Everything has a weakness. The best pro athletes all have their weaknesses. The best countries (Canada) all have their weaknesses. Even the best movies have their weaknesses (well… almost all of them do). So when I say I want to talk about the main weakness of the Harry Potter franchise of films, I’m not suggesting that means the Potter franchise isn’t good (nor am I suggesting the opposite).
On today’s video blog I talk about FINALLY putting my finger on what has bothered me in the franchise and how I think it could have been even better and more compelling of a story.
(sorry about the poor audio quality… I accidentally had the wrong microphone selected)
Comment with Facebook
D’oh!
Honestly, the physics of the spells vs how they are portrayed graphically is the last thing in the world I’d ever give a single thought to.
But you DID just give a thought to it…
well by suck i dont mean twilight sucked… just wasnt my kinda movie.
Hope you don’t mean the Disney Channel suck either. That shit is worst than ANYTHING.
voldemort is in harry potter more than sauron in lotr.
Harry potter is not about the villain so much as the feeling of an impending doom constant in the series.
And when voldemort isnt there, there’s his goons (deatheaters?) which are just as evil.
thats certainly not what potter is missing.
imo all the films have been gradually getting better, with the first two sucking and the recent one being amazing.
the more they start appealing to adults the more i find it to be a great movie.
As does Star Wars and LOTR.
Thats what i feel was missing in the early potter films and is now present.
Yep!! Well said.
Although I liked the first few movies.
The first two didn’t suck at all. Everything else I agree with.
In the first two, when they shot spells, it looked as if a huge firefighter hose filled with Fanta was being shot, the spells seemed like they could seriously fuck you up.
Now..ever since the 3rd movie…the spells look like a little tinkerbell shoots out of their wands…like a little spark shoots out and it somehow throws the person 100 yards back. Ugh!
Harrys expeliarmus in the 2nd movie looked as if a damn filled with red mountain dew had a small hole break in it, and a HUGE wave SHOT out in an explosive way
Snapes Avada Kedabra in the 6th one looks as if tony stark accidently bumped against a car and a spark shot out of his suit accidently. Yet it threw dumbledore like 90 feet up in the air
I totally agree. Almost all of the spells since the third film have just been bland sparks shooting out of their wands.
I don’t agree when it comes to the spells. I think they look cool. Avada Kedavra (did I spell that right?) is how it is in the book, a green light. I wasn’t too blown away with the look of the spells in GOF (well, some of them anyway), but they weren’t bad.
you know what harry potter is missing? DISNEY MAGIC.
Are you joking? I can’t tell.
Another thing that came up as John and I were discussing the HP franchise (it was a long conversation), is that we don’t know what the hell Voldemort wants. Every great villain needs a clear motive, and I don’t feel Voldemort is given one. (This comes from the perspective of someone who has not read the books).
John’s post also is coming from the prespective of someone who has not read the books. and i disagree with him 100%. for the first time
I agree with you Matteo (cool name by the way.)
My problem is the fact that people know that things are gonna be changed when the book is adapted and even knowing that, they still complain about changes. It’s starting to get old and it is really making me feel like it’s just complaining for the sake of complaining.
I think one of the big problems of the film series is that they were adapted before the books were out (books 1-4 were released when the 1st film came out). They were adapted one at a time without the whole arc of the series to focus on. This has lead to the filmmakers not really getting a grasp on the Voldemort arc. I don’t think we should have seen to much Voldemort (a little bit more, but not much more), but I think we should have seen more of the characters evolution.
While Half-Blood Prince, the film, showed us young Voldemort, we didn’t really see his motivations. We saw he was interested in objects, strong magic, and was a gifted student. We see him asking about horcruxes, but the films don’t tell us why?
The books gave us many small mysterious details about Voldemort/Tom Riddle that came together in Half-Blood Prince. The films had Voldemort, but when it came time in Half-Blood Prince the film only had time to set up he had a miserable beginning in which he had powers he didn’t understand, nobody visited him, and he had trust issues. Then they go straight into horcruxes.
In the films we haven’t really got to sympathize with Tom Riddle before he was Voldemort. The book Half-Blood Prince brought up the question of “How do circumstances change choices?” “Is it our choices or circumstances that define us?”
The one thing I missed in the adaptation of Half-Blood Prince was that story of how Tom Riddle became Voldemort. That story that begins with his grandfather and mother, and how even those generations back started Tom’s trust issues which would be the first step that would lead him on his journey of choices.
Of course, the similarities between Voldemort and Harry also haven’t been really brought up in the films since Chamber of Secrets (#2) after the diary was destroyed and Harry didn’t have a real understanding of who Voldemort was.
I didn’t mind the adaptation of Half-Blood Prince. They wanted focus more on the loss of innocence and childhood. I think people will look back on the film and be happy we got to spend some comedy time with out trio before all the WWII parallels and death pervade the two Deathly Hallows films.
Also, we should get more Voldemort than ever due to Harry’s link. Don’t forget the filmmakers are going to have to think of someway to introduce those horcrurxes that weren’t explained in Half-Blood Prince, too.
Oh, and to Bill Clay, I think it’s the movies that make Voldemort duel with a pistol instead of a machine gun. In the book he does fire Avada Kedavra against Dumbledore and uses it in almost every duel. I can’t wait to see him battling at the end of DH part 2, in which we should be seeing much, much more of him.
