I’d personally say the Chamber of Secrets movie is the only Harry Potter film that outshines the book. The atmosphere of the Christoper Columbus films capture that whimsical nature of the early story whilst still being able to be serious, Professor Lockhart is a more entertaining character than in the books as he’s more of a showman, and the scenes with the flying car both near the train and in the forest are funnier and more fleshed out. The climax is the biggest improvement, the set design as well as the elongated fight with the basilisk is more intense and when Harry stabs the diary having it tear through Tom Riddle’s illusion as blood pours out of the pages was much more inventive than the book version where the entire thing happened in a couple of scenes before wrapping up neatly. It’s not a perfect adaptation but it probably covers all the most important points. Although to be fair I thought Prisoner of Azkaban was far too fast paced and skipped through important story points so fast you hardly had time to digest them (looking at the treehouse scene in particular). Though yes the buckbeak scene and the scenes with Snape were improved.
Just found your channel through the infinite randomness of the algorithm, and I gotta say I'm loving what I've found! Looking forward to part 3, and I hope that while you're dissecting TLA, you also dig up the corpse of the Eragon movie.
These videos are very well made, and clearly reflect a deep and passionate love for entertainment media. I'm looking forward to seeing what you produce next!
I've got to disagree about the Dwarves' names from The Hobbit being childish. They almost all come from the Norse Elder Edda, dating back a thousand years, that's one of our primary sources for Viking mythology. It contains within it the passage known as the Dvergatal or, the "Catalog of Dwarves.", as below. You can see almost all the dwarvish names, except for Balin. It also includes the name Gandalf, as here he is also a dwarf, and like all these names, the name has a meaning in Old Norse, in this case, 'Wand Elf'. Here's the Old Norse list in full; 10. There was Motsognir | the mightiest made Of all the dwarfs, | and Durin next; Many a likeness | of men they made, The dwarfs in the earth, | as Durin said. 11. Nyi and Nithi, | Northri and Suthri, Austri and Vestri, | Althjof, Dvalin, Nar and Nain, | Niping, Dain, Bifur, Bofur, | Bombur, Nori, An and Onar, | Oin, Mjothvitnir. 12. Vigg and Gandalf | Vindalf, Thrain, Thekk and Thorin, | Thror, Vit and Lit, Nyr and Nyrath,-- | now have I told-- Regin and Rathsvith-- | the list aright. 13. Fili, Kili, | Fundin, Nali, Hepti, Vili, | Hannar, Sviur, (Billing, Bruni, | Bildr and Buri,) Frar, Hornbori, | Fræg and Loni, Aurvang, Jari, | Eikinskjaldi. 14. The race of the dwarfs | in Dvalin's throng Down to Lofar | the list must I tell; The rocks they left, | and through wet lands They sought a home | in the fields of sand. 15. There were Draupnir | and Dolgthrasir, Hor, Haugspori, | Hlevang, Gloin, Dori, Ori, | Dufr, Andvari, Skirfir, Virfir, | Skafith, Ai. 16. Alf and Yngvi, | Eikinskjaldi, Fjalar and Frosti, | Finn and Ginnar; So for all time | shall the tale be known, The list of all | the forbears of Lofar.
40:54 actually, the Dwarves have a lot of characterization in the book; Bombour is fat, Balin is old, Thorin is angry, Nori is… Kili is young, Fili is also Kili, I mean, do I need to go on?
What if at the beginning of The Deathly Hallows part 1 when Hagrid first comes to Harry's house he gives some line of exposition about Sirius and gives harry a gift that Sirius left him, And inside the gift was the mirror.
I'm late but I don't care. You nailed it with the "a series that seems to grow up with it's main character". That is exactly why I love the harry potter movies but also because I watched the movies from a young age, as they came out AND I'm from England... I literally grew up along side Harry. I'm basically a wizard. But yeah I actually agree the tonal shifts between movies can be jarring. Thinking about it, overall I enjoy the characters and world but don't love most of the movies individually... ALSO THAT'S WHERE THE MIRROR CAME FROM I THOUGHT I WAS DUMB AND MISSED SOMETHING.
