web
counter
 

Are the Harry Potter Movies Instantly Forgettable?

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (43)



281x21136.jpg

MTV debuted a new trailer for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows during the VMA Awards last night, and it goes a little something like this:


Looks decent, although I’m beginning to feel like finishing out the Harry Potter movie series is something of a chore. They’re OK movies, but incredibly forgettable. It works to the novels’ advantage, though. Everything I remember about the Harry Potter series comes from the images I had reading the book. It only takes a few days’ separation from viewing the movie for the novels’ impressions to bounce back in my mind’s eye. The movies sometimes color and structure my memories of the books, but they never replace them. So, congrats are in order for Warner Brothers, who have managed to make billions off the franchise without really tainting the novels.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



News: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy Casting | Gary Oldman To Add Spy To An Already Impressive List | The More I See of Scott Pilgrim, the Less Interested I Become | An Edgar Wright Introduced Scott Pilgrim Clip









Comments

Sorry, are what movies instantly forgettable?

Posted by: Odnon. at June 7, 2010 11:25 AM

To me, the high point of the movies came in 3-4: Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire as they grew out of being kids and their world started to become darker (but wasn't quite engulfed by the darkness).

5 was too rushed and 6 was a (very cute) CW episode.

As for being forgettable...I think it's because we know where the ride is headed. If the books didn't exist, there might be more intrigue. As it stands, all we're waiting for is for the boxes to be checked off on the way to the predetermined ending.

Posted by: Fredo at June 7, 2010 11:26 AM

Wow, they're doing a good job making 1,000 pages of camping in the woods and bitching in a tent look exciting.

Posted by: coveredinbees at June 7, 2010 11:28 AM

Harry Potter? Anyway I’ve got the Monday morning blues, I feel kinda blase about things today. I’m going to go and do some work around the house today and if I get the spark to come back online and converse with you guys I will.

Posted by: Pookie at June 7, 2010 11:34 AM

Is it me or does Emma Watson look more like Kristin Stewart as she gets older?

Posted by: Lydia at June 7, 2010 11:40 AM

Why is Daniel Radcliffe looking so fugly? And could they not have stood him on a box or something for when he kisses Ginny? I'm not being sarcastic - they really should have put him on a box. She is quite literally a foot taller than him.
Also, why do I feel that Ron looks like an angry goat? And why do I find that attractive?

SO MANY QUESTIONS.

Posted by: the artist formerly known as squeeziee at June 7, 2010 11:41 AM

Holy cow. I honestly HAD forgotten that they already released the movie for the last book.

Posted by: AnnieKar at June 7, 2010 11:42 AM

Oh, Daniel Radcliffe. Your scared face is just so unattractive! It doesn't help that you are a thumbhead (your neck is the same width as your head, so you just look like a hairy thumb), but mostly it's that wide-eyed, frog-mouthed panting face. Good lord, boy, I know that people aren't supposed to be hot when they're scared, but do they have to look like they're half tiger, half newt? It breaks the suspension of my disbelief.

Also, you and Bonnie Wright are the most awkward couple ever. If you're trying to tone down the sex appeal a la RDJ so as not to make one another too hot and bothered, DON'T. You need extra sex appeal. Every ounce you can find. Because right now your scenes together look like they're being acted by your cardboard cutouts.

Posted by: esme at June 7, 2010 11:45 AM

No Snape? Now I'm bummed. I watch these movies primarily for the Alan Rickman factor. My overall impression of the trailer is--lots of trees. And Harry must be killed. He cannot live. He must be killed so he will die. Sheesh, I get it already.

Posted by: DeadBessie at June 7, 2010 11:46 AM

All I need to know is if it's this film or the next one where Umbridge puts her master plan in motion. I need to see that bitch Hermione get her comeuppance. There are a wealth of unexplored female characters in this film series, yet Hermione is put front and center each time. Oh, I know: she's the leading female. So what? It's not like any other book to film adaptation cares to be that loyal. What I wouldn't give to see some Rita Skeeter action, or Maggie Smith actually get to do some acting. The last time the latter happened was...the last film Umbridge was in. Just saying.

Posted by: Robert at June 7, 2010 11:54 AM

After labouring through the last one (what was it called) the rest of them will be rentals. I went to see it at the cheap theater and even that was too expensive.

Posted by: admin at June 7, 2010 12:01 PM

I vaguely remember watching the 4th movie. I can't believe they are already on the last book, the movies really are forgettable.

