Why was this movie so obsessed with wide shots? There are entire scenes of characters talking at the end of a long hallway without ever letting us even see their faces. And characters referring to specific items/things with absolutely no close-up of what they're discussing. Once I became aware of it, it was frustrating.
What were they trying to achieve?
Listen. This must be addressed and discussed.
>>67344073
Poor filmmmaking
>>67344073
It's a kids movie bro. It doesn't need to be so detailed. Try using your imagination like the kids used to do in the olden days before the Internet fucked everything up and now we have illiterate faggots like you to deal with every day.
>>67345145
Since when is a close-up considered "detailed"? And what's literacy got to do with watching a movie?
I can't remember a single shot from this movie.
>>67345393
Yeah, I didn't really expect anybody to remember. It's just that I watched it recently and noticed how visually dark most scenes are and the strong aversion to any close-ups.
>>67344073
Dunno, I stopped watching those movies after they butchered 5. I'm guessing I didn't miss out on much. The books were great though.
>>67345510
What ways did they butcher 5? Cutting too much content? I watched most of the movies when I was a kid so I was never really critical of them, didn't pay close attention to how they differed from the books. I think the only thing I was bothered by on my first viewing was how they handled Voldemort's death.
>>67345586
Cutting would be forgivable since it's adapting a 600+ page book into a movie, but what annoyed me was all the pointless changes just to Hollywoodize it: Umbridge having a million rules, Cho being the traitor (and the hamhanded truth serum explanation), etc.
>>67344073
Possibly something to do with the director and his DP.
>>67345586
Personally i find it wasnt 5s fault. It was mostly fallout from 3. Thats where the movies really started deviatating from the books and leaving out what later turned out to be major events
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZ_ZyzCO24
>>67344073
The most memorable example of the kind of shot you're talking about is Harry eavesdropping on Snape and Draco as they argue in hushed tones about the Unbreakable Vow. It's pretty obvious why they chose to film it in wide shots: to effect an atmosphere of suspicion and mystery, where you can never be sure who's plotting what. The whole film is like that; need I remind you that this is the film that ends with the death of Dumbledore?
>>67344073
The real crime was omitting this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX08rm5jUwE
So fucking pissed they did, just so movieonlyfags did not see Snape's betrayal coming.
Such a good scene thing, real ominous requiem for what's about to happen.
>>67345510
5s book had the most bloat, it dragged on and on.
The movie did a decent job at adapting it, it turned out pretty good. Not enough Luna though.
>>67346137
This. It was doomed when they fucked up the Firebolt scene in 3.
From then on it got worse, cutting the Barty Crouch Jnr plot etc from 4.
Realistically though, the books got bigger from 4 onwards. So cut content and abridged plots was to be expected.
>>67344073
If it were an anime this would be a pretty easy way to save their budget. Tricks like that are pretty commonly used there. But reality is not animated so I have no idea what they could have possibly been going for with this. It doesn't save any more money than just showing them up close. Seems like a puzzlingly artistic thing that doesn't make much sense.
>>67346137
>>67346847
What annoys me about 3 is that it was the last book short enough to properly adapt and instead they gave it a big "fuck you" adaptation with all these dumb changes and that fucking ending. I'd like to high kick that shitty director in the face. He has not done a single good movie.
>>67346218
Is it epic to not know what the characters are referring to?
The first time Harry sees Dumbledore in the movie, Dumbledore has a shriveled black hand. Harry notices and Dumbledore says something about it. Except his hand is on the opposite side to the camera and there is no close-up or emphasis on it at all. It would be very easy to miss, I think. Especially if you haven't read the books. Just little things like that felt weird. Like they just refused to ever do close-ups, when they would have helped with clarification.
>>67346328
You got me there. I was thinking of that scene specifically, and I admit there is a specific reason why they do it there. It just felt like it was happening too much over the entire film. Even at normal/cheerful moments. It just felt like at times I was longing to see someone's face so I could better see their emotions, but the camera was too shy to get closer
>>67346847
That's a nice scene.
Even tiny things they cut seem so odd when you try to watch the series from the perspective of a non-bookreader. Like in 3 they never say who the names on the map are referring to. And then suddenly in 4 you have Voldemort saying "wormtail" and Harry saying "padfoot" without explanation. And the whole deal with the mirror.
>>67347017
Fuck the ending. It's the only thing I'm actually mad about. What were they thinking.
>>67345586
>longest book
>shortest movie
cutting a little is understandable, but this was just inexplicable
>>67347017
They changed directors for 3 and 4, and settled on Yates for the rest.
It's a fallout from Columbus quitting.
I do agree that 3 was all over the fucking place. It threw me off when they changed the set for the school grounds, where Hagrid's hut was.
Completely butchering Firebolt pissed me off so bad, when I saw it in the Cinema.
The change to Dumbledore's actor was the worst offense though, I know it couldn't be helped. But fucking hell Gambon didn't "get it" until HBP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2s2tmAdjcA
>>67347094
>Like in 3 they never say who the names on the map are referring to.
I never thought much about it, since I read the book. But fuck that would be weird if you hadn't read it.
>>67347240
Gambon wasn't awful in 3 though
I think it's mostly a directorial fault, because the only film where his dumbledore is straight up offensively bad and a middlefinger to the books is in 4
>>67347240
>I never thought much about it, since I read the book
Yeah, I never even noticed any of it was missing since I already read the books but I recently rewatched most of the movies and it occurred to me how weird it would be to watch them without any outside knowledge.
The mirror is still the worse though. Suddenly in Deathly Hallows Part 1 Harry has a shard of a mirror (not previously introduced) that he looks into sometimes. They don't even have some throwaway line explaining it.
And yeah gambon was weird. As a kid I don't think I even noticed the actor changed, but watching them now is so jarring. He just seems to shout all the time suddenly.
