What was so wrong with Christopher Colombus?

[Master Samwise]

What did the poor guy do wrong?

I just reqatched my DVD and I thought the film was fine. While it was hardly the most specaticularly engaging (for which I blame the books, and not the director ;)) it still did work.

So why didn't he get the job again?

[Katia Elanor]

CC said he doesn't want to direct anymore after CoS cause it's tiring directing them and he wants to be able to spend more time with his family, instead of spending all his time in England filming Harry Potter movies.

Personally, I think CC is a good director, I just don't think he is the best director for Harry Potter. He's not very good at genre stuff--he's better at drama. The person who is really good at genre whom I thought they should've tried to get was Tim Burton.

I'll be interested to see how the new director is--isn't he from Mexico?

[Colli]

I thought Chris did a great job. :) It's FleurD that has the problem with them. ;) Lots of those British folk found the movie too American, or so I was told. :p

I'm actually terrified of this Mexican director. Part of the reason TSS was so good was because of the chemistry the actors had with Chris, and throwing a new guy in there part of the way through just scares me. Imagine George Lucas dying or something and some one else picking up the rest of the Star Wars movies to continue writing and filming them. :eek:

[Moxie]

Originally posted by Colli
Imagine George Lucas dying or something and some one else picking up the rest of the Star Wars movies to continue writing and filming them. :eek:

While I wish no harm to Mr. Lucas, I think the latter part of your suggestion isn't entirely without merit, actually. I'm still :rolleyes: about Ep. 1 to the point I didn't even bother to see Ep. 2 in the theatre; if you'd told me as a kid I'd ever willingly skip seeing a Star Wars movie I'd never believe you, but so it is now. :(

[one.elven.girl]

Originally posted by Colli
Imagine George Lucas dying or something and some one else picking up the rest of the Star Wars movies to continue writing and filming them. :eek:


Almost but not quite.:rolleyes:

[Colli]

:p It's just an example, people. ;)

"Don't change horses in the middle of a river", or something to that effect. :D

[Katia Elanor]

Originally posted by Moxie
While I wish no harm to Mr. Lucas, I think the latter part of your suggestion isn't entirely without merit, actually. I'm still about Ep. 1 to the point I didn't even bother to see Ep. 2 in the theatre; if you'd told me as a kid I'd ever willingly skip seeing a Star Wars movie I'd never believe you, but so it is now.

Just because he's not the best screenwriter or character director doesn't change the fact that he is the only one that can make the Star Wars movies. I think it would be intelligent if he got someone else to write the screenplay and direct Episode III, but he has to be the one to come up with the story cause, IMO, he's very good at that.

But this isn't a Star Wars thread so I'll try not to go off on that soapbox in here.

I'm trying to have confidence in this Mexican director. I'm hoping he's better for HP than CC was.

[Master Samwise]

This new guy who ever he is doesn't really have my confidence stoked I have to say.

The ending to the trailer for the new one is DIRE.

Its shocking.

:jawdrop:

And not in a good way either.

[amrael]

Posted by Colli

Lots of those British folk found the movie too American, or so I was told. :p

I didn't find it too American, but then I'm Spanish, so what do I know? :p

Why didn't I like HP as much as I expected film one? Take a look at LotR: PJ did an adaptation of LotR for the screen. Take a look at HP: CC