Chris Columbus is stepping down as director of the Harry Potter series and will be a producer only. Director of the third film will be relative unknown Alfonso Cuaron, whose most recent feature was the VERY adult Y tu Mama Tambien.
For the full story, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/potter.director.reut/index.html
Maybe in this feature, Harry gets laid? 
I’m just dying to know who’ll play Sirius Black…
Cuaron also did A Little Princess. This is a good change IMHO.
I was just watching The Sorcerer’s Stone and thinking what a great movie it could have been if it had been made with the same cast but a different director. Columbus has all the artistry of a cement truck. A Little Princess was lovely, though.
As long as Sean Biggerstaff is in it, I’m happy. Gerrroooowwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!
I’ve watched The Sorcerer’s Stone a few times, in widescreen and fullscreen.
For me, the biggest problems are the casting and the scriptwriter’s choice of scenes. They made some bad mistakes trying to get brand-name people into the picture. Maggie Smith’s done good work, but she’s the walking dead in the film. Ron’s performance is just weird, somebody in the commentaries says he’s “expressive”, but to me it looks like he’s just pulling faces. It’s mixed, though, Hermione’s little short of brilliant. Hagrid and Snape are quite good, too.
The scripting is good, with the exception of emphasis. The scenes with the Dursleys are obvious fillers because it’s easier to write (and create special effects) for domestic scenes. The same sort of contrast with conventional domesticity was done much more efficiently in Time Bandits: a few cuts between ugly domestic scenes, and…let’s get on with the action!
And frankly, the need to change directors (after a film we haven’t seen) doesn’t exactly fill me with anticipation…they couldn’t really have screwed it up, could they?
I think Chris Columbus was only contracted to do two movies.
?
Did we watch the same movie, partly_warmer and Myrnalene?
I make it a policy to never overanalyze a movie I’ve seen. I enjoyed it or I didn’t. I find I like more movies that way. I never got the sense of “filler material” at any stage. If the scenes are not subtle and quiet, well, neither are the books.
I didn’t see snything odd about Ron. I thought he was Ron. Just Ron. To me, all the characters acted and looked like the characters would.
I’m one of many people who thought the movie version of “The Sorcerer’s Stone” was a weak effort. Not terrible, just lifeless. Chris Columbus did a competent job of translating the novel into a film, but was TOO faithful, too reverent, to the source material. He did little more than translate the book, scene-by-scene and line-by-line, into film.
I read that, initially, J.K. Rowling was interested in having Terry Gilliam direct, and that would almost certainly have made for a better film. Gilliam has a unique vision and style, and would have given the film a dose of the weirdness it sorely lacked.
On the other hand, I understand perfectly why Hollywood chose to play it safe, and I might well have done the same, if I’d been the producer.
Let’s face it: it was kids who devoured the Harry Potter books, and kids were the target audience for the film. And anyone who’s read a book or story to a child knows how literal-minded kids are. If you’re reading a child his/her favorite story, and you get even a single word wrong, you know the reaction you’ll hear: “NOOOOOOO! You’re not telling it right!!!”
Kids who read the books wanted and expected to see a movie that brought Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore and Hogwarts to life, EXACTLY the way they remember (or imagine) them from the books. ANything else would have completely alienated the target audience.
Look, as an adult, when I see a film adaptation of a novel I like, sure, I want fidelity to the basic plot line and the essential nature of the characters, but I ALSO want to see a director do something new and interesting with the story and characters. A kid, however, doesn’t want something new- he wants the familiar. He finds comfort in repetition.
So, while a director like Gilliam might have made ME happier, he might also have made a film that confused or alienated the target audience. So, if I were producing a Harry Potter film, I might very well play it safe and hire a Chris Columbus. A competent but unimaginative director who give the kids exactly what they expect… but nothing more.
Gilliam definitely would have been risky. Especially because he tends to dominate any movie he’s made recently. Not much chance for other talent to shine through. Disney and company were playing very safe with the first movie, which is one of the reasons it seemed a little scattered, IMHO. Something for everyone.
smiling bandit, the thing about Ron that seems stagey is how constantly makes faces; I’ve never met anyone who does that half as much. He overreacts in several scenes, too.
I don’t know what else you had a different viewpoint on, but I assume it was casting. I felt there were lots of outright casting mistakes, more than in a typical movie: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Mrs. Dursley. And although they were minor characters, Mrs. Weasley was unconvincing, and Ginny looked like she was falling asleep. And speaking of director’s license, changing the personality and sex of comentator on the Quidditch match seemed completely arbitrary; then deleting every one of Jordan’s amusing lines…
Disney had nothing to do with the film; it was a Warner Brothers release.
Well The Little Princess was a great and overlooked film. I wonder if they are getting a better screen writer.
The thing is, to me, they did all this stuff to be ‘faithful to the book’ but they didn’t do enough to be faithful to the film. There is tons of stuff that books need and films don’t and tons of stuff that film needs and books don’t. They sould remember that they are making a film.
One bit in particular that bothered me about the film is that the school work was really pushed to the side. Most of the stuff takes place in halls. This lead to the broom flying class scene which apparently is thier first day. We never go back to broom flying class as it is really there only to get Harry on the Quidditch team. But to put kids on flying brooms on their first day seems a bit reckless to me and it proves to be so when Neville breaks his arm. (it could have been much worse) Why is Hogwarts so reckless with the kids?
Whoops. I knew it wasn’t. I was thinking of that scene where they row across the lake in the dark, panning up to the castle. I felt it was strange and ineffective, and “bad Disney setup” came to mind.
And before anyone asks, I would have prefered it to be revealed slowly through the trees as they walk to the dock, which is also what the book did. Second choice, which seems the more logical, is from the train just before or as it’s pulling into the station.
IIRC from the interview on the DVD, Chris Columbus wanted to step down so he could spend more time with his kids. At least, IIRC, that’s what he said.
Wait a minute, Lee Jordan = male, and the actor who plays Lee Jordan is named Luke Youngblood , so I’m assuming he is a male, too. I don’t think Lee Jordan is a female, or what?
Ok, wait, i’m stuck. I was talking about the Jordan in the book who was making the Quidditch announcements, and gratuitiously adding comments about how cute Angelia Johnson was, and about how the Slytherins were cheating.
Those were the lines that really belonged in the movie.
Perhaps because:
A) Magic seems to cure most injuries
B) As there are only so many jobs in the Ministry of Magic to go around, so the magical folk have to keep their numbers down. Not very efficient, I’ll admit, but it seems plausible.
Well, not everyone works in the Ministry, though. There are all the places on Diagon Alley (and side streets), and foreign jobs as well.
And something that we haven’t seen yet in the books, but I hope we will: Someone in the magic world has to be either producing food, or producing something which can be traded to Muggles.
In the fourth book, Goblet of Fire, there is a strong emphasis on how magic folk don’t understand Muggle clothing.
Well, in the movie all Magic folk were wearing perfectly standard clothing like anyone, it looked precious different to any other British Public School. I wonder what they’re going to do with that idea.
As for producing food, the House Elfs do that. And to clarify partly_warmer’s comments about Lee Jordan:
In the book, Lee Jordan (a boy) commentates the Quidditch match irreverently, and gets told off a lot by McGonnagal. In the movie, it was someone else, a girl, whose character name I am unsure of.
Lee Jordan was still a boy in the movie. I think you just mistook him for a girl, which is understandable. It was hard to tell.
The house elves prepare the food, but we’ve never seen who grows it.