Harry Potter 3 trailer!

It's online at - EXTERNAL LINK - and it's awesome!!! 8)

Hooray. (Notice my enthuiasm)
I don't know, the Harry Potter books are pretty good but the films are kind of cheeky and too aimed at childhood audiences. It's not as dark as it should be, and it in no way can or will ever compare to the Lord of the Rings movies. Everyone thought Dobby was cool, but then you see Gollum and there is just no comparison. Now, I have hope for Harry Potter 3, because it's the best book in the series, there's a new edgier and riskier director (The guy who did Y Tu Mama Tambien is directing this one) and this one has Gary Oldman and David Thewlis in it! Plus, this film, if it folows the books, will be much darker and creepier than the previous two and will definetly deal with Potter growing into adolescence and all the pent-up anger, emotional problems, etc. that that implies. So, if the movie is as good as the book than it will be great, but I don't have too much hope...

I disagree with your assessment of the movies when compared to Peter Jackson's "LOTR" series. The "HP" movies are better and much more enjoyable than the "LOTR" ones. For me, the "LOTR" movies don't have the kind of character development that I seek in films (after all, the whole shebang is one long battle).

I can't remember much character development in the "LOTR" books; I think Jackson just adapted what was there. Much as I like the "Potter" movies for their look, the "LOTR" is more epic in scope, more moving despite the lack of character development because we still like the characters, and more stunning in execution. The "Potter" movies are simply cute by comparison.

John

John,

But, that's not an excuse/reason. :)

Eddie

While it seems like it due to what is imported into America, most of Japanese animation is NOT fantasy. Most of it isn't even about giant robots or naked girls, lol. Rather, Japanese animation covers the whole spectrum of filmmaking, from traditional to experimental, from comedy to drama, etc. The animation industry in Japan is far more prodigious than the one here in the U.S. Most quality American animation is produced by feature-film studios like Disney, DreamWorks, and Pixar, but even made-for-TV and direct-to-video fare in Japan can be Grade-A stuff.

Sasha, you're not alone in not being ecstatic about either the "HP" or the "LOTR" movies. Just the other day I was sharing drinks with a guy who thought that both series could've been much, much better. There are always complaints, of course (as much as I like the "HP" movies and "LOTR 1", they all have flaws).

By the way, John, I know what you mean about individual taste, but I was addressing someone else when I wondered why people cite "directed at children" as a negative. :)

Speaking of "Excalibur", let's hope that Bruckheimer's "King Arthur" isn't a piece of ****. I really want to see someone tackle the Arthurian legend well. "Excalibur" was too long and lumpy for me...

You're right John, how could I forget "Willow"? That's a cool movie, too.
I also really liked "Dragonheart" with Dennis Quaid and Sean Connery as the voice of Draco, that's a sweet movie.

And don't forget about Neverending Story! That loved that movie so much as a kid. Haven't seen it for a long time so I can't say what my reaction to it now.

Neverending Story by Michael Ende is a great book, but the movie is pretty awful. It's cheesy, the characters aren't fleshed-out well and the film leaves a good 50% of the book out. If you liked the movie, read the book, you'll probably like it more.

TGP,

Can't argue with you there. I think I'll probably find it a little bit cheezy now, but all I remember is that it had a great theme song and the movie was such a adventure for me when I saw it many years back.

But I think I might read the book sometime.

I LOVE "Brazil." And I agree with you that it defies categorization. Modern fantasy satire, maybe?

A few years ago a reader took me to task for not liking "Willow" as much as he did, but I still think it's a good traditional fantasy film. And, of course, both Cocteau's and Disney's "Beauty and the Beast," most Disney cartoons, in fact, and....

Come to think of it, there haven't been many traditional fantasy movies that have been all that successful, have there? I liked "Excalibur," but didn't care for "Dragonslayer." "Conan the Barbarian" is fun, but not "Dungeons and Dragons" or "The Dungeonmaster." Some of Ray Harryhausen's work is delightful, too, like "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jason and Argonauts," etc. I dunno. Hard to beat "HP" and "LOTR" in my book, though.