Plus its ridiculous how strange Daniel R. and Tom F. look now, I had such a crush on them in the first movie. Time really isn't kind to everyone.

Posted by: juicyjui at June 7, 2010 12:20 PM

The last two movies were horrible messes. Just completely incoherent and chaotic and I honestly can't even tell them apart. But when I really think about it, none of them have been that great (my favorite is the third but that's mostly because of what Cuaron did to the atmosphere of the movie). I watch them because it's nice to see some of the cool magical moments and whatever, but they really are pretty terrible adaptations.

This looks...OK. Much better than that last one. My question is, will this movie be just about camping in the woods and arguing, and all the good stuff will be in the second one? I saw a dragon, but...I'm just really curious to see how they break it into two movies.

Daniel Radcliffe is NOT a good crier. Dude looks like he's pooping.

Posted by: figgy at June 7, 2010 12:36 PM

esme he TOTALLY looks like a hairy thumb. And now I'm cracking up. Thank you for that.

Posted by: figgy at June 7, 2010 12:39 PM

At least Rowling didn't have to go back to the drawing board and write a new novella just to make the novel coherent, unlike Stephanie *stabby* Myers and her soon to be released angst fest. All I gotta say is imma watch the shit outta this, y'all.

Posted by: Ulterior Motive Girl at June 7, 2010 12:40 PM

If I had to name the film where the abnner pic came from it would be: Harry Potter and the Layer Striped Sweaters. Jeez.

Posted by: Danny smooth at June 7, 2010 12:53 PM

Daniel Radcliffe is NOT a good crier. Dude looks like he's pooping.

Holy shit, figgy - I almost choked on my grilled cheese sandwich. He really does. And, he looks like he's having a hard time. Someone give the poor kid some prune juice. (And, yes, ye Doubting Thomases, I really did almost choke on my sandwich. No hyperbole.)

The last movie wasn't that great, but I'll watch every damn one of these things in the theater. I can't help it. It's some sort of compulsion.

Posted by: stardust at June 7, 2010 1:10 PM

Heehee, yes! total Constipation Face. A hairy thumb with Constipation Face. I think he's cute in a nerdish way, but oh he looks so ugly when he cries.

And oh yeah, Harry Potter movies are some of the very few that will get me to the theater. In fact I think the very last movie I watched in the theater was The Half-Blood Prince. I think. I honestly can't remember.

Posted by: figgy at June 7, 2010 1:34 PM

I can't even remember the last HP movie I saw. I think it was the 5th or 6th one, but it's all a blur.

Posted by: Mick J at June 7, 2010 1:35 PM

Where are they hiding my Weasley twins? They're the best part!

Posted by: Dorothy Snarker at June 7, 2010 1:50 PM

Oh man. This just reminds me of the impending doom I face; wherein it will my duty as a caring partner to go to this piece of crap and pretend to be interested. I think the last movie I entertained myself by mentally dissecting the cinematography.

-Frob

Posted by: frobme at June 7, 2010 1:55 PM

I LOVED the last book because it was all arguing in a tent. It was like Lord of the Rings, but actually interesting - like if Gandalf and Aragorn had cut and run two days into the journey, leaving the rest to stumble and bumble through the terrain.

Posted by: Ling at June 7, 2010 3:58 PM

Ya'll are mean. He isn't that unattractive in fact before his neck started growing at an alarming rate he was very doable. I totally agree that the movies are good and entertaining but don't ruin the books. That's about the best summation of the movies I've heard. The 7th book is probably my favorite and I think this movie looks decent though really the first installment should be called Harry Potter Goes Camping.

Posted by: E-Money at June 7, 2010 4:23 PM

Ling--I freakin' love that image!

Posted by: DeadBessie at June 7, 2010 4:37 PM

My inner Harry Potter fan is much stronger than my inner film snob, and accordingly, this trailer got me pumped.

As for the Harry/Ginny kisses on screen, don't even get me started on Half Blood Prince.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at June 7, 2010 5:28 PM

I think the problem with the movies is that they are taking way too fucking long. Twilight (am I about to say they are actually smart? fuck) is being pumped out it seems like once a year. I.e. they are keeping their target audience interested. Plus, the books are still coming. There was a two year gap between Phoenix and Prince. Then for Prince to be a boring film (it was the only one I didn't see opening night in theatres) only made it that much more forgettable . I feel like I saw Prince three years ago. Ohhhh wait, that's because The Deathly Hallows came out three years ago...so I've already known the fucking ending for that long. Now they are just making matters worse by making Hallows two movies...for fucksakes, the least you can do is release them closer together than 9 months...pull a Matrix: Reloaded & Revolutions, pop those bitches out like 6 months apart.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at June 7, 2010 5:29 PM

Midnight showing. Sytherin shirt. A little drunk.

