If Harry Potter was an American production??

[lasvidfil]

I've never read any of the books but i enjoy the movies quite a bit. Made even better by the stellar English cast: Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane and the kids as well! If Harry Potter was written by an American with an American cast, could it be as good or would it be a trainwreck?

Robert DeNiro as Professor Snape? "You puttin' a spell on me?" "I'm the only one here!"

WB/MTV teens as Harry, Hermione and Ron?

Any thoughts?

[Robert Campion]

One of the lesser Wayans as a magical apprentice.
Oh, sorry, that was DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS . . .

[Michael]

Train wreak, nah Jumbo jet crash! I hear a miserable Hip Hop soundtrack with the added gold laden gangstas in the mix.:biglaugh:

[Sneaky Pete]

I think the "Yank" director Chris Columbus did a fine job on the ones he oversaw. However, it's a "Brit flick" story all the way, boarding schools, class warfare, cliche old wizards in greystone castles etc. etc. etc..

I'd like to see the American version as a western, and the Japanese version as a Samurai movie.;) :laugh: :laugh:

[Matthew B.]

I've heard complaints that the first couple of films gave kind of an obsolete, Americanised view of England -- for instance, a sea of white faces at Hogwarts, where an actual British boarding school (or indeed the Hogwarts in the books) would have lots of south Asians and blacks. I haven't seen Columbus's movies myself. The only one I watched was Prisoner of Azkaban, since Alfonso Cuarón was directing, and it was a mess -- four hours' worth of plot squeezed into two and a bit.

[Sneaky Pete]

I've heard complaints that the first couple of films gave kind of an obsolete, Americanised view of England -- for instance, a sea of white faces at Hogwarts, where an actual British boarding school (or indeed the Hogwarts in the books) would have lots of south Asians and blacks. I haven't seen Columbus's movies myself. The only one I watched was Prisoner of Azkaban, since Alfonso Cuarón was directing, and it was a mess -- four hours' worth of plot squeezed into two and a bit.

I think Chris's hands were basically tied by micro-management from the super powerful Author. He had to vow not to change ANYTHING and to use only English actors. Therefore, if the films lacked diversity I don't think it can be blamed on Chris.

Truthfully the whole deal is not my "cup of Tea." I saw two of the films on DVD in the company of children. I was just joking around as I thought the thread was a little tongue in cheek to begin with.

[Dennis Metz]

The films might be good.

[Lord Hawthorne]

Lots of fight scenes.

[eddiel]

I can't be bothered with the books but the movies are perfect popcorn type films.

They have a distinctly English flavor and I think that's a good thing.

If it was an American made movie it would be very different. Probably good in its own right but very different.

De Niro as a wizard? Might take some time to digest. I'm getting over De Niro in Meet the Fockers still :)

Eddie

[Dave D]

I love the films. Never read the books. Enjoy the characters and the acting is top notch.

I can't imagine if McG directed it. Did you know he's doing the next Terminator!:thumbsdn: :shake:

[musicalbeds]

Britney Spears as Hermione?

I like the British aspect of the films...amercanizing it would be disasterous.

[RDK]

Not to be a party pooper, but the Potter films are American productions (Warner Bros). Just because they feature - per a hugely successful book franchise - a British cast and setting doesn't make them any less so.

[lasvidfil]

Not to be a party pooper, but the Potter films are American productions (Warner Bros). Just because they feature - per a hugely successful book franchise - a British cast and setting doesn't make them any less so.

sorry, guess I should have been more specific. I was just referring to the cast, settings, locations etc.. I know it was an American production from Warner Bros.

[wayneklein]

I think the "Yank" director Chris Columbus did a fine job on the ones he oversaw. However, it's a "Brit flick" story all the way, boarding schools, class warfare, cliche old wizards in greystone castles etc. etc. etc..

I'd like to see the American version as a western, and the Japanese version as a Samurai movie.;) :laugh: :laugh:

I have never cared for Chris Columbus as a director. His style is generic almost TV-movie like (in a bad way)without style or any sense of flair and he brings nothing to the material. To me it robs the film of much of its magic in theprocess (pardon the pun).

[wayneklein]

I think Chris's hands were basically tied by micro-management from the super powerful Author. He had to vow not to change ANYTHING and to use only English actors. Therefore, if the films lacked diversity I don't think it can be blamed on Chris.

Truthfully the whole deal is not my "cup of Tea." I saw two of the films on DVD in the company of children. I was just joking around as I thought the thread was a little tongue in cheek to begin with.

