Harry Potter should have been a TV series

    • Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      I'm rewatching the series before the last one because I haven't seen some of them for years (crazy nostalgia in the first couple) and I realized there are too many damn characters. The stuff between Ron, Hermione and Harry is great but other characters, Draco Malfoy being a prime example, don't have nearly enough screen time to get fleshed out enough for their emotional moments to be nearly as satisfying as they could be.

      I only read the first four books ages ago so I can't really say that they're leaving a lot out but I assume they are. It's a shame they wouldn't have made nearly as much money going the TV series route because the quality of the series would have been much better. I hope the new acclaimed HBO series sets a good example.

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      I've actually just thrown up in my mouth a little bit because of the fact that you said a tv series would have been better than the books. That's just fucking stupid :lol:
      They do leave out quite a bit of stuff in the films from the books but the films are still good.
      Nothing beats the books though. Fucking annoys me so much when people only watch the films and have no interest in reading the books. It's just lazy. Of course the books are better.
      A tv series is the most terrible idea I've heard, it would be boring and weird.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

      [CENTER][SIZE="4"]<3[/SIZE][/CENTER]

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      metonymy wrote:

      TV series usually have smaller budgets though. So the production values would be a lot lower.


      Low productions don't bother me if the story is good.

      Muppy wrote:

      I've actually just thrown up in my mouth a little bit because of the fact that you said a tv series would have been better than the books. That's just fucking stupid :lol:
      They do leave out quite a bit of stuff in the films from the books but the films are still good.
      Nothing beats the books though. Fucking annoys me so much when people only watch the films and have no interest in reading the books. It's just lazy. Of course the books are better.
      A tv series is the most terrible idea I've heard, it would be boring and weird.


      I find television and film to be much better than books because there are so many contributing factors that can make it potentially much better. In film/television you have:
      - Music to add more emotion
      - Cinematography to add more beauty and art
      - Good actors that own roles and bring more depths out of the characters

      ect.

      If anything books are lazier because they take so much less effort to make. They're just text on pages whereas film can bring them to life. Not to say books aren't a good way of telling a story, there's just much less depth to them in my opinion.

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      I think books have much more depth to them than film/TV. If they're well written, that is. Because you get much more depth to the characters, since writing can tell you much more about them and their thoughts and emotions than some actors on a screen.

      I guess if you lack in imagination though, it mightn't seem as good.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      Aannddyy on msn wrote:

      hye, i jstu red ur post in the dibates and diskushon bord lol
      [CENTER]
      [/CENTER]

      DamnImGood;1062835947 wrote:

      I'm definitely an idiot.



      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      Lord Voldemort wrote:

      If anything books are lazier because they take so much less effort to make. They're just text on pages whereas film can bring them to life. Not to say books aren't a good way of telling a story, there's just much less depth to them in my opinion.


      Try writing a novel and you'll see how difficult it is. It's more difficult to write a novel, from beginning to end with revisions and edits, than using a camera and editing the video with software. Cinematography does have it's benefits over books, but it takes imagination out of the equation.

      ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

      RollinRightInuit wrote:

      If they're well written, that is.


      So that excludes Stephanie Meyer then? :p

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      Books are amazing, they captivate people's imagination and let people get their own grasp on a story. Nothing can beat a good book in my opinion. When you watch something you are just sat there staring at a screen, with books you have to properly think.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER]

      [CENTER][SIZE="4"]<3[/SIZE][/CENTER]

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      RollinRightInuit wrote:

      I think books have much more depth to them than film/TV. If they're well written, that is. Because you get much more depth to the characters, since writing can tell you much more about them and their thoughts and emotions than some actors on a screen.

      I guess if you lack in imagination though, it mightn't seem as good.


      The depth of the characters really doesn't make a difference whether it's written in a book or a screenplay, I don't see how either one can specifically develop characters better than the other.

      As for the whole imagination thing, that's the dumbest argument ever. Anyone can imagine what they're reading in their head, it's not like it's an intense skill. It's something a 3 year old would brag about. The only downside that movies have in that area is a time limit.

      Tombgeek wrote:

      Try writing a novel and you'll see how difficult it is. It's more difficult to write a novel, from beginning to end with revisions and edits, than using a camera and editing the video with software. Cinematography does have it's benefits over books, but it takes imagination out of the equation.


      You do realize there's a written process to making a movie, right?

      ---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

      Muppy wrote:

      Books are amazing, they captivate people's imagination and let people get their own grasp on a story. Nothing can beat a good book in my opinion. When you watch something you are just sat there staring at a screen, with books you have to properly think.


      If you don't think while you're watching a movie, you're definitely not doing it right.

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      Tombgeek wrote:

      Primarily dialogue and basic, bare-bones descriptions of the set, mood, etc. and phrases telling the director what actions need to take place.


      Wtf? The actual writing aspect is essentially the same. You have to put interesting characters on paper and wind them into a good story with strong themes. My point is movies are a better way of portraying the story.

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      Lord Voldemort wrote:

      Books are like apes and Movies are like humans. It's just the evolution of storytelling.

      notsureifserious.jpg
      "I've never understood ethnic or national pride, because to me pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth."
      - George Carlin

      Striker88;1062839033 wrote:

      You know why nobody has gotten evidence? God hasn't allowed that and won't.

    • Re: Harry Potter should have been a TV series

      Lord Voldemort wrote:

      And here comes DIG with the elitist attitude.

      Irony at its best. You do nothing but criticize others' tastes in film and TV.
      "I've never understood ethnic or national pride, because to me pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth."
      - George Carlin

      Striker88;1062839033 wrote:

      You know why nobody has gotten evidence? God hasn't allowed that and won't.