Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

One director for each Potter movie-

RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
edited October 2012 in General
If I had to choose one director for each Harry Potter (readapted) I would choose the following-

1. Sorcerer's Stone- Christopher Nolan

Why? He would set the tone for the entire series.

image

2. Chamber of Secrets- Steven Spielberg

Why? Im sure he will add a few mixes in chamber that would help it feel fresh.

image

3. Prisoner of Azkaban- James Cameron

Why? He has an epic vision of things and POA could be done really well if we go the mistery route which James would do nicely.

image

4. Goblet of Fire- Alfonso Cuaron

Why? Come on we all wanted to see his vision for GOF after POA... It would be fairly interesting to see it.

image

5. Order of the Phoenix- Ben Affleck

Why? Politics. Need I say more?

image

6. Half- Blood Prince- Marc Webb

Why? He handles comedy, relationships very good as proven before.

image

7. Deathly Hallows- Peter Jackson

Why? Epic battles and storytelling. He would use great music as well.

image

Now what about you guys? Im interested to see who you would pick for each movie (:

Comments

  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Not Spielberg, he wanted to ruin the Potter series by making 1 story of the first 4 books in animated form. I'm glad he didn't get his hands on Potter.
    imageimageimage
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Speilberg wouldnt start the series here though...he would continue with Nolans version. Either Speilberg or Ridley Scott.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    I like Peter Jackson for DH. He would've found a way to interweave storylines for characters like Neville, Luna and Ginny at Hogwarts. Harry, Ron and Hermione on the road.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If they readapt the books, it will be for TV. Just like Game Of Thrones.
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HBO can really turn the books into great adaption.
    imageimageimage
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also, being honest, if they waited until J.K. finished the books, they would have realized that the books would have been better adapted as miniseries than in films.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree with all that except I'd let Nolan do all of them lol
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod

    I agree with all that except I'd let Nolan do all of them lol

    same lol but I did the list for if I had to change em up for each movie.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    chester said:

    Not Spielberg, he wanted to ruin the Potter series by making 1 story of the first 4 books in animated form. I'm glad he didn't get his hands on Potter.

    Well, for starters, he didn't want to "ruin" anything. I'm sure Richard is talking live-action, so, consider it as such. Spielberg directing a live-action Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    But Spielberg wanted an american Harry Potter, made in CGI, in a Hollywood institute, voiced by Haley Joel Osment.
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ^and that's ruining the series.
    imageimageimage
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    Yes but Im talking if speilberg had to do a sequel of Nolans vision. Use the same actors he chose etc...
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But Spielberg wanted an american Harry Potter, made in CGI, in a Hollywood institute, voiced by Haley Joel Osment.

    Yes, and Richard is talking live-action. Consider how that would have been, not how something that could have happened over ten years ago, would have been. Spielberg was rumoured for DH, and he was my top pick, because of how good he is, not because of how he wanted to turn Harry Potter into an animated American flick.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He's good, but how do we know that it wouldn't have been the same as having Colombus?
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,700 mod
    They are two different directors, wouldnt be the same. Besides spielberg would continue with how nolan did it or close to his vision.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It would be different for the simple fact that everyone thinks differently.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It would be different, because Spielberg is Spielberg, and Columbus isn't. Don't get me wrong; I don't see Columbus as a bad director. I see what you mean, but, to say that they could have ended up being the same is rather ignorant.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    SS - No change. Columbus was fine
    COS - I think this movie has the perfect tone for Speilberg.
    POA - No change.
    GoF - Ridley Scott. Imagining him handling Voldemort is a great image.
    OOTP - I like that choice of Afleck. Very nice, I agree
    HBP - Fincher would be perfect. He's the king of making a movie of montages, look at TSN and TGWTDT and no further, and god knows HBP could use those for the memories
    DH - no change, just no heyman to hold things back that are "Saw"
    image
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod

    Also, being honest, if they waited until J.K. finished the books, they would have realized that the books would have been better adapted as miniseries than in films.

