Harry Potter

>>87049205
3>1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rest

File: mateo.jpg (26KB, 586x330px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 586x330px

1>2>3>4>5>6>7.1>7.2

1>2>4>3

The rest were garbage. Harry/Ginny romance was meh.

>>87049205
3 > 6 > 7.1 >>> 5 > 1 > 7.2 > 2 >>>>>>> 4

3>7.1>1>2>6>5>7.2>4

What kind of homosexual faggot watch this shit?

>>87049383
yes

>>87049377
>The rest were garbage.
Even HBP? I thought everyone liked the light-hearted parts and the ending

4>7.1>2>7.2>6>3>1>>>>power gap>>>5

File: 1503425836209.jpg (548KB, 1616x2896px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1616x2896px

As much as I'd like to attempt to disagree, I can't prove you wrong with regard to one 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.

Just 3

Books
3 > 2 = 6 > 4 = 7 > 1 > 5

Movies
3 = 6 > 7 > 2 = 1 > 4 > 5

>>87049543
Books:
3 > 4 > 2 > 5 >6 = 7 = 1

Films:
3 > 6 > 2 = 1 > 8 > 7 > 5 > 4

I'll never understand people who put Deathly Hallows Part One so high, it was a a slog to get through.

>>87049659
7.1 weeds out the plebs and it looks like we got one here.

File: IMG_0063.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>87049531

>>87049748
It's not badly shot or anything, but the writing and pacing was dreadful. They picked a terrible point for the cliffhanger, which also affected Part Two because it had to start with 30 minutes of talking in a seaside cottage.

>>87049659
7.1 isn't fastpaced, no, but the character interaction and growing tensions between the trio is really well done. Hell, pretty much every scene is very well shot and excellently directed. It knows when to do humour and when to do emotion. When to speak and when to let the image speak for itself. It's genuinely well done, and not many genre movies let themselves be understated at times. I love that it isn't guns blaring everytime all the time.

>>87049659
Only one tasteless happa rates it highly

I like that everyone loves 3 the most, cant beleive I'm agreeing with /tv/

>>87049531
copypasta right?

>>87049506
>GoF the highest
Do you think you're being funny mate

>>87049205
5 > 7.1 > 3 > 6 > 7.2 > 1 > 2 > 4

You cannot refute this

Yeah, order of the Phoenix is the best by far plebs

>>87050172
I don't like how the longest book turned into such a short movie, some wasted potential there.
Plus, the battle at the department of mysterys should've been MUCH cooler, it was nowhere near crazy enough.

However the main conflicts, Umbridge and Harry dealing with his pstd, were pretty nicely done, especially Umbridge

>>87049531
yeah this

>>87050172
>>87050302
>I don't like how the longest book turned into such a short movie
I agree, I think it's actually the shortest of all the films. The stuff they did adapt was really well done and like you said, Umbridge was done perfectly.
But they cut out so much stuff from the book, so many subplots and character interactions, and they cut a lot of Sirius parts as well which made his death feel less sad in the end.
I can see why they cut out the St Mungo's Hospital stuff but it would've been great to see that realised on film, and who wouldn't want to see a Lockhart cameo?

>Plus, the battle at the department of mysterys should've been MUCH cooler, it was nowhere near crazy enough.
It was a bit of a letdown, and they skipped all the action in the book with all the fucked-up stuff in the various rooms in the Department of Mysteries.
And even though Dumbledore VS Voldemort was pretty cool, I preferred the book version and Dumbledore bringing those statues to life and showing his famed Transfiguration skills in action.

>>87049531
Why did you steal someone else's comment? I just saw it yesterday

>>87050044
It's universally seen as the best one by just about everyone. Also the pasta is just there for fun

File: 32456962345.jpg (428KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1024x768px

Ravenclaw

>>87050792
Slytherin looks fun to fuck like a sub, desu

>>87049531
Ive never even heard of half those books, youre making shit up

3>2>1>>>>>the rest

>>87049205
Why are people obsessed with ranking them? They're all good in their own way.
Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets were great, comfy Christmas viewing.
Prisoner of Azkaban really nailed the mood and felt different in a good way.
Goblet of Fire was still good entertainment even if it didn't follow the book that closely.
Order of the Phoenix did a great job at making the series darker.
Half-Blood Prince was full of funny moments that make it stand out.
Deathly Hallows were expertly shot and did a great job with building things up and consequently showing the pay-off.

