Philosophers Stone
Flick 9/10
Film 5/10
Adaptation 8/10
Standalone 7/10
Chamber of Secrets
Flick 8/10
Film 7/10
Adaptation 7/10
Standalone 8/10
Prisoner of Azkaban
Flick 9/10
Film 8/10
Adaptation 7/10
Standalone 9/10
Goblet of Fire
Flick 8/10
Film 4/10
Adaptation 2/10
Standalone 6/10
Order of the Phoenix
Flick 8/10
Film 7/10
Adaptation 6/10
Standalone 8/10
Half Blood Prince
Flick 9/10
Film 7/10
Adaptation 4/10
Standalone 8/10
Deathly Hallows Part 1
Flick 6/10
Film 8/10
Adaptation 7/10
Standalone 8/10
Dearly Hallows Part 2
Flick 8/10
Film 7/10
Adaptation 6/10
Standalone 7/10
Do not post about film vs movie vs cinema when you do not understand it child of /v/.
Fuck off
What about cinemà?
>>64565304
Film is cinema though don't be autistic.
>the production of movies as an art or industry.
>"the history of American cinema"
>synonyms: films, movies, pictures, motion pictures "Italian cinema"
PoA and DH1 are the most successful adaptations in regards to recreating the tones of their source material. OotP comes close but it doesn't have the drawn-out feeling of paranoid dread. Apparently there's a 3-hour cut of that film that I'd love to see.
The Columbus films don't have any of the anarchic energy of their respective books, they feel so sugary and storybook-y. CoS is especially bad, it's a completely toothless horror story.
Goblet of Fire feels the most like a typical YA film adaptation and I almost feel like it doesn't have a distinctive tone at all.
>Harry potter
>not just anti art garbage
Harry Potter was easily one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the seriesüf only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but itüfs certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books are g-g-good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King
Who's the slut
>>64565455
Luna Lovegood
>>64565377
LOL
“A movie is made for an audience and a film is made for both the audience and the filmmakers. I think that The Game is a movie and I think Fight Club‘s a film. I think that Fight Club is more than the sum of its parts, whereas Panic Room is the sum of its parts. I didn’t look at Panic Room and think: Wow, this is gonna set the world on fire. These are footnote movies, guilty pleasure movies. Thrillers. Woman-trapped-in-a-house movies. They’re not particularly important.” - David Fincher
"My film is not a movie. My film is not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam. It's what it was really like. It was crazy. We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane." — Francis Ford Coppola
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film#Terminology_used
>By contrast, in the US "movie" is the predominant form. Although the words "film" and "movie" are sometimes used interchangeably, "film" is more often used when considering artistic, theoretical, or technical aspects, as studies in a university class and "movies" more often refers to entertainment or commercial aspects, as where to go for fun on a date. For example, a book titled "How to Read a Film" would be about the aesthetics or theory of film, while "Lets Go to the Movies" would be about the history of entertaining movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMsp05iSk7s
movies are about economics.
cinema is about esthetics.
film is about politics.
-"How To Read A Film" by James Monaco
Also the separation is recognized in these texts
Bresson's Notes on the Cinematographer
Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time
Delleuze's Cinema I&II
>>64565263
Hello reddit!
>no movie
>no cinema
>no kino
nice try reddit
How does it do as a feature tho?
>>64565420
>gatsby god tier
hello /v/
>>64565411
I personally like those two the most as films anyways. I underrated PoA it's almost perfectly made.
Ive heard of the cut too, it definitely deserves to be a three hour film. I wish the department of mysteries had been done more like the book but I still liked how it ended up. It does deserve to have a more dreadful tone like HBP gave off sometimes.
The first two are made to be kid friendly I think so that's why the tone isn't as heavy. Goblet was so dissappinting though...
>>64565481
Nobody said film and movie were the same. Cinema and film are interchangeable as is flick and movie.
>movies are about economics. cinema is about esthetics. film is about politics. -"How To Read A Film" by James Monaco"
I don't need to read a book to know how to read a film you can judge it as face value or as an artform. That simple. It's a movie or a film, it's a flick or its cinema. No need to have film represent the extra bullshit of politics when that effects the movie itself and it as an artform
>>64565516
>Avatar
>masterpiece
are you autistic?
>>64565516
Does anyone have the original version of this pic?
>>64565565
>not recognizing that
Are you greeting yourself?
>>64565694
lmao what
Goblet of Fire is one of the best Harry Potter films, after Prisoner of Azkaban and Deathly Hallows.
>>64566789
>films
They're flicks desu.
>>64565516
>not posting the one with Citizen Bane
You fucked up.
>>64565226
Memes asides, how is the first one not the best standalone by default?
>>64566591
Avatar is a cinematic masterpiece
Everything is said through visuals that's where real cinematic depth and emotion comes from, not pseudo-thoughtful explanatory monologues
Cameron is a true auteur following his vision, a real master
I'm not surprised an immature Potterdrone cant form his own opinion on his movies and just hate on it because it's not "grimdark" enough
>>64566918
Avatar is pure shit and I'm not the one you are talking to. Cameronfag gtfo
>>64566789
Goblet is the worst by a landslide
See >>64565411
It has no tone or depth. The best thing is the opening title. The triwizard tournament was gutted and it's just action packed Harry time with little suspense. The second task was the only slightly well done one. Too lighthearted one moment and too terrible of an adaptation the next
>HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Shame they offered it to Cuaron and he turned it down
>>64565420
>BNW low tier
seriously fuck off
>>64566918
not that guy but there is more to a 'masterpiece' than you're making it. things like a creative and sensible plot, dialogue, and character development are also factors. You might think otherwise but to me Avatar was severely lacking in all those categories (though it has been a while since I saw it.)
James Cameron is the tits and Avatar was super entertaining but if you throw words like masterpiece around like that words tend to lose their meaning