John

I don't think these fantasy movies are BETTER, but they are very good:
Ladyhawke
The Dark Crystal
Labyrinth
Brazil (if you consider that fantasy)
Legend

I never got into anime or japanimation, so I don't like any of those, but the above are great movies. "Brazil" is the only one that may be better than LOTR. There are other good fantasy movies but these are the only ones I remember.

I just saw the trailer on the site... and I have to agree with you Eddie... it looks AWESOME! I don't know why it's so easy to get engrossed in these movies that are obviously a focus towards a younger audience... but it is! J.K. Rowling is brilliant. I love all of the books, and the movies so far.

TGP,
I'm not sure exactly how you can compare LOTR and Harry Potter. While I love both movies (and books) for what they are, they're apples and oranges (for lack of a better cliche'). How can you directly compare a movie that's family oriented, versus a movie thats SO incredibly adult? They're two completely different genre's! As far as being aimed at childhood audiences, I think that was J.K. Rowlings goal. If you remember back when Harry Potter And The Sorcerers Stone (the book) was first released, it was in the "Childrens" catagory. Only after it had been out for a while did the adult audience get hooked, and turn it into the Potter phenomenon that it is today. It's kept less dark and less "edgy" so that kids don't come out of the theaters traumatized. While the books are more extreme in some cases than the movies (for instance the character Mr. Dersley) I think the reason being is, it's harder for a child to imagine horrible and disturbing imagery in their mind than to bear witness to them via hollywood gore effects, and shocking imagery on a 30 foot screen. I just like both movies for what they are. I think they're both incredible in their own rights. I just don't think they should be compared as one better than the other.

- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Apr 1, 2004]

I'm with John on this.

Actually, Night Creature touched upon something that really puts things in perspective. When people read the "Harry Potter" or the "LOTR" books, their reading levels and maturities determine what their minds visualize. On the other hand, when the same people see a movie, they only visualize what is being given to them. Personally, while I agree that the "LOTR" movies are technically better accomplished than the "HP" ones (it's no contest between Gollum and Dobby, with the former winning), the "LOTR" series became rather soulless after "LOTR 1". This isn't a problem with the "HP" movies since each one is self-contained (of course, this would fall under the "apples vs. oranges" thesis that Night Creature also raised).

I'm perplexed that some have cited the "children's bent" of the "HP" movies as a negative. What is inherently wrong with addressing younger audiences? Being "kids" movies did not hurt "Babe", "The Secret Garden" (1993), "Little Women" (all versions), "Kiki's Delivery Service", etc. On the other hand, something distinctively geared towards adults ("Showgirls") can be ****. It's not the age thing--it's about quality.

I don't think, Eddie, that anyone is disagreeing that the "Potter" films are well made, fun, and enjoyable, no matter what a person's age. It was your comment that they were "better and much more enjoyable than the 'LOTR' ones" that prompted my own reaction. They are better for you, no doubt; but not for me.

John

Is there anybody else out there in the world who thinks that both Harry Potter and LOTR series movies suck? Because I hate to argue on my own.

No, you're the only one.

Seriously, I would imagine there are a lot of people who didn't care for either of these movie series. Both of them are rather dark and bizarre and maybe a little too silly, violent, far-out, or nonsensical for some viewers' tastes. I enjoy sci-fi and fantasy and think these two movie series are among the best-produced examples of the fantasy genre I've seen, but everybody is different in their tastes.

Are there any fantasy movies you'd propose as better than these? We'd like to hear your opinions, even if you are alone in them. There are no right or wrong answers here, so everyone's comments are as welcome as another's.

John

I just wish someone would make a film of Clive Barkers "Imagica". Now, that would make a very cool fantasy movie!

;)8)

Oh, I also consider the Star Wars Trilogy fantasy films...so they are worth a mention :)

Expecto Patronum!!!!!!!!

Such passion in your spell casting Harry.