Your analytical content really is top notch! My only complaint with this one is that you included a 'Songs Used' list in part 1, but there is none here (I'd love to know what song starts playing at 34:46). Looking forward to part 3 (whenever it comes out)!
I agree with most of your video but I completely disagree when it comes comes the witcher and TV shows. What makes TV shows great is that you can have a bunch of side quests that can be resolved in one episode and move on to the next. It doesn't have to be a movie that tells one continuous story. There's a reason shows like friends are constantly being rerun on TV, because you can watch an episode out of order and it doesn't really matter.
You make a good point, but consider this. Friends is an episodic TV show with no real overarching story (minus relationships). Each episode is designed to be its own story. On the other hand, a show such as Game of Thrones is always telling one continuous story, so if a random episode were a sudden diversion from that story, seeking rather to tell it’s own self-contained story, it would feel very out of place. The Witcher, to me, feels like it’s going for the same thing as a show like Game of Thrones. It is attempting to tell one continuous story and yet it occasionally drifts off into a self-contained story that isn’t really relevant to anything and, in my opinion at least, that’s kind of irritating.
To be fair it is kind of wack that lupin is allowed to be a teacher when once a month he turns into a werewolf and could kill all the children in the school. Sounds like a safety hazard.
I had never seen anything of the Great Gatsby movie besides the basic premise. Yeah, wtf was the music choice? Guess they didn't watch Boardwalk Empire
16:06 I was personally called out for this lmao. My first play through i couldn’t choose and panicked and told both of them I loved them and then that happened. I’m too gay how am I supposed to choose between two hot powerful sorceress?
I was made to read The Great Gatsby in English class this year. I thought the book was ok, about a 6/10. I didn't watch the whole movie, but we were shown alot of scenes from it. I hated it. Baz Lurman's directing fucking sucks.
I couldn’t even finish the second season of the Witcher. The first episode was actually pretty good but it went down hill fast. They changed way too much it’s so disappointing.
I saw the movies before I read the books, and that mirror is not an issue. "He has a mirror, that's magic, in a magic world. Got it. Moving on." "But you don't know the back story of the mirror." It's okay. Really. It is.
The Harry Potter movies are actually watchable, while the books are an unpleasant slog. It's absolutely baffling to the extent of discrediting your entire point to just casually assume that the books are better than the movies.
@@VerdanaVideos Also, the dissolution of the Fellowship occurs at the beginning of the Two Towers not the end of the first LOTR book. The end of act three for Fellowship in the books is Frodo realizing that he will probably need to abandon the rest and continue on alone. The dissolution & death of Boromir is meant to set up the three's quest to save the Hobbits in Two Towers. Peter Jackson smartly compressed events in what is likely the best adaptation choice in cinema, combining the death of Boromir with Frodo's realization into one exciting & dramatic scene. Incidentally this is also why it feels like Two Towers has less happening in it than Fellowship or Return, as a similar shifting of events wouldn't really work for Return. This is why the warg scene & Eowyn exist in Two Towers the film when they either don't or are minimal in the books. Hell Eowyn almost reaches the point of being a third protagonist in Return, a fact which likely could've been expanded upon had Return been made today.
@@Jaxck77 I mean that’s all correct. Jackson’s decision to stitch Boromir’s death into the end of Fellowship, as well as cutting characters such as Halbarad and expanding the role of Éowyn did improve the trilogy, but you’re kind of brushing past what you said about the Harry Potter books and my response to it. As I said, I didn’t “assume” the books are better, as if I’ve never read them. I read / listened to the books countless times as a kid (honesty I’m probably even more familiar with the books than the films) and I simply stated that I personally prefer the books due in part to how much more see they dive into the inner-workings of the world. That doesn’t mean I don’t like the movies. They’re not perfectly written or anything, and if you don’t like them obviously you’re entitled to that opinion. However, that doesn’t mean you’re opinion is automatically correct, or that my entire point is “discredited” because I feel a different way from you.