>>87049659
I'd put 4 before 7, but this.

>>87050644

>He's only been on /tv/ for a day

I have been lending out my HP to my friend to watch as he never read the books and only saw the first few movies when we were kids

I am sitting there explaining everything on the side and where the movie is deviating from the book and it is astounding to me how they figured they could make these movies and do justice to the story with explaining so little to the viewer

>>87051876
I've never spoken to anyone who watched the movies but didn't read the books. Is there a lot of stuff they don't understand without having read the books?

>>87051387
>Why are people obsessed with ranking them
Welcome to the internet, faggot

>>87049205
3 >> 2 > 7.1 > 1 > 6 > 7.2 > 4

>>87052118
>Is there a lot of stuff they don't understand without having read the books?
it's crazy is what I am saying. I know that the books are not some epic piece of writing and that the film adaptations have their flaws but seeing it from the outside in like this with all the questions coming at me makes me realize how shitty the adaptation part is, no joke.

so many characters come and go only mentioned by name, certain people's British accents sound weird and the editing can make it hard to follow.

>>87049880
how was it a cliffhanger, it shows dobby dying then it ends

>>87052385
my friend is pissed off that dobby disappears for 3 books and when I told him dobby is responsible for gillyweed and the room of requirement he thought that was total bullshit that they adapted it differently

>>87052385
That's my point. It was stupid to end the first part at that point in the story. They tried to make it more exciting by showing Voldemort break into Dumbledore's grave but it was still a bad cliffhanger.

>>87050792
Hufflepuff for me, Slytherin looks like a slut.

>>87050073
You have shit taste anon

>>87049383
Finally, someone gets it right.

File: sneksnek.png (837KB, 965x835px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 965x835px

who slytherin here?

File: yes.png (1MB, 1034x839px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1034x839px

>>87055226

>>87050792
Ravenclaw>Slytherin>Gryffindor>Hufflepuff

Why does everyone shit on 4 so much? Real question.

>>87049205
4 is kino

>>87057225
I think it's because it differs too much from the book itself, I still think it's a pretty enjoyable film though.

>>87057225
It's the first one that really deviated from the books in a lot of ways. They originally wanted to make it into two parts and I can see why because a lot of stuff had to be cut to turn it into one film.
I don't think it's bad, it's just a terrible adaptation and a lot of book fans didn't like that.

File: 133610024869.png (31KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x400px

I always wanted to do a review series on the Pooter movies.

I think there's a lot to talk about. They're not all dreadful, but they are ALL insidious cash grabs.

Best of all is how HP fans will bite your dick off if you insinuate that the dullest franchise in movie history was cobbled together to make a quick buck. The same people often say "I read the first three books and then just watched the movies lol they're good".

>>87057680
>They're not all dreadful, but they are ALL insidious cash grabs.
Obviously they were made to make money but you're mistaken if you think that's all it was. A lot of love and effort went into creating those movies. The Hobbit trilogy was a cash grab, Harry Potter was a project everyone loved to be involved with.

>>87057809
Watch Order of the Phoenix and tell me it's not lazy as fuck.

>>87057887
It's not my favorite one but I wouldn't call it lazy. It continued the trend of cutting a lot of the source material, but what was actually in there was good. Umbridge couldn't have been done better and the new set designs were amazing. What's so lazy about it in your opinion?

>>87058046
It cuts down the entire length of the book to the stupidest parts. It completely devolves into a CGI shitfest probably because normalfags love that kind of thing.
The big problem with the movies is that they seem to rely on the audience having read the source material, instead of just being their own thing.
>Well we don't need to explain this because bookfags will understand it, so let's just go into a magic battle scene lol

>>87057680
I dunno man I'd say they're all pretty well made movies with nice production values that seem like a work of love, although I would be interested in a series that goes over what things they didn't cover from the books and how Rowling has completely lost her creative spark over the past 5 years.

>>87058264
It is basically a summary of the book rather than an adaptation I agree. No idea what you mean by CGI shitfest unless you're referring to the prophecy's crashing down. The Dumble/Voldy fight was always going to be CGI.

>The big problem with the movies is that they seem to rely on the audience having read the source material, instead of just being their own thing.
I can't really argue that because everyone I speak to about the movies has read the books. I know a lot of stuff was cut out but I think the general audience got the gist of it.