    Terrible idea. There is no way in hell that the books would work as a miniseries.

    imageimageimage
  • JordyJordy Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭
    1: Nolan
    2: Spielberg
    3: Cameron
    4: Cuaron
    5: Scott
    6: Webb/Yates
    7: Jackson
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    aaron said:

    Also, being honest, if they waited until J.K. finished the books, they would have realized that the books would have been better adapted as miniseries than in films.

    Terrible idea. There is no way in hell that the books would work as a miniseries.

    It would work better than in films where there's limits in money and time. A format like a TV series can allow to expand the books without any need to cut things and being faithful to the plot. Sherlock and Games Of Thrones are proof of it.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A limit in money? Harry Potter never had that problem. WB went all out.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    WB has all the money but still they put limits on it. That's why they cut Dumbledore's funeral.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    They didn't cut the funeral. Yates and Heyman did.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No. Yates said that he wanted to film the funeral but he was ordered to not film it.
  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    To tell you the truth I want an all new creative production team, WB has too many excuses.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    edited October 2012

    aaron said:

    Also, being honest, if they waited until J.K. finished the books, they would have realized that the books would have been better adapted as miniseries than in films.

    Terrible idea. There is no way in hell that the books would work as a miniseries.

    It would work better than in films where there's limits in money and time. A format like a TV series can allow to expand the books without any need to cut things and being faithful to the plot. Sherlock and Games Of Thrones are proof of it.
    There just isn't a legitimate way to move around all the plot elements to create a series narrative as well as a complete and cohesive arc for each episode. Let's say each book was split into about seven episodes. It simply doesn't work, that would mean that the first book's arc would be split into seven episodes that span roughly 2.5 chapters each. There just isn't enough material for that. Plus, most of it would just be Harry, Ron and Hermione having lengthy discussions and attending classes. That's what film adaptations are for: to eliminate the bulk, condense the story into one cohesive arc and depict that in an artistic and creative medium that is visually appealing. With television you have less options and a lower budget, plus it would require EXTENSIVELY moving around the story but still including tons of bulk details which would bog down Harry's journey.

    imageimageimage
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭

    No. Yates said that he wanted to film the funeral but he was ordered to not film it.

    That's not true. They tried to work the funeral into the narrative of the film, they simply felt that, at the end of the day, it just wasn't working. Yates said that it just felt excessive on top of everything else that had happened.

  • IsaiahIsaiah Posts: 3,342 mod
    So, like they couldnt rewrite a few scenes. I was really looking forward to that scene in the movie.
    LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
    Photobucket

    Photobucket
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    aaron said:

    aaron said:

    Also, being honest, if they waited until J.K. finished the books, they would have realized that the books would have been better adapted as miniseries than in films.

    Terrible idea. There is no way in hell that the books would work as a miniseries.

    It would work better than in films where there's limits in money and time. A format like a TV series can allow to expand the books without any need to cut things and being faithful to the plot. Sherlock and Games Of Thrones are proof of it.
    There just isn't a legitimate way to move around all the plot elements to create a series narrative as well as a complete and cohesive arc for each episode. Let's say each book was split into about seven episodes. It simply doesn't work, that would mean that the first book's arc would be split into seven episodes that span roughly 2.5 chapters each. There just isn't enough material for that. Plus, most of it would just be Harry, Ron and Hermione having lengthy discussions and attending classes. That's what film adaptations are for: to eliminate the bulk, condense the story into one cohesive arc and depict that in an artistic and creative medium that is visually appealing. With television you have less options and a lower budget, plus it would require EXTENSIVELY moving around the story but still including tons of bulk details which would bog down Harry's journey.

    This is quite true. Frankly, Game of Thrones has already run into troubles concerning budget and its only going to continue as the scale and visual elements of the show grow more prominent. I doubt we're going to see Giants and mammoths, for example. The thing with Potter is: does it really have enough material to warrant several hours per book? There's a lot of fluff, a lot of expendable details that the film-makers were wise to cut, and too much exposition by half. Game of Thrones has several(at least) intercepting storylines, Potter has one.
Sign In or Register to comment.