@@VerdanaVideos You said it yourself in the video: The movies do a better job with the side characters, bringing up the examples of Snape & Cho. Ron & Hermione are also much more compelling on screen than they are in the books. Hermione in particular is extremely sympathetic throughout, while in the books she's often whiny, arrogant, and dismissive (or all three). I certainly agree that the early movies could've done more to build up their characters and how they relate to Harry. That's why the sixth movie stands out as the best of the bunch. It's almost entirely focused on the relationships between characters, with the central plot hinging on Harry developing one with Slughorn. The seventh & eighth movies are a real let down after the sixth honestly, they are definitely brought down by the lack of storytelling ability on the part of Rowling (which also torpedoed the fourth & fifth films unfortunately). Again, you brought this up in your video. However it seems like you have a clear "books are better" bias which has led you to bring up points to fit the conclusion, rather than approaching the material as it is. The Harry Potter movies are stronger than their source material in the same way the Lord of the Rings movies are stronger than their source material. Tighter, more dramatic storytelling with a stronger focus on the ensemble, with the worldbuilding baked into the background rather than trotted front & centre. Rowling's biggest flaw as a writer is her inability to introduce an idea without making it plot relevant. Compare that to Dune or Star Wars for example, where there's tons of additional colour & clever ideas added to the universe that don't directly contribute to the actual plot. Music is another thing I'm surprised you didn't address, since it's the thing that cannot be done in the novel format (not properly anyway, sorry Tolkein). The first Harry Potter film practically lives on its score, with some of the most memorable moments of the film the product of great sound design. The Chamber of Secrets in particular is all about the sound of the world, something that you just can't do with a book (incidentally that movie would've been so much stronger if the sword had just been down there somewhere, and Harry found it. Again, Rowling cannot introduce an idea, Fawkes, without also making it plot relevant). The music in the Hobbit is top notch, and I would even go so far as to say worth the misery that is Five Armies (worst part about Disney Star Wars is the lack of genuinely new music). Also, have you seen & read Annihilation? Because that is textbook adaptation. The book stands on its own, with the movie being the same ideas through a different perspective. Almost as if the director adapted the ideas for their movie.
@@Jaxck77 I don’t think I’ve heard anyone proclaim the Half Blood Prince to be their favorite HP movie, so mad respect for having such a ballsy opinion. However, that surprises me, since it’s so non-plot heavy, focussing instead on expanding relationships between characters (Harry + Ginny, Harry + Dumbledore, etc). This would of course imply that you like pieces of art that stretch their legs in their own words a little bit and aren’t too overly plot-driven, but that’s exactly what the books are. You said the reason that you don’t like the books is because everything in them is overly plot-driven, however that statement baffles me. The books take FAR more time to expand upon relationships between characters, and they generally spend a lotta time chilling out in the wizarding world than the films do. The films, with the notable exception of HBP, are much more to the point, cutting much that does not pertain to the main plot. As I mentioned in the video, Hermione’s organization (SPEW) is nowhere to be found in the films, and served just to expand her character as well as providing laughs in the books Creature’s backstory is also gone, something which added a lot of tragic impact to Serius’ death in my eyes, as well pretty everything having to do with Mundungus Fletcher. If you believe these inclusions make the books a “slog” then you have every right to feel that way, it just greatly surprises me that simultaneously a film such as HBP, which has the slowest pacing of the bunch, would be your favorite. But obviously to each their own. On the topic of me talking about music in adaptations, as well as the “book bias” you believe I harbor, this is all covered in part 1 which I suspect you may not have watched (which is totally fair; it’s 42 minutes after all). Not only did I address cases where I believe the film to be definitely better than its source material (The Godfather, The Shining, No Country for Old Men) but I also talked about fundamentals differences between books and cinema, including film scores. Especially with LOTR, I talked about how music, something not possible in book form, works wonders and adds a great deal of emotion to the story. Anyways, this was a long ass comment to type. I hope it was worth it. Cheers.
