>During post-production, Producer David Heyman went to visit

Actually went well, new Albus looked better in a more serious tone the franchise took.

how many harry potter threads are you going to make?

>>84745700
fucking brit faggot

of course it had to be a muslim fuck to spam these threads the whole fucking day

>"A-at least the books were good."
>"No!"

File: 1473063744424.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

It's a shame he didn't allow the recast, he could have freed himself from being part of the dullest franchise 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
"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.

>>84745784
>>84745804
The /sp/ one was accidental. The one this morning got overrun by autists. Don't ever reply to my posts again.

>>84745804
>fucking brit faggot

Harris was Irish. And a disgusting Taig at that

What the fuck was Harris expecting to happen? That they'd just write out a crucial character from the next 6 movies?

>he was very weak from his illness

truly reddit: the actor

>>84745942
A good director would have yes. But as we know, the later movies lacked a strong director.

>Daniel Radcliffe was initially only offered 125,000 pounds (approximately 181,500 dollars) for this film (Chamber of Secrets). The actors' union, Equity, stepped in and negotiated new terms which increased his salary to roughly two million pounds (three million dollars).

Kek cheap fucks. Were they not expecting to make the rest of the movies after Chamber?

It's a shame he died. The guy they got to replace him absolutely shit on Dumbledore. I consider it one of the worst if not the worst casting decisions in book to film history.

>>84746076
>Were they not expecting to make the rest of the movies after Chamber?

I think it was quite the opposite since actors generally see their salaries double for each sequel they do.
If they started off paying him fuck all early on, they'd be paying exponentially less by the final film than if they paid him more to begin with.

>>84746171
The movies calle for Dumbledore to be more 'active' in the later books though. Harris would never have been able to do half of the scenes.

File: 1499366751398.jpg (306KB, 935x1539px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 935x1539px

Hello mobile numale!
You smite any /pol/ friends today?