I don’t think we need to see more of Voldemort in the movies, but Snape should have a much stronger presence. It feels like the movies kind of forget about him. They really shouldn’t. Besides, they got Alan Rickman to play him. You shouldn’t waste that kind of talent
Emma Watson’s eyebrows have been bugging the hell out of me since Goblet of Fire.
LOL. Me too.
Slashbeast, we were constantly shown how powerful and dangerous Voldomort is from moment one of the first movie. We’re constantly reminded of how much fear he instills in their world, and on top of the that, he friggin shows up in the flesh more than once throughout the series. Let’s remember that we’re watching a SINGLE STORY, and the movies are single chapters within that one story. We don’t need to be hit over the head with Voldomort scenes in every chapter.
It’s creates much more atmosphere and a feeling of foreboding and dread if he’s just on the periphery most of the time, out there, but where? When will he come back? Everyone has to have their head on a swivel. THIS is suspense! That being said, I’m not saying the movie capitalized on this as well as it could have. I’m just saying, this is a single chapter in the story. There will be 8 of them in total.
Due respect to John, I think he missed the boat with this one. The movie had it’s problems, but it had nothing to do with Voldomort not showing up this time.
We HEAR about Voldemort a lot, but we never really get to SEE what he can do. Big mistake. They should have at least given something more tangible of him than constant side-distractions and “well, this is kind of sort of Voldemort in a different form”.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you John.
First of all, Tom Riddle IS Voldomort…we can more or less stop there since he appears in this form in two films quite prominently.
Secondly if we’re going to continue, there’s nothing wrong with having this scary, powerful villain that is out there SOMEWHERE. We don’t need him thrown in our faces, EVERY OTHER MOVIE DOES EXACTLY THIS! Sometimes less is more, just ask Alfred Hitchock. I think the skull in the sky was enough.
Voldomort wasn’t the problem with this movie.
I agree with you mate. The whole LOTR trilogy was without the “Dark Lord Sauron” thru-out it’s run with only mention of his name or a view of the ever watchful eye!
Sometimes I question if John has actually read the books? Albeit, it is not a requirement but I feel some things are translated over very well to the movies and other things are just lost or ignored. I too prefer the mystery aspect that has been the theme thru most of the movies, it is a great build up to any action scene.
cheers
I disagree in part. In the books Sauron is built up to be a massive destructive force of evil but we never really shows up. This is easier to get around in the books, but it’s a massive no-no in the world of movies. Peter Jackson opened up his first Lord of the Rings film by showing Sauron smashing through hordes of human soldiers. This enforces how much of a threat Sauron actually is thus he didn’t really have to show up because we knew just how powerful he truly was.
@Slashbeast,
So you are saying that this premise wasn’t established in Harry Potter movies with Voldemort? He is feared throughout the Wizard world, I think his power was firmly rooted and established in the earlier movies. One example would be the killing of Harry’s parents who were powerful wizards in there own right.
No, Voldemort is ever the antagonist through-out. Much like Sauron, even speaking his name is frowned upon, so I must disagree.
Again, we HEAR what Voldemort can do, but we never SEE what he can do. This is one of the core differences between books and the visual medium of films. You can get away with talking about someone all you want in books, not so on film. Peter Jackson knew this and SHOWED how powerful Sauron was from the get-go, we never see this with Voldemort.
Well so far. For the most part the Potter series has kept to the books. They cut things out sure but they always end up where they should be.
I am dieing for Deathly Hallows Part One. Its going to be awesome.
If this is the problem then you, John, would have to agree to likeing #5 the most because it has the most Voldi in it, including a direct magic fight between the two great mages.
I dont agree with this at all.
Changing the movies that much from the books by forcing Voldemort to show up more would be a bad thing.
The only problem with the movies is they are not long enough and cut things out id like to see.
How would it be a bad thing?
because i dont like it when hollywood starts fucking around with books i love.
Changes are inevitable. In fact:
https://themovieblog.com/2006/07/why-people-prefer-the-book-to-the-movie
if I can ammend my thoughts, regarding Snape and Dumbledore:
To be fair, both suspected that Voldemort had done…something…to make himself immortal, which meant the killing curse wouldn’t have permanently killed the Dark Lord had he been avada’ed by Snape or Dumbledore prior to all of the horcruxes being destroyed.
A similar technicality excuses Potter, who is told in his afterlife visit by Dumbledore, that because Voldemort has Harry’s blood inside of him, the special magic of Lily’s death endures, meaning Harry can’t die while Voldemort still lives. So when he finally faces Voldemort in the last duel, he can’t actually be killed so the need to use the killing curse is not dire as no self-defense is needed.
However, no such excuse exists to save Lily. I stand by my argument that she would have no way of knowing Harry would live, and no way of knowing yet that Voldemort was immortal. She died thinking Harry would die with her.
riggs –
Yes, Potter’s mother had the power to kill Voldemort – as does anyone in the wizarding world, provided that they can get the spell out of their mouth before the intended victim sees it coming in their thoughts. And if I recall correctly, the books also say that for the spell to work, you have to really wish the person dead. Knowing Lord Voldemort was coming to kill the infant Chosen One and having just watched her husband die in the street outside, Lily Potter, it’s safe to say, had the desire to kill but clearly not the intent.
