WARNING: minor Spoilers if you havent read the book...
www.hpana.com/imageviewer...ctober.jpg
All I can say is YES... 
I detest the first 2 Potter films as,the first in particular, is just a wander around an enchanted castle and has no soul...
The third film was an improvement and I surprised myself by enjoying it...
And now, The fourth film REALLY does look quite gruseome, which means the director isn't scared of being gruesome he shouldn't be scared of being realistic in other aspects and giving the series a real sense of... I don't know, but the first 2 films were lacking it...
Also, this is our first proper look at Crouch Junior, played by David Tennant who, if you live in the UK, you might recognise from his role as steaming lothario Casanova, moody detective in Blackpool, and more recently just stepped into the Tardis to take over from Chris Eccleston in Doctor Who...
And he really DOES look menacing.
I'll be watching, partly because I was impressed by the improvements of the third film, partly because I dont like the 4th Harry potter book and think it'll work better as a movie and aprtly because I've been following the careers of several of the new actors being brought in...
The next HP had better not be, since the books are getting progressively darker.
I haven't yet got used to Tennant as the Doctor; seeing him as a villain will be interesting. Can't wait for Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter though; she hasn't been in the movies enough. She was a great guest villain in Jim Henson's The Storyteller and I thought she was great in Sleepy Hollow. Mind you, I still find it hard to believe she was in Black Adder...
DW
Dang. Looks like they didn't mess this one up like the last one! WOOT YAR.
I don't see how being gruesome or mature has any bearing on the quality of the film.
But, the first 2 films were TOOO far in the oppoiute direction...
If the director isn't scared to properly shock people then hopefully he wont be scared to present the film properly in a realistic slightly more aduly way...
No one expects it to become a bloodbath or horror show, but the first 2 films really are just sickening in the way they were presented.
so far I liked the third film the nmost because even though it scratched the plot to the bare bones it presented a real story with a real threat that worked both on a mystery AND an emotional level...
It felt more like a movie and less like sitting in the Disneyland ride "It's a small world after all...."
If the director isn't scared to properly shock people then hopefully he wont be scared to present the film properly in a realistic slightly more aduly way...
Last I checked, Harry Potter was a series of childrens' books, read by kids I know as young as five. "Realistic, slightly more adult way" nothing. There's no reason to shoot for the PG13 rating.
There's a very good reason to shoot for the PG-13 rating. JK Rowling wrote the books with the idea that the audience would grow up with Harry. Since he's, what 14 or 15 years old by the time Goblet comes round, PG-13 seems a perfect rating to me.
But a movie can be darker and more interesting without being Evil Dead...
DW
But if Harry Potter has a boomstick in this movie, I'm TOTALLY going to see it regardless of how much I think J.K. Rowling is a talentless hack.
I've only seen bits and peices of the first Harry Potter film and read two of the first books, and in my honest opinion - it just doesn't appeal to me.
Quote:
PG-13 seems a perfect rating to me.
To you. To the rating system that has been put into place, I'm sure the rating will be raised if the stories are darker, and such worsened. But thus far, the MPAA board has deemed the next HP movie to be PG-13 for now.
I personally, don't argue with the board of MPAA, they make perfect since to me; but thats off topic.
But truly if the movie gets enoguh gore, angst, and such - it might skip to a R rating - but then again as stated before: Harry Potter is a childrens book.
One I couldn't care for at that.
Quote:
how much I think J.K. Rowling is a talentless hack.
Amen.
*poofs*
Meh. T'was never interested in Harry Potter. All I have to say is that the movie makers should tread lightly; they could risk the alienation of their younger fans.
What do you guys care? I mean, I swear you're all actually ten, the way half of you insist on everything being PG and cuddly. It's like you're scared of maturity or something.
Oh wait, I'm 14. I don't have to be concerned about this. Where'd my Yoshi beanie go to?
What do you guys care? I mean, I swear you're all actually ten, the way half of you insist on everything being PG and cuddly. It's like you're scared of maturity or something.
No, I love a gorefest as much as the next guy, but I have great doubts as to whether having mature content for the sake of having mature content -- as Hollywood movies often do -- is appropriate to the Harry Potter context. Broomsticks not boomsticks plz kthx.
But I dont want it dumbed down like the first 2 movies are...
If the director isn't scared to be gory then the chances of it being dumbed down are minimal, which is a GOOD thing.
There, thats the point I've been trying to make, at last 
If by "dumbed down" you mean "less violent", I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Unless I missed a gruesome rape scene in The Philosopher's Stone that was replaced with a tea party in the movie, I can't think of anything from the book that was sugar-coated or kid-proofed, assuming it wasn't removed entirely. The only thing dumb about them is the millions of people who paid $10.95 each to watch this schlock.
Quote:
I don't see how being gruesome or mature has any bearing on the quality of the film.
Then I will explain.
| Spoilers (Select To Read)
Starting with Goblet of Fire, the series is not at all about the fanciful adventures of a boy wizard. Harry comes physically face to face with a man who mudered his parents and tried to kill him while he was an infant. This person still wants to murder him. Harry finds himself in a graveyard surrounded by this man and the parents of several of his classmates, all of whom also want to kill him. A fellow student is murdered in front of his eyes. A war begins. The thing everyone has been dreading for thirteen years finally happens: Voldemort returns. The story is, by nature, frightening and gruesome. Therefore, the movie ought to be frightening and gruesome, or it would lession the seriousness of the turning point of the series. |
Frightening? Yes. Gruesome, by Hollywood standards? No, not at all, and there's no need for it to be.
Quote:
Frightening? Yes. Gruesome, by Hollywood standards? No, not at all, and there's no need for it to be.
