Poll of the Day > I think I would have prefered Harry Potter as a series more than movies.

Topic List
Page List: 1
hypnox
07/08/20 5:59:55 PM
#1:


Miniseries have ruined most non-action movies for me. Almost the entire time I am watching a movie I wish it was a series on netflix or something.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
SpeeDLeemon
07/08/20 6:01:41 PM
#2:


There is a series. Literature. And you get to use your imagination! Sitting at my dining room table with all the imagery in my mind as a kid was too much fun. I could sit there for 10 hours reading those

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
SonyMichel
07/08/20 6:12:38 PM
#3:


Ive been rereading the series over the past few months. First time Ive read them in like 13 years (since book 7 came out)

Im currently near the end of Book 4 Goblet of Fire and its really the best one yet. The series really does just get better with each book, and she becomes a much better writer with each book. I remember thinking this exact same thing as a kid, and its nice to know I was right. And I can appreciate her improving writing skill much more as an adult; its really cool to see

I think I would have prefered Harry Potter as a series more than movies.

I was thinking this same thing a couple weeks ago. At the time they started the movies (2001, I think?) this idea of a tv series doing this was unthinkable, but weve come a long way in 20 years.

I could easily see a good 10 hours (or episodes) devoted to each book, 7 seasons. It would certainly have fleshed out the later films that really felt rushed when the storylines picked up
... Copied to Clipboard!
PMarth2002
07/08/20 6:51:59 PM
#4:


I thought it should've been a series when I first saw the movies. The later books were too long to be effectively adapted into a movie. Given how popular the series was with kids, i'm surprised they never went for a cartoon adaptation.

---
No matter where you go, there you are.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman
07/08/20 7:07:21 PM
#5:


When the movies came out making them into a TV series was unthinkable especially with the scale they wanted on screen.

Now with things like Game of Thrones being a reality you can do it, it's just very time consuming and expensive. I hear the Lord of the Rings Amazon show will have a $100-150 million budget per season making it one of the most expensive shows ever made.

Anyways we may get it down the line either way, they constantly want to reboot and remake things so when these movies get say 10-15 years older they may be looking at a newer version of them in some form of streaming.
... Copied to Clipboard!
InfernalFive
07/08/20 7:19:24 PM
#6:


Yeah like others said making a TV series out of it at the time just wouldn't work. Maybe these days with proven hits like BB and GoT, but not back then.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman
07/08/20 8:11:53 PM
#7:


InfernalFive posted...
Yeah like others said making a TV series out of it at the time just wouldn't work. Maybe these days with proven hits like BB and GoT, but not back then.

Well even BB was a more feasible show, Harry Potter is a tremendous amount of money on special effects meanwhile in BB you just need talented actors and a few large set pieces in certain episodes.

GoT is the one that proved it was possible, with the huge amount of money HBO threw at that show.
... Copied to Clipboard!
FrozenBananas
07/08/20 10:24:44 PM
#8:


^ Not to mention you have to get a bunch of actors and actresses to sign up for 7+ full years.

Thats a lot of ask of anyone; let alone a bunch of younger actors, especially when you dont even know if theyll be any good as they grow into their teens (and imo, the big 3 kids in the movies all sucked. Emma Watson was probably the best of the 3 but still not that great of a Hermione)

and the more I think about that, the more I think it would be near impossible for a series to even come close to the books. Mainly because Harry and friends arent nearly as awkward on the page as they would inevitably be on screen

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Monopoman
07/09/20 11:05:56 PM
#9:


Daniel Radcliffe is a pretty damn talented actor, now I have no clue how well he played Harry vs. in the books but he is a talented actor overall.
... Copied to Clipboard!
FrozenBananas
07/15/20 7:10:58 PM
#10:


Monopoman posted...
Daniel Radcliffe is a pretty damn talented actor, now I have no clue how well he played Harry vs. in the books but he is a talented actor overall.


its not really Radcliffes fault. What makes Harry so special in the books is that hes the only character in which the reader can read his mind. We get to hear the things he doesnt say out loud, and thats way more information than we get from anyone else.

A constant theme in the Harry Potter series is about keeping secrets. Everyone is either keeping secrets or telling lies to everyone else.

this experience also makes you feel closer to Harry because youre sharing whatever secrets or hidden feelings hes having.

in the movies, we never get to read his mind and we never know how hes really feeling. Thats really tough for any actor to convey let alone some kid who has never acted n in anything other than Harry Potter

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1