As for the magical protection of her love that was passed to Harry by her sacrificing her life? That was not a spell cast by her, but natural magic, an involuntary, unpredictable response – a miracle, for lack of a better word, likely due to the fact that Voldemort was willing to spare her life (perhaps Snape begged him to) but even so, she would not stand aside.
Now you could argue that, like Christ who was similarly offered a reprieve, she sacrificed herself to save other lives. The important difference is that Christ was, depending on your denomination, God Himself or the Son of – at any rate, part or wholly divine, with knowledge beyond the realm of Man.
Lily had no such knowledge. Meaning, she couldn’t know beforehand that she would die but Harry would live. Meaning, she went to her death with the belief that Harry too would be killed by Voldemort. There’s no way around that. There is no evidence in Rowling books or backstory you can point to which suggests the spell of protection that enabled Harry to survive the killing curse was known by any wizard. Even Dumbledore presents the story of Lily’s love protecting Harry as his own theory to explain the singularly unique event – it’s his best guess, as one of the foremost wizards in the world, that it may be the reason why only Harry survived.
So Lily died believing Harry would also die. She died, choosing NOT to use the avada kedavra, the killing curse.
— And neither did Dumbledore when he faced Voldemort in Phoenix.
— Neither does Harry when he faces Voldemort.
— Neither does Snape use the spell to kill Voldemort at any point during his undercover role as a Deatheater, despite having the proven ability to block his thoughts which would have enabled him to cast the spell against Voldemort without the Dark Lord knowing it was coming.
By choosing to accept that both she and her son would die, Lily Potter voices Rowling’s belief that killing anyone for anyone reason is wrong.
And I don’t agree.
I never thought about that before but now I agree with you 100%. But I also always felt that that Daniel
Radcliff sucks as Harry Potter. Maybe it’s just me but I just think he is garbage.
A few posters have mentioned that the 6th movie lacked focus, or a concrete mystery. The “mystery” in the 6th film as well as the book is “How do you kill the unkillable”. The supposed immortality of Voldemort is the main arc of the movie. It’s been 4 years since I read the book, so I didn’t remember a whole lot going in to the movie. But I did get that the movie was revealing the clues as to Voldemort’s weakness. The difference from the previous films is that the solution in arrived at by Dumbldore and Harry, with very little input from the rest of the triumvirate (Ron and Hermione).
One of the themes of all the movies, but is referred to multiple time by Dumbledore himself in the 6th installment is “Harry, again I must ask too much of you.” Dumbldore himself believes that (as referenced in previous movies) that Harry/Vold are linked and that one cannot die unless the other dies as well. The “potterverse” is setup to teach harry about sacrifice so that when it comes time for his ultimate sacrifice, he won’t shy away or flee in fear, his love, and compassion for his friends, family and the world as a whole will help my stand firm in his resolve, unlike Vold whose greatest fear is death.
actually the mystery in the 6th book are “what is malfoy doing?” along with “who’s hurting people?” and who was the half blood prince (which wasnt AS important) the movie killed all three mysteries and neither set up the upcoming movies nor helped the previous one.
Interesting post, John. Here’s my take.
If you watch (or read) the first four installments, the series-long narrative of Voldemort returning and Harry having to stop him moves along at a decent pace. It is when Voldemort is resurrected in 4’s Goblet of Fire that the story peaks and, more specifically, when Voldemort faces Dumbledore to a draw at the end of 5’s Order of the Phoenix, that the series loses all forward momentum as a direct result of its antagonist’s absence.
The first four books are about the danger waiting out there you can’t see but still fear. When that danger is made flesh, you have to up the ante. If Hitler were resurrected he wouldn’t be content to skulk in the shadows for year after year after year – but that’s exactly what Rowling’s Dark Lord does after Goblet of Fire.
He does this, not because his character has proven himself to be patient and cautious in the past, but because the plot requires him to sit tight till Harry’s last year at Hogwart’s. Those final years are exactly when the series should be moving faster, not slower, yet that’s precisely what happens in the plodding Half-Blood and the aimless final book, Deathly Hallows.
Further exacerbating the problem of Voldemort remaining hidden through the last three years since his return, is the fact that there is no counterspell to the killing curse. This is Rowling’s universe, so I’ll allow her the run of the rules. Trouble is, anytime you show someone like Voldemort in battle with another wizard, there’s nothing to stop his killing spell. So, with no defense for her heroes to use, Rowling takes away the machine gun and makes Voldemort duel with a slingshot. He simply doesn’t use the spell. That’s why Dumbledore’s still alive at the end of Order of the Phoenix, when just a book later it’s clear that Voldemort wants him dead. It’s a false step, as a reader and filmgoer, I feel like I’m being manipulated by the writer.
Yet this is no accident. Rowling doesn’t offer a counter spell to the Avada Kadavra curse because, as becomes clear at the end of Potter’s journey, his creator’s viewpoint as a writer is that killing under any circumstances is morally repugnant – and doing so tears your soul open. So no hero in her series ever kills anyone in all the books with the killing curse – that’s right, read ’em again: no bad guy is ever directly killed by a good guy with a spell intended to kill.
