Great wrapping up on where things stand in the Potter universe after five books and three films. Your take on Columbus and Cuaron is perfect. I've also been a harsh critic of Columbus, but I would add to your "reaction" comment by saying that Columbus had the enormous task of introducing this world (and franchise) on his shoulders, and in all the small ways (the sets, actors, scenes in the first two films all look and in fact are great in of themselves) he pulled it off nicely. However, we see that he lacked Cuaron's vision as a director, which is why Azkaban is allowed to soar so brilliantly.

Cuaron was brilliant, but he was lucky too. Azkaban is arguably the best of the five books that have yet come out. I've heard rumors that he may come back to do another feature, and I think that would be a good thing for all involved.

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

Wow! I guess I must be living in a parallel universe with you guys. I have the exact opposite take on the films. I though Columbus' depiction of the Potter reality and the story lines were fantastic. In comparison, Cuaron's Azkaban was disjointed, confusing, and in no way true to the specifics of the book -- often giving important lines to the wrong characters, which completely, and irretrievably, altered the flow and relevance of the series.

My sister and I (both of us have devoured each book as it came out) have made a point of seeing each movie together. We were so appalled at Cuaron's Azkaban that we immediately sat down and documented all of the significant ways in which the movie had departed from the plot and broken the set-up and links Rowling has so artfully woven into the series.

I wonder how much involvement Rowling had in the development of the screen play. If I can sum up the difference between the first two movies and the third in a single idea, it would be to describe Azkaban as too Hollywood. The emphasis was all on the special effects and fluff, and the director clearly didn't care how much he ruined the story as long as he got to include lots of visually appealing nonsense.

I hope there is more quality control by Rowling in the next movie.

thanks Eric, I appreciate your appreciation and agree it would be great to see Cuaron do another Potter film. And I agree that Columbus did a great job with setting things up, atmosphere and tone, but he had a harder time with plot and pacing, but that could also be a factor of the material, as you say.

EL - You're definitely not alone in feeling the way you do. A few weeks ago, I waged a similar argument over on www.SciFiDaily.com. I'm actually surprised that anyone feels the first two films are better than the third, but I think those that do fall squarely in the "literalist" camp: you want to see a scene-by-scene translation from book to film.

My counter-argument is to look at Azkaban and Jackson's triumph with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both use the source material (books and some other resources) as a basis to create films that live and breathe on their own, separate entities in an entirely different medium that work in every way on their own.

The first two Potter films use the books as enormous crutches, and are therefore, as Eric (Olsen) stated, clunky: great in snippets, snoozers in total (I actually can't stay awake through either of them... they're better than Tylenol PM for me).

Azkaban follows through beautifully on Cuaron's vision. You might not like that vision, but I argue that Azkaban is a great movie whereas the first two are, at best, so-so.

EL, I'm with Eric (both of them actually since I'm one of them and almost always agree with myself) on this one. As I said, since I haven't read any of the books yet, I only see them as movies and don't know, other than what I pick up from others, how they relate to the books, so it doesn't matter much to me how closely each follows the book. I think a slavish literalism to the source, while completely understandable as preferable from a reader's perspective, can detract from a movie as movie.

Almost all of my exposure to Harry Potter has been through the books, and I haven't seen "Azkaban" yet, but I've forgot about the first two movies because the images in my mind from the books are much better.

And before you start to berate Rowlings, at least look at how principled she has been in her success. She said she would take Harry Potter through the seven years of school, and despite the enormous success of the series, has kept the books and whatnot somewhat sane.

Now look at Anne Rice who has gone completely Liza with one-tenth of the success, and has churned out an increasing torrent of crap books.

oh, I don't have anything rational against JK at all, I just think she looks funny

Can she do like Bill Murray last night on Letterman and claim she was poisoned? I'd be cautious making fun of the appearance of a scribe who recounts wizards.

But is it that bad in the States that Harry Potter is mostly known though some marginally competent movies and not the books?

not at all, just to me

I think Rowling is mainly known by the books -- especially with kids. If anything, I think the films helped to further expose Potter to adults.

One increasing discrepancy with the books vs the movies, is the books are getting bigger, which creates a problem for 4 and 5 since the books are about 700 pages each. So unless they are getting Peter Jackson to direct the rest of the series, they are going to have a problem.

Azkaban was no light weight, though you're right on the increasing heft as the series moves forward. I think that fact calls ever more strongly for a director with the vision of a Cuaron or Jackson who can transform hundreds of thousands of words into a compelling visual story.

Yes, it is really sad Russ Meyer is dead. But, seriously folks, I nominate Steven Soderbergh since he has proven himself to bring to video Elmore Leonard's books, who could be called the J.K. Rowland for adults. Really dissolute adults with bad habits.

"Half-Blood Prince" - loved the ambiguity you so deftly pointed out, but with the emphasis on blood in the previous -4- books, I suspect the half-blood prince is, well, half Mud-Blood.

I suspect you are correct DrPat

I'm more exercised over the recent announcement by J.K. Rowling that "one of my characters will die" in "Half-Blood Prince". I may have to break my firm, break only in case of emergency, rule about not buying hardbound books.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Damn DrPat, I didn't know that. I'm still getting over Book VII of The Dark Tower series... I don't know if I can handle all of this in one year.

emma watson's adorable, all right, maybe too much for the part. rowling said she based hermione's best-known characteristic, her comic drivenness, on rowling's own need to compensate for not feeling pretty; a woman i used to work with identified w/hermione for the same reason. (me, i love hermione for her understated but unfailing loyalty and kindness ... for myself, i identify with, alas, neville).
thewlis did a fine acting job as lupin, but i just don't think he looked right. alan rickman looked more like snape, so to speak, than the illustrations in the u.s. scholastic editions did, but i can't say the same for thewlis.