Posted by: Dissection at June 7, 2010 6:26 PM

Dissection, I will be the drunk Hufflepuff two rows back.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at June 7, 2010 6:51 PM

Ravenclaw all the way bitches.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at June 7, 2010 7:46 PM

I very much like (read: am obsessed with) Harry Potter and brew beer as a hobby. You three save me a seat and I’ll bring the Butterbeer.

I’ll be the one in Gryffindor shirt to balance the house allegiances.

Posted by: Mary at June 7, 2010 8:11 PM

I actually liked what the director did with Half-Blood Prince so perhaps he can make a better film than book, although splitting this into two won't help.

If Rowling had written the first book like Deathly Hallows, I would have probably dropped the series. It was incredibly dull and dreary instead of the serious war story she seemed to aiming for. And the logic used to explain Dumbledore at the end was just so dumb that it negated the very minimal enjoyment I'd had reading it previously.

Posted by: DD at June 7, 2010 9:28 PM

Wait, AnnieKar, they didn't release Deathly Hallows part one, did they? Did I lose a year? I hate it when that happens!

Posted by: nigeltde at June 8, 2010 12:01 AM

I would agree that the movies are forgettable (I honestly can't remember if I have seen them all but I think I have), but the score has intertwined itself with the story beautifuuly. It is so perfect for the series that any time I open on of the books I hear it.

Posted by: Morgan Lefai at June 8, 2010 12:56 AM

I'm really sad I started to get excited because the series started out lame, then Prisoner of Azkaban rocked and Goblet of Fire was great and then the new director lost his shit. And they keep bringing him back. Cough.
I've had a raging crush on Gary Oldman since I was little and I still skip the 5th movie. What the hell was that beginning? And that annoying magical neighbor? Although, I just remembered the ministry fighting scene is pretty bad ass...damn!

Posted by: smasherstein at June 13, 2010 1:08 PM

Whoa why are all of you bitching so much, calm down.

The movie aren't forgettiable and theres nothing wrong with the actor, so really just shut up.

Only in america would the care so much about how somebody looks..

Posted by: Jason at June 17, 2010 4:34 PM

Thanks for writing the article. I didn't think abort it ever before.

Posted by: Roderick Kosmicki at December 3, 2010 8:41 AM

a person who wrote this article is real learned.

Posted by: Debby Kimberlin at December 10, 2010 2:54 AM

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.I think you have done an excellent job with your blog. I will return in the near future.I had bookmark it :)

Posted by: wholesale fashion dresses at January 5, 2011 9:41 PM

If Rowling had written the first book like Deathly Hallows, I would have probably dropped the series. It was incredibly dull and dreary instead of the serious war story she seemed to aiming for. And the logic used to explain Dumbledore at the end was just so dumb that it negated the very minimal enjoyment I'd had reading it previously.

Posted by: Weddings at February 9, 2011 9:03 PM

I totally agree that the movies are good and entertaining but don't ruin the books. That's about the best summation of the movies I've heard. The 7th book is probably my favorite and I think this movie looks decent though really the first installment should be called Harry Potter Goes Camping.

Posted by: watches at February 9, 2011 9:05 PM

Thanks for your insight for the great posting. I am glad I have taken the time to see this.

Posted by: Simple Wedding Dresses at March 3, 2011 12:04 AM

No Snape? Now I'm bummed. I watch these movies primarily for the Alan Rickman factor. My overall impression of the trailer is--lots of trees. And Harry must be killed. He cannot live. He must be killed so he will die. Sheesh, I get it already.

Posted by: wig c at March 3, 2011 1:34 AM

last two movies were horrible messes. Just completely incoherent and chaotic and I honestly can't even tell them apart. But when I really think about it, none of them have been that great (my favorite is the third but that's mostly because of what Cuaron did to the atmosphere of the movie). I watch them because it's nice to see some of the cool magical moments and whatever, but they really are pretty terrible adaptations.

This looks...OK. Much better than that last one. My question is, will this movie be just about camping in the woods and arguing, and all the good stuff will be in the second one? I saw a dragon, but...I'm just really curious to see how they break it into two movies.

Posted by: cosplay costumes at March 5, 2011 11:23 PM