And as much as you may have felt uneasy with Half-Blood, John, the ending of the final book will send you into a rage. Virtually the entire plot has been manufactured to make sure that Voldemort dies by his own hand.
So while I initially enjoyed the Potter books because I found the task put to Harry Potter so enormously challenging (a simple boy tasked with defeating the worst and most deadly wizard ever to have lived), I was left speechless when at the end of that journey I finally realized that his author never intended him to fulfill that goal. And left stupefied by the non-sensical plot device she uses to complete her own mission which essentially states that if Harry’s mother could have killed Lord Voldemort ages ago and saved the world from his miserable terror, she would have torn her soul, so it’s really better in the long run that she sacrificed herself instead.
If anyone is holding out hope that Voldemort will redeem his absence in the final two films, know this: while it’s called the Deathly Hallows, a more appropriate title would have been “Harry Potter and the Extra-Special Wand You’ve Never Heard About Before That Saves The Day.”
“And left stupefied by the non-sensical plot device she uses to complete her own mission which essentially states that if Harry’s mother could have killed Lord Voldemort ages ago and saved the world from his miserable terror, she would have torn her soul, so it’s really better in the long run that she sacrificed herself instead.”
can u explain that one please? how could she have killed him?
Bill, this is one of the most clear and intelligent “essays” I have read in a long time explaining everything I’ve been feeling but couldn’t put into words that made any sense to anyone but my 10 week old son.
I can now take a deep and fulfilling sigh.
Don’t know if it was mentioned but I think HP (maybe the excluding the last) movies should be treated as separate stories. When the series ends, there will be eight movies in total. If every movie was about voldermort, it’ll be repetitive. It’s more a problem with the source material, book series tend to extend their run to be more profitable, hence a series will become more diluted with crap essentially.
However with that last movie, what really killed it was that we’re never sure what the movie is about, things just seemed to happen without any explanation given to them. Maybe an a real antagonist might of helped but I don’t it would of excused the total fuck up that was the narrative telling. Again I’m not sure if this was a problem with the original book or the screenplay.
That’s probably why you DID like the 4th and the 5th movies… Because they seemed like they DID have an antagonist (especially in 5 with Umbridge and Voldemort both getting a fairly decent amount of screentime). Movie after movie, you’re getting this idea that something big is going to happen… and then it never does… I’m really hoping they make the final movies phenomenal and include a lot of that good guy vs. bad guy stuff that the originals lack… I like all of them, but I agree that they’re not as exciting without a strong antagonist.
I don’t agree. The first three films you know there is a build up to the return of Voldemort. Even though he wasn’t in the six, you still knew he was there because people were still working for them. The books and movies are still exciting even without actually seeing our villain. Hell, Lord of the Rings (as a book) never shows our villain, and in the movies Sauron who never does anything but sit in a tower as a giant eye. Don’t see anyone complain about that!
I dont know how else ot say it.
The movies are just too fucking pussy. Thats it, theyre freaking pussy.
The books were so beast and badass but the movie was so pussy.
Its the only word i can describe it with.
Another word would be measly or fail.
But I can’t wait for Deathly Hallows cause the book was awesome. And the last Harry Potter film, even in two parts, they won’t f^^k it up
Are you assuming that the other Harry Potter films were “f**ked up”? Cause I thought they were great.
And Hazmat, I know you’re tired of hearing this, but again, a book and a film are two different things, man. They didn’t cut things out because they are, as you say, “pussy”, they cut stuff out because they don’t need it and so that we don’t sit through a ten hour movie, even if it is Harry Potter. This is done with every film adapted from any material. Changes have to be made. So to say that someone pussied out by doing what everyone does with an adaptation is kinda stupid. I respect your opinion, but I don’t necessarily agree with it.
Just saying
Sorry I meant “insinuating” when I said assuming.
They dont “need” it?
Ill tell you what they dont need.
They dont need the goofy humor and the stupid teenage romance, they DO need the stuff they didnt put.
They cut off IMPORTANT stuff and put in irrelevant shit, if they put the important stuff and forgot about the stupid romance, the movie would still be 2 hours long and i wouldnt be having this convo, its not about the time, its about how “PUSSY” it is to put in the retarded teenager stuff which has no meaning to the story and leave out the main stuff. Ridiculous.
I loved the other harry potter movies, not number 6, the other ones where good because i always thought that the stuff they missed would be made up in this one, but not, voldemort didnt even have an appearance in it.
Its just by the grace of god they managaed to squeeze in Dumbledores assasination in the midst of all the romance between Ron and Lavender
I don’t agree. I didn’t think that the film cut out all the important stuff. Sure it didn’t have the fight or the funeral. But they could easily say (spoiler for those who haven’t read the book) “Oh, the elder wand is buried in Dumbledore’s coffin.” And plus, there was enough time with the death of Dumbledore, and as for the love story, it was used as it is in the book. Are you gonna say it wasn’t right to use in the book too?
We got what we needed for the story to work. What works in a 600 page novel is different than what happens in a 120 page screenplay.
First off they’re way longer then 120 pages.