Eric, I will be willing to bet that the three friends are not up for the authorial chopping block - and I will be very surprised if even Neville Longbottom is in danger.

Perhaps Lucius Malfoy will go buh-bye. If Rowling means to kill off one of the "good" characters, it may be someone from another house - what was the name of that girl Harry had his eye on?

That's a good guess -- the on-and-off love interest (Cho Chang her name is, my wife informs me, she being the true Potterologist in the family).

My bet's on Hagrid or Dumbledore come to think of it. An authority figure close to Harry who has been a prominent character throughout would give him the oomph to "get medieval" on he-who-must-not-be-named's ass.

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

Oh, no! Maybe Rowling was upset about the substitution for the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore... You may be right.

viewed purely from the filmic viewpoint, characters have been coming and going on a regular basis - particularly teachers - which in some ways is the equivalent of "death," so whoever it is, it maight not have quite the impact on film that it does on the page

I liked all three movies but actually liked the look of the Azkhaban film the least. It was moody and atmospheric and I liked the naturalistic feel of the magic but...at then end I thought the first two films captured the essential feel of Hogwarts better. It's most noticably in the use of color in the films and the overall look. Hogwarts in the first two movies is brighter, more vivid and populous, rather then the greyer, drizzly, silvery sheen that Cuaron seems to have favored. At its most basic, the first two movies are "gold" and the third "silver". now this transition may be a necessary part of the overall series arc, as it does become noticably darker as you progress through the books,.

Overall all of the Potter films are excellent screen adaptations and well worth repeated viewings.

interesting color characterization Deano, thanks - and as I said, you really couldn't have the third one without the first two setting things up

It's been interesting reading the opinions about the first two versus the third. As a fan of both the books and the films, I was astonished when I saw the first film because everything looked almost exactly as I had pictured it in my mind when I read the books -- it was as if my own vision of Hogwarts had been used to make the film. Having said that, the third one was a more satisfying experience on a lot of levels. People who only see the movies without reading the books are missing out on a huge amount of backstory, and that was far more apparent to me in the third movie than in the first two.

books typically do a much better job of backstory telling as movies mostly happen in the "now" - and I agree the look and feel of the first two films was magical

Interestingly, Eric Berlin, the only people I have ever seen reading Harry Potter books, are, well, adults. I think the most notable one was: Last year, while on vacation in the caribbean, I saw a very well nourished fifty something man on the beach reading Order of the Phoenix -- in french.

Hm. I will probably have to list you fellows as Eric I, Eric II, and I will likely end up as Eric III.

EL -- You're right -- I too have seen many adults with the Potter books. From what I've read though, they seem to be the rage with the little ones, used as a talisman to get them interested in reading, etc.

I'm cool with Eric B., Eric II, ebrage (my sometimes moniker), whatever works...

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

Eric -- I know that kids are the target audience and that they are wild about Harry (and he's just wild about me, oops, segue city). It's just that I have never actually seen anyone under the age of thirty with a Potter book in hand. The readers are invariably the business man next to me on the plane, the older lady at the coffee shop, the round man on the beach . . .

I've got to say that only watching the movies and not reading the books is a sorry statement to make. The movies are okay, but none of them are as good as the books.

Similar to the Lord of The Rings trilogy, great movies, but the books are better.

Give yourself a treat and start reading them. I've been re-reading the series in reverse order and it makes me see so much foreshadowing that went completely past me the first time. Rowlings is the master of foreshadowing.

As far as her "tarting up" (it is funny to see her change) at least she has gotten better hair advice than Donald Trump (or Prince Charles for that matter)...

just to throw in my few thoughts...

in book five a semi-steady character died... but the announcement makes it sound like it'll be more major than that. So I wouldn't bet on Cho... that may distress Harry to an extent, but the readers as a whole won't care so much as if it is someone like Hagrid.

I don't like film three as much as the first two mainly because of the continutity issues. I loved how the school appeared outside in the first two films, but then film three goes and mucks with everything and makes the outlay different... what's up with all the open space and fancy bridges and Hagrid living a half mile away!?

Can't wait for book six.

I liked one thing about Azkaban - the constant time-clues. You would see the giant pendulum swing by at the end of the corridor, or off to the edge of the screen, an orery marking sidereal time.

The "silver" feel to the colors seems to have been due to filming in Scotland during a continuous "mist-storm".

I am happy to be one of the freaks who has remained untainted by the Harry book experience, then I can appreciate the movies as movies rather than derivations - I am certain that at some point I will catch up with the books. Meanwhile, I take perverse pleasure in being told what an idiot I am for not reading them.

EL, the reason the books and movies are such a phenomenon is becaue they do appealequally to adults and to kids: you may become a millionaire, but you don't become a billionaire without transcending the generations

What makes the "Harry Potter" books distinctive is they are books about children, not children's books, which makes them accessible to everybody.

For example, compare J.G. Ballard's "Empire of the Sun" (the novel, not the movie which sanitized the youngster) and Russell Banks "Rule of the Bone". Both books share a similar point of view as the Harry Potter books without the magic and wonder. The Harry Potter books defy marketing slots. There are many details which can only be appreciated by adults, such as the bureaucracy in keeping magic hidden from the mugworts.

Jim, you've got your finger on it. Like the Simpsons or Rocky and Bullwinkle, Rowling's books appeal to kids with magic and monsters (cartoons), and to adults with insight and perspective on the real world.