I believe that the same constrictions would have applied to the later directors as well and they did mess with the material much more. I suspect that Columbus felt he needed to be as faithful as possible to the material so as not to alienated the fans.

Personally, I thought that the last two films had much more style and they benefited from being condensed. Remember, sometimes it is better NOT to tell the whole story in a film. The advantage of a novel is being able to keep multiple plot lines going on with multiple characters, film has a much more difficult time with that than a novel as in theaters it is bound by time--you can't move backwards and forwards at will or skip to the middle. The one advantage of home video is that it has lessened those bonds and films that might otherwise have been "lost" because they were that ambitious have flourished. I forget which director it was that said this but I thought it appropriate--to make an effective film of a novel you have to be willing to be completely unfaithful to the story but faithful to the themes and thereby discover a visual way to tell the same story that was told with words. It's a gambit and not all directors are up to it.

[Sneaky Pete]

Remember, sometimes it is better NOT to tell the whole story in a film. The advantage of a novel is being able to keep multiple plot lines going on with multiple characters, film has a much more difficult time with that than a novel as in theaters it is bound by time--you can't move backwards and forwards at will or skip to the middle.


I was really only referring to the casting and the lack of minorities. I know J.K. Rowing was deeply involved in that aspect of the film, so criticizing Columbus on that front maybe unfair. I only saw two of the films because I am not wild about the genre. The ones I saw were tedious for me, but the children that I saw them with were thrilled. Both of them had read the books and are avid fans of Harry Potter.

I agree with your assertion and I think the number one mistake is to make a film adaptation slavishly follow a book. Novels and films are two different mediums with different requirements. That does not mean I like film adaptations where they drastically change important elements of novel, (ie: the protagonist doesn't commit suicide, instead he moves to Italy buys a vineyard and lives happily ever after with his girlfriend).

Chris Columbus is a lightweight director, but can be entertaining. I remember seeing Home Alone and thinking it was nothing but a live action version of a WBs cartoon. I thought the direction was terrible and hackneyed. Then I saw Columbus interviewed and he says, "I wanted to make a live action version of a WBs cartoon." Therefore I had to say it was a success from the director's standpoint.

His best work I can think of was as screenwriter for Gremlins.

[Michael]

Not to be a party pooper, but the Potter films are American productions (Warner Bros). Just because they feature - per a hugely successful book franchise - a British cast and setting doesn't make them any less so.

ah yes, but written by an English woman.:)

...that makes all the difference in the world.

[Scott Wheeler]

I've heard complaints that the first couple of films gave kind of an obsolete, Americanised view of England -- for instance, a sea of white faces at Hogwarts, where an actual British boarding school (or indeed the Hogwarts in the books) would have lots of south Asians and blacks. I haven't seen Columbus's movies myself. The only one I watched was Prisoner of Azkaban, since Alfonso Cuarón was directing, and it was a mess -- four hours' worth of plot squeezed into two and a bit.

I've read the books and seen the movies and I'd say the first two movies were far and away the most like the books from which they were derived.

[Scott Wheeler]

Not to be a party pooper, but the Potter films are American productions (Warner Bros). Just because they feature - per a hugely successful book franchise - a British cast and setting doesn't make them any less so.

They are made in England with English crews.

[Matthew B.]

They are made in England with English crews.

Directors from the U.S., Mexico and (on the last couple) England, American screenwriters, cinematographers and editors from all over the place.

[Batears52]

I've read the books and seen the movies and I'd say the first two movies were far and away the most like the books from which they were derived.

I agree 100%! I am a huge fan of the books...and I like the movies as well, but there is no comparison really. The books give you so much more.

I would also say that the first 3 movies pretty much stand on their own without the moviegoer having to have read the books. But with "Goblet Of Fire" that started to change. There was a lot left out of it, and especially it's successor, "Order Of The Phoenix"! Yes, the books were getting substantially longer (especially "Phoenix") - but I really think it would have been interesting if they had taken a "Lord Of The Rings" approach at that point...starting with "Goblet".

Namely, film additional material for the home video DVD release...and offer them with the original theatrical version & an expanded version. You could easily add a half-hour (maybe even a little more) to these for the fans. Home video gives you that opportunity!

I was quite disappointed with the way they handled the ending of "Phoenix"....and even though the book series is now complete...and we all know what happens, I don't want to see the final 2 movies rushed out. The fans deserve films that will do the books justice...especially the last one!

Dexter