The fight shows important stuff, it shows you that Harry trully loves Ginny, it shows you that Greyback turned Rons brother into a werewolf, it shows some kids dying, and the funeral was important as well.
But those are only but two of the many things. They failed to show that Harry says goodbye to his aunt and uncle, it shows that Dudley actually kinda liked Harry, and he would have been a good kid if it werent for his piles of shit parents. Also its important because they had a spell put on them to protect Harry, Lily casted it before she died.
The gathering of magical creatures for the Death Eaters is a biggie, the army thats being recruited is extremely important, also- it seems that no one gives a shit that Sirius Black died…not a WORD about Sirius…not one. This whole book was supposed to show a crapload of people changed because of this.
The dementors guarding hogwarts was also esential. they showed what seemed to be…vikings guarding hogwarts..it would have taken the same amount of effort to put dementors there instead.
One of the coolest scenes of the next book is charlies wedding with fleur delacour, in which they get attacked by death eaters, now how will they have it if they havent shown HIM or HER?? Hes supposed to be a wolf by now, so obviously, the next one will NOT have that awesome scene.
The next ones 2nd most emotional moment is dobeys little funeral, of course, i will bet my penis that scene wont be in it, Dobey has litterally been forgotten.
And Nevilles parents! Agh! This movie could have been so great! What the fuck!
They could have put this in, and forgotten about ron making out with lavender, or luna SPEAKING. And who gives a shit about the next goalie for griffindor???? Just show us the GAME, we dont have TIME to see the griffindor TRYOUTS..
Mad Eye Moody. Was obsolete in this as well. And they failed to even TALK about the other horcruxes. Out of the seven they only show the ring and the destroyed book. Wtf?
I know were all entitled to our own opinion but, broh… they could have at LEAST included one of these things.
When I say 120 page screenplay, I’m giving an example.
I could tell that Harry really loved Ginny when the Burrow was attacked, so I don’t understand why that would be bothering you.
They could easily have Fluer and Bill get married in the next film without questions.
Plus, they already mention in the story that Lily Potter put a spell to protect Harry, in the scene where Hagrid and Slughorn was getting drunk after Aragog’s funeral (which I hated that scene by the way)
Also, they’re gonna talk about the next horcruxes in the next film probably. And Dobby was kicked out of the fourth film, but no one seemed to mind.
I understand that they could’ve had this or that in the film, but they didn’t, so people should just get over it. I feel all movies should just stand on their own, despite how close it is to as a book. Don’t get me wrong man, I respect your opinion and I know what it is like to see something you really like turned into something you didn’t want (hell, I still can’t forgive Fox for the things they did to Eragon, even though I liked it as a film), but I feel that you shouldn’t complain over changes. But that’s just me.
But they NAILED the teenager romance. Like…wtf? I think its all a joke and theyll just re-release the movies next week and say
“HAHA! We where just joshin’…here are the movies 3-6 ”
But…you have no idea how awesome I thought this movie was going to be, i can find you articles in which i said that this would be the best movie of the summer. Like I had 100% faith on it. I was so disapointed, i cant begin to explain how sad i was when i walked out of that theater, i felt like literally crying.
You cant ask a fan of something to get over it dude, I mean, I dont know because im not the biggest Star Wars fan..but- Those fanboys look like they aren’t over episode 1-3
I can understand it Hazmat. Like I said, I still can’t get over the fact that they screwed up Eragon (even though I thought as a movie it was alright).
“Here’s movies 3-6” LOL
I definitely agree. When I rewatched the first five before seeing HP6, I noticed that you don’t even see Voldemort until the very end of the fourth movie. (excluding on the back of that guy’s head) However, I don’t know if I would call it “the” problem with the series. The looming return of the dark lord does work to an extant, but stretching it so thin does hurt the films.
Now, in the early movies, you don’t need him, but when the whole plot starts to revolve around him towards the end of the fourth movie, we need to see more of him. Maybe if the plot of the fifth and sixth movies was combined, he would work better as a villain.
I loved the Chuck Norris comment – totally had me going for a minute!
Yeah, I almost hyperventilated.
You find my name funny? I mean, funny–like I’m a clown–my name amuses you?
/goodfellas
I agree in that there really was no villain in this last film…but that was because there really was no complete story in this last movie (which is why it sucked, in my opinion). I think the center to why any of these movies aren’t good (i actually like the first two the most) is that they weren’t adapted to film very well so that there would be an engaging story. Now, i think that the first four did this well. Numbers 5 and 6 not so much.
Hey John, why do you hate the 3rd one so much? You always say that when you talk about Harry Potter, but Ive never heard your reasons. Its personally my favorite one.
Plot holes.
The physical vacancy of Voldemort throughout the series is what makes him such an excellent antagonist. He is a mystery not only to us but to Harry and even Dumbledore to some extent until the 6th and 7th installments.
The idea in leaving Voldemort out alot is to play on the fear of the unknown.
This is also supported in the fact that we know very little about him until the 6th installment.
In terms of the Half-Blood Prince, it does actually have Tom Riddle as a young boy and as a student- we see this in the memories Dumbledore shows Harry because in this part of the story we are looking at Voldemort’s history.
This is an absolutely essential part of the story!
We also still get a sense of where he is at in this movie- attacks on the Muggle world, gathering followers etc.
