sure if it’s necessarily going to be as widely viewed as the films were, but I can see the logic in doing it.
What also doesn't help? Is they are repeating the books again? Why not create new stories for Harry and his friends?
Exactly! But therein lies the conundrum, I'm afraid. The HP films ended up coinciding with the publication of the books, which were exceptionally popular (and, in fact, still are). If you cut the films loose from the books, it would feel like an amputation to some. However, if you simply tell the books' stories again, then why bother?
Fantastic Beasts tried to create something fresh yet not interfere with the Potter series. It didn't do so well. I guess there's no Potter without Potter. And a continuation of the HP story, with our main heroes now firmly in adulthood, would probably not work either. A retelling of the story, with new kids, is the only way to go... unless we conclude that it would be best to do nothing at all in the foreseeable future. And that's probably where I stand right now. The 8 HP films are still good. They can easily live many more decades before being deemed too old, even with iffy effects in some of the early ones. I think this new stuff is about greed, and nothing more. And I predict that it'll be just a polarizing as many other films and series.
Plus I always view these things in terms of the amount of jobs and money this brings into the country, not to mention a legacy of increased tourism, and to be honest I kind of think that’s more important. If folks decide these new ones aren’t for them then they have the option not to watch them, but it’s good for our economy to have this show so I’m all for it. (Also happily that weird tariff idea from you-know-who hasn’t stopped them shooting it in a place which isn’t the US, so hopefully that bodes well for Bond to stay put).
It sounds like you and I have slightly different perspectives on the Harry Potter films and their potential future. My concern seems to be maintaining the integrity of the original story without unnecessary additions or retellings that could dilute its essence. You see potential in reimagining the series, possibly improving upon the original adaptations and generating economic benefits through job creation and increased tourism. I can see your point, and I agree that exploring new creative opportunities can benefit various stakeholders, including fans and the economy. (And I don't mind bypassing you-know-who and his clumsy ideas.) I will check out the new series, by the way. But I do, indeed, think that it's all happening a bit fast, especially if they're sticking to the books. Then again, I will admit that twenty-four years since the original film is a long time, especially for the target audience.
I feel like the TV show was supposed to allow for the straight adaptation all those fans were hoping for. However, there will obviously be compromises that pretty much make the premise useless. For example, Ludo Bagman, a sleazy bettor, pretty much has no impact on the story. The actual final match of the World Cup (and the following moments) is probably not important enough to dedicate an episode to. Each episode will need to have some sort of punch to it, and there are segments of the books where really only lessons and some interpersonal drama occur.
However, her detective series (written as Robert Galbraith) about Cormoran Strike and Robin Ellacott are currently my favourite series of crime novels. I'm completely sold on these books.
I wasn't even aware of such books existing. So you are actively recommending them, @NicNac?
Alas, I haven't. Is it good?