>>87058281
>I would be interested in a series that goes over what things they didn't cover from the books
I'm all for that. But I can't blame the movies from being so different from the books because you just can't adapt 500 pages into a 2,5 hour movie. If they ever made a remake or a tv show thought I'd be interested in seeing a version that follows everything down to the letter.

>>87049290
fpbp

>>87049205
shit>every Harry Potter movie

>>87058281
>>87059134
People always shit on the idea of a HP tv series but I bet it would work. Getting rid of the stress of adapting the books in 2 hours of cinema could really work and give some space for subplots and stuff that got lost in the filming to appear again

>>87050302
>>87050605
reminder that Hallows part 2 is the shortest movie

>>87049205
3 is the best
5 is the worst

>>87049383
>>87049506
>7.1 being anywhere near that high in the rankings
nopenop

I've recently re-watched all the movies and have been coming to /tv/ regularly to discuss them and I was surprised that there was a thread a day here. It's basically become a general at this point though I'm not complaining, I just don't know why you don't make this a general anyway seeing as there's threads every day

>>87049205
Good rank OP but 7.1 is underrated
3>7.1>6>5>7.2>2>1>4

Am I the only one who really digged Cho Chang? I've always had yellow fever, but adding in a Scottish accent really sealed the deal for me.

She's also intelligent (Ravenclaw), popular and athletic (Quidditch). Fuck Ginny, Cho was best girl.

>>87049205
1 EE 10/10
2 EE 10/10
3 11/10
4 8/10
5 10/10
6 11/10
7 11/10
8 9/10

>>87063182
>11/10
This triggers my autism

i dont know why people hate 1 and 2 so much. they are accurate to the books and are completely fine for what they are, an adaption of a children's book.

goblet of fire is the best book and they absolutely butchered it with the movie

3>6>8>7>1>2>4>5

>>87063605
The first two were great because they followed the books and created a great atmosphere, I'll always love them for introducing the wizard world in a great way.

>goblet of fire is the best book and they absolutely butchered it with the movie
My man! Goblet's story is probably my favorite but they fucked up so much with the movie. Where's Bagman? Where's Dobby? Where's Percy? Where's Barty Crouch Jr.'s backstory?

>>87049205
Best, most kino series

>>87049531
We pasta now

File: quote.png (100KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 850x400px

One of the few times I agree with bookfags. The Prisoner of Azkaban was one of the few fiction books I have ever read and it far surpasses the movie. I read it whenever I could and finished it in two days. I was H Y P E for the movie when it finally came out but was sorely disappointed.

It's been so long though I barely remember anything about it. I might watch it again because thats when Emma was F I N E AF SENPAI.

>>87063855
who gave a shit about all that, I just wanted the challenges to be cooler on screen

>>87064098
they mostly got the book right, they did drop a lot of the backstory though

>>87049531
>The Picture of Dorian Gray as anything but God-Tier
>Ulysses is just a stupidly boring waste of time for intellectual cock stroking
>still makes Middle-Tier....

>>87064282
Filmfags will never know the origins of James, Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew and them creating the map.

>>87064124
But they weren't. Especially the maze task with the upside-down world, the sphinx thing and the blast-ended scrotums never appearing.

>>87049531
>look mom i posted it again

>>87064397
>Filmfags will never know the origins of James, Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew and them creating the map.
is that what got me triggered? fuck it was so long ago...

>>87064397
>Filmfags will never know the origins of James, Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew and them creating the map.

yea i dont know why the fuck they dropped that. they could have easily explained that in some short 1 minute flashback or something.

>>87064494
As far as I remember they never drew the connection between those four and the map, as far as filmfags know the Marauders were just some random guys from the past.
Best part of PoA was the revelations in the shrieking shack but they left a lot of it out.

>>87049205
literally anything else>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harry Potter Films

The worst thing was cutting Dobby from GoF and the following films. He just appeared out of nowhere in Hallows for the first time since CoS and people were supposed to care about him even though they cut all the stuff about him working at Hogwarts, giving Harry gillyweed and spying on Draco etc.

>>87064675
seems really fucking familiar. i know they took their sweet time with those assholes. also i remember the dementors seeming scary as fuck but when i saw the movie it was blah.