I also think that as a whole HP shouldn’t be referred to as an action franchise and this is part of what is leaving viewers disappointed with Half-Blood Prince.
I think it really is a story and character driven franchise as a whole and that the action should have been second fiddle the entire time instead of just in Half-Blood Prince.
I’ve loved every movie but I will admit some have been better than others. Personally I felt Goblet of Fire was the WORST adaption of the entire series, even though it’s your favourite John it didn’t capture the emotion of the book and kind of stands out as the sore thumb of the movie franchise.
I think I’ve rambled on enough now…
I’ve had a lot of problems with the Harry Potter film franchise but I don’t believe that the lack of an antagonist is the MAIN reason that the series has been up and down. But it is definitely one of the reasons.
I thought the first two Harry Potter films were great. I thought the third one was terrible even though most people liked it. I consider the fourth to be the best in the series because it captured the sense of magic in the original two films with the more artistic and darker leanings that the third one introduced. The fifth was easily the worst in the series. It felt like a series of loosely connected events rather than a cohesive whole. I haven’t seen the latest one but I’ve been hearing mixed things about it.
I think the main problem with the newer films is that they lack a sense of wonder and magic which is what Harry Potter is all about. That, and they seem to be rushing through every scene to get to some disappointing climax.
There are seven books, so naturally the interesting parts are going to be spread thin and the series is going to hit it’s fair share of slogs and pacing issues.
The books really are mystery-oriented. The films have been billed as action-oriented and I think that’s why people have been disappointed when they find out that the action is few and far between.
Back to the antagonist argument. It definitely holds water. Ralph Fiennes is a fantastic actor, but he’s simply not very menacing as Voldemort. Throughout most of the films, Harry and the gang have been solving mysteries which lead the audience to one direction with no real villain but then Voldemort just seems to get thrown in at the end.
I think you’re right John for the most part. I mean you never really liked the HP movies until the 4th one and that’s when Voldemort finally comes back and has a body. Then in the 5th one his presence is kinda looming over the entire movie and he is constantly put back into the audiences face through Harry’s mind link visions. And there’s even a little bit of visions in the 4th one, I mean that’s how the movie starts. So while arguing about quality of a movie is difficult the fact that the more Voldemort there was the more you liked the movie is undeniable.
But Voldemort is never in the 6th book at all so it makes a little sense not to have him in the movie.
But I agree that they probably could have added him into the movie because no matter what they do the book fans are gunna complain about how different the book and movie are so they could’ve changed it, in fact I think I have an idea what exactly they could change.
In the scene where Snape talks with Helena Bonham Carter’s character and makes the unbreakable vow or whatever, they could have had Voldemort do it instead of Carter. And then in the end after Snape kills Dumbeldore he then returns to Voldemort telling him that the deed is done and Voldemort smiles and says something like “then my time has come” or something like that. It would seem very sinister and ominous, and they could maybe put that scene in right before the final one where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are on top of the castle so they could at least end on a slightly happy note despite all the darkness.
Having Voldemort request Snape make an Unbreakable Vow rather than Bellatrix?
Narcissa and Bellatrix are coming to Snape behind Voldemort’s back because Narcissa wants to enlist Snape to protect and support Draco.
Bellatrix questioning Snape’s loyalty suggests the Unbreakable Vow in order to put Snape in a position that could unearth his true loyalty.
Having Voldemort here would make absolutely no sense.
Ok I love the 3rd, 4th and 5th Potter films. I would agree with John on this idea. The first 3 Potter films we hear about how terrible Voldomort is but we never get to see him. Now the 3rd film I think is the exception cause it was more suspence then the other films. But when I got to see Voldomort in the 4th film it made me more excited to see the next film. Then when I seen the 5th film and how bad ass he was it made me wanna see the next film. Cause the 4th was his re-birth and our introduction to the character. The 5th we got to see him as a real threat. Makes me want to see the Deathly Hollows even more.
I personally disagree. I can see your point about the importance of an antagonist in movies, and for the most part you’re right.
But for me, the thing that works so well in Harry Potter books and films, is the mystery. I personally love the third film, and I know that quite a few agree; and the reason is that that film nailed the mystery element, despite their being no prominent villain throughout.
Having said that, Ralph Fiennes does such a good job as Voldermort, its sad to hear he doesn’t play as big a role in HP6.
I have to disagree for two reasons.
1. There are multiple villains in the series. None of the installments are lacking a villain. It just happens that a lot of the time it’s someone not Voldemort taking center stage. I think the variety of opponents Harry faces is a strong point of the series. You have Quirrel/Voldy, Riddle/Basilisk, Petigrew, Fake Moody/Voldemort, etc. One of my favorite villains is Umbridge because she doesn’t fit the typical movie mold of villain.
2. You compared the HP series with Action flicks, but that’s really not what HP is. No I’m not talking about the fact that they’re fantasy. What they are more than anything else are *Mysteries*. Yes there are villains, and yes there’s a main villain, but the majority of what happens is the three main Character’s following clues and solving mysteries. What is hidden in Hogwarts and who’s trying to get it? Who opened the Chamber of secrets, both now and 50 years ago and who is Tom Riddle? Who’s trying to kill Harry in the tournament? What are Voldy’s various schemes for returning and how do you stop them? What’s the weapon he’s after? Where are all of his horcruxes?