It's not going to be gruesome by Hollywood film standards. It's going to be gruesome by Harry Potter film standards. Although, it only gets darker, more mature and more gruesome from here, so the Harry Potter film standard is going to be redefined.
I think aiming for PG was appropriate for the first three films, while aiming for PG-13 is appropriate for films four through six (and almost certainly seven as well). Goblet of Fire should, by nature of the content, be the kind of movie you'd think twice about taking your six-year-old to see, but you'd probably let a ten-year-old fan see it . Do you disagree?
If you're going to go for the pg-13 in a children;s book series, why not just shoot for the R and have Harry slaughter zombies, children, and puppies and go around indiscriminately raping people?
Wait, that would be a totally awesome movie.
Throw in a pirate or ninja and a couple Lesbians and BAM.
The Harry Potter books are smart, classy and speak to all ages. They are primarily childrens book but suit all ages, they arent dumbed down...
Although most of the content from the books is available in the films, with the narrative jokes gone they do become asCycle puts it: sugar-coated. No one aspect is suger coated, the entire thing is. Harry Potter and the Philosiphers Stone (Sorcerers stone for the US) ammounts to no more than a giant candy bar, and although it looks nice the film has no soul...
That probem was adressed in the second film and improved further in the third which at last felt like a real movie... It was a kids movie, but it was something I enjoyed watching.
I guess my problem was with the way that the director had interpreted the books, but the first 2 movies were die.
I think Im overstressing what seeing this "gruesome" picture means. It means that the director isn't scared to show dumbed down pics. They could of just made that man ook scared, but they put him in a spiked cage...
They had a flare for design, they did something original...
That inspires me to hope that they can do the same for the rest of the movie, it wont just be about "Harrys happy adventures at Hogwarts the wonderfull land of magic and funny goings on," but a real story about Harry and his struggle to grow up and escape from his past...
The books speak to all ages, some better than others.
The films, the first 2 in particular are best suited to a five year old who sees them and thinks "cool, flying books."
I hate using Doctor Who as an example but I want something like that, something that although it's completely for the children is intelligent and has something for everyone.
I want a family film, not a christmas run around...
...
Harry Potter and the Philosiphers Stone (Sorcerers stone for the US) ammounts to no more than a giant candy bar, and although it looks nice the film has no soul...
Welcome to Hollywood. That being said, I don't see how mature content would make it any less soulless.
I said that the fact that the director wasnt scared to put that man in the picture in a cage like that, that looks like that makes me hopefull that he wont be afraid to make other decisions...
Creative decisions that will give the story some soul.
The third film was brought to life by the continued presence of the Dementors, the second films most animated bits were around the Chamber of Secrets...
The first film had no life at all....
If the director can keep people engaged, just, give the film some life... I'm not sure if they'll be able to, but that one picture made me think that he might be able to...
Kids material or not, the kids will see it anyway. =b and I'm sure there will be a lot of complaining parents when that happens.
~T2K
Actually I find the PG-13 rating a good thing. They are in fact teenagers in the story so they're going to act like it after all. The forth book is suprisingly dark too if any of you even bothered to read it. I'm happy that they're going to stay true to what the writer intended it to be. It's not going to kill kids to get scared once in a while. Just look at the design for that old witch in "Spirited Away." She was designed to look scary because she IS scary. Even her grotesque design took me awhile to get used to without flinching. The same applies for the movie. =P
Because it shouldnt be, but it ought to be up there and competend and not dumbed down...
I've always felt that concerning the first two movies and how "kiddy" it apparently is when compare to the rest, I see it only as appriorate for me because I thought the first two books were more lighthearted. Didn't J.K. Rowling herself said the third book and above were darker? That's why I'm not pissed at the first two movies being all "kiddy." Plus, I don't care what anyone says, that basalik fight is still my fave Harry Potter battle thus far.
~Neo
I agree with what you've said, Swifthorn. What it boils down to for me is that we need to have some proper grasp of just how evil Voldemort is. In the last couple of movies, he's been your typical bad guy. Yeah, he's bad, yeah, you know what he's done in the past. But the film has never really taken you there.
In Goblet of Fire, there should be the opportunity to see the trials of dark wizards, to hear first-hand from survivors and family of victims. The movie should make us *really* want Voldemort to be defeated somehow.
Prisoner of Azkaban was a step in the right direction, keeping the dialogue between Remus and Peter Pettigrew and the latter's view that he couldn't have done anything against Voldemort anyhow, so why bother. Goblet of Fire should show us why everyone should bother to take a stand against evil.
JK Rowling, when criticised for some of the things that happened in the book, apparently said she wanted to show children that bad things happen to good people and can continue to happen if people won't fight against it. I think that's an important message that the film shouldn't lose.
It's not down to how much blood there is or the death toll or zombies or anything like that. It's down to facing that fact unflinchingly and resolving to do something about it.
DW
Quote:
Broomsticks not boomsticks plz kthx.
(Imagines Ash showing up in the film with a certain wistful longing...)
Anyway...
Quite frankly, the books did get pretty dark compared to some children's fiction, even if they lacked the maturity of, say, Philip Pullman. As long as the film's faithful to that, fine. If it goes overboard, not fine. It's tweeness, not bright happyness, that wrecks children's films.
However, I actually thought the first 2 films were better than the third one, due to the fact that if I've ever seen a film crying out for some padding to let the audience absorb the plot, that was it. Unless they make this film three hours long, I expect it to suffer even more from the complex-plot-shoehorned-in-at-breakneck-speed syndrome, which to me does not a good film make. Even a chilren's one.
simple maths equation really, as the books get longer the amount of plot crmmed into each films increases and so does the amount of padding which needs to be shaved.
also, I will see this film for completeness w00t Dragons! *scuttles away*