I think this is the answer to your argument. Think of these more as mystery novels, not as Action, or even LotR style fantasy. In a mystery, you aren’t combating your enemy face to face, you may not even know who they are or what they’ve been doing until the end.
Well, I generally agree with you, but if you take a closer look, you realise that while the presence of mystery in books are great, it is a terrible flaw to have a movie with so little action. The first movie, with Quirrel, we can give you that because it’s an introducing movie. As for the second movie, there’s great mystery, but I bet it could be better if we had a little more Riddle story.
As for Pettigrew, please, he barely is a villain. I bet any side character could deal with him.
The 4th movie is considered one of the best because there is the mystery, the fantasy, the adventure and then there is the constant presence of Fake Moody, who is the villain. And it’s just awesome we don’t know he is the villain.
As for Umbridge, she annoys me. Like hell.
hmm. they do make more sense as mystery films. you just turned my world upside down. good thought.
Very interesting thought. I agree that Voldemort is lacking as a traditional antagonist because of his physical distance, but there are some justifications for why it still works for this series.
1. He is a defeated villain for the first half of the books. It isn’t until the 4th movie that he even has a body again. They had him there as much as he could be.
2. There are pseudo-bad guys in all the movies. We had Quirrel/Voldemort in the first one, Tom Riddle (young Voldemort) in the second one, Sirius Black in the third, Barty Crouch in the 4th, Umbridge in the fifth (god I hated her), and Malfoy/Snape in the 6th. Malfoy/Snape have also really been pseudo-antagonists for Harry throughout the entire series.
3. Psychologically, he is always pretty present. It gets stronger, of course, as the films go on, especially with the mind-link between him and Harry. We, the audience, know that he is building up in the background and his physical vacancy adds to his mystery. The mystery is the main feature of this book. Harry’s discovery of this whole world, that he is such a huge part of without even knowing it, is how the story functions; we learn with him. If we saw more of physical Voldemort we’d reduce the mystery AND we’d be going outside of what Harry is experiencing.
So yeah I can see what you’re saying, but to me the invisible villain is an acceptable burden for such a great story.
I think that this is one of the major flaws of the entire Harry Potter franchise. The books take place over 7 years, and when we barely see the antagonist over these grueling long durations of time, it creates inconsistencies.
J.K. Rowling has stated in the past that Voldemort and his objectives change as time passes, which I can understand, but at the same time, not showing us anything as you said, leads these changes to become leaps of faith for the viewers and readers alike.
Voldemort is a great villain in the first film and book, a “Hannibal Lector” like character who is deranged, villainous, and wholly twisted, but then he by the final stretch, he is more of a suave, evil land owner, more interested in securing power than simply causing chaos as he was depicted earlier.
Also, as said above, Rowling would have us believe that these villains, and many of these heroes, are capable of great capacities of destruction due to their training and power in magic, however, by crafting the story in the way that she has, we are left with usually empty battles, where the ending is almost always going to end in a anti-climatic stalemate, where generally no one is even killed,
I would have to point one thing out. I agree that the battles are anti-climatic stalemates in the movies. I wouldn’t say that “Rowling would have us believe”, but that the movies would have us believe. It may seem nit-picky, but the books are quite different in that regard. Multiple characters die, or are severely injured in battles. In most cases these have been cut going into the movie adaptations.
a fenrir greyback vs bill weasley scene wouldve been awesome imo.
I agree with you John, but would put this another way…
The movies lack contrast. Light and dark, good and evil. To trully enjoy the whimsical magic of the Harry Potter world it needs to be referenced against the pure evil of Voldemort. I feel like the franchise goes for a bland middle ground rather than swinging from light to dark.
I just think (and I personally love all the films) that the pace and structure of the books, being a story that is spread out over the course of seven years with each adventure being the duration of a school year, lends itself much more to television than it does to film. But the world of the books is impossible to realise on a television budget.
So what we’re left with is a film adapation that contains the heart, the characters and the spectacle of the piece but cannot hope to tell the story completely effectively (at least not by the literal adaptations they’ve been doing).
Also, regarding the vilains. It’s not just that Voldemort barely shows up but he, and every flipping one of his Death Eaters, show up for every film and get away every time. It’s pretty dramatically unsatisfying that after six years Potter (who killed a giant fucking snake in the second film) still can’t cast a good enough spell to beat Mr Werewolf Man or Crazy Hair Lady.
I don’t think that distracts from the films, but u do good point. Each HP film builds up to the showdown between Voldemort and Harry Potter. We learn more Voldemort in each film and that builds up anticipation for each new installment. There are so many magical elements and events in the HP series and it is very hard to condense these events in each film. However, i think the films displays those fantastically and they run smoothly. Yes, Voldemort is the main villain in the series, but there are antagonists in each movie, but not as menacing as voldemort. I think the latest film works, because it’s a very character driven film. I enjoyed the humor in this one and it’s a good stepping stone to the final two movies.
I donno if the problem would the lack of a villian. I’ve always felt the presence of Voldermort in the movies even if it’s in a round about way. I think the problem is more of how to visually display little bits of information that will go on to later playing a bigger role especially since the books weren’t finished when the movies started.
Since our attention span is less while watching a movie the question is how much should we show this big information without hammering the audience over the head or showing enough that people don’t forget it and later ask where the hell did that guy come from.
The books to me where set up like detective story. Where from only Harry’s point of view we try to piece together clues that will come into play later on.
John you are totally right about this- I always felt similarly, but phrased it differently- which is that I always felt that the potter movies showed the kids wandering and talking way too much without a solid focus- but I think it is because you never see the enemy, so you never see exactly what they are fighting for, or what’s really driving the story.
Good call!
“What exactly are they fighting for” is the right question.
Supposedly there’s this looming threat that will destroy the planet. But before we get to that then lets follow these kids on a date and enjoy a good butter beer at the pub. Oh, btw, did you see that strange new magical creature? How utterly whimsical!
I get it. This is both a coming of age film and a grand adventure. But the two worlds never seem to mesh because the rapid pace of the scene-jumping fails to keep things in focus. And the biggest plot/emotion points seem to be dictated rather than felt. Hermione loves Ron. Dumbledore is badass. Voldemort is scary. Sirius Black would be a great godfather. Harry is the savior. These aren’t things we know because we saw it play out on screen, we know it because a character basically stopped in front of the camera to tell us.
Snape is the only exception here because he seems to be the only character with an understated depth, and to me that means he’s the only character I really had an emotional investment in.
^ I completely agree.
Well to be honest, the only thing that put me off was waiting an additional 8 months to view HP-6 because of studio greed.
I disagree with your comments about Valdemort, although he is not in this particular film his presence is ever looming throughout. The best thing about this film was Dumbledore. Since Richard Harris passed away and was replaced with Michael Gambon the Dumbledore character has suffered until Harry Potter 6 which Michael delivered a very powerful performance IMO. This was the first time I believed Michael Gambon was Dumbledore!
really? this is the first movie i felt like dumbledore was a douche until the cave scene and the last scenes. the start of the movie didnt express his charm or his subtle jokes from the book.
One of the lamest recasts ever.
No way. The old Dumbledore wasn’t nearly so fun and lively as in the books.
No way. The original Dumbledore had a much more commanding screen presence, the recast Dumbledore barely registers on-screen.
Funny, I was going to say the exact opposite thing. The old one had a cool voice and all, but Gambon is so much more expressive. When watching the first two films, the old Dumbledore almost comes across as a caricature.
And in any case, there’s no way it was the worst recasting ever. There are many aspects in which Gambon better fits the character, “screen presence” aside.
Whoa! I never said it was the worst recasting ever, I just said it was one of the lamest. For me, the new Dumbledore falls flat.
Gambon made the character look like more of a fool, not the wise man that the original Dumbledore was portrayed as.
But that’s just my opinion, it’s no more right than yours.
I didn’t think either actor was suitable for the role. Richard Harris was too soft-spoken but brought out the light-hearted side of the character. I always thought of Michael Gambon as too aggressive to be Dumbledore, he’s always shouting and doesn’t appear as a kindly old mentor like Dumbledore was in the books. Ian McKellan would’ve been ideal for the role but I guess he had his hands full with Gandolf.
You bring up a fantastic point. Throughout each film, all Harry and the gang do is talk about Voldemort, that’s it. Do we ever encounter Voldemort in the flesh? No, at least not up until the last 15 minutes of each movie. It’s a monumental flaw, and though the entire two hours can be entertaining, the lack of an antagonist can’t help but distract.
John I think you nailed it here. Never thought about that but yeah I guess that’s the problem. I thought he’d be in more than he was in HP6
Yeah, definitely. Also, so darn many of the book’s subplots and antagonism are removed in the film, resulting in a decreased amount of tension and suspense. Also, the films have tended to be much more action-focused. So yeah, they should have shown more of Voldemort. Hopefully this will be solved in the remakes.
More than that, however, is the problem that in the film’ Harry’s problems are usually not that related to Voldemort’s actions. The villain shouldn’t so much be in our face as actively and effectively trying to impede the protagonist’s progress at all times.
The weird thing is that Voldemort’s presence is much, much more prominent in the books. I think the books got it right.
I guess it’s not so much a flaw as much as a way in which it could have been better.
The problem with Voldemort is that he was much more intimidating as a legend than as the actual being. They built up so much fear for the guy, yet when it came down to actually having him BE that threat then what exactly did he do? Killed an unarmed kid and controlled water like he was directing a Starburst commercial. Yawn.
On the other hand, look at how well they fleshed out Snape. Voldemort was supposed to be this guy who everyone feared, but in the end then the scariest, most intimidating antagonist was a school teacher. On screen Voldemort would bore you, but seeing Snape makes you want to crap myself.
That’s exactly what I mean. We don’t so much have to see him as the consequences of his actions and how they are affecting Harry.
And yeah, Snape’s a pretty darn scary character.
In the book they SHOWED why he was feared, in the book they SHOW you why people are scared to say his name.
In the movie it seems like Voldemort is a guy…hes a dude that hangs out with the black KKK or some weird fraternity of ni-lifes
In the book he raised an ARMY of not only wizards and witches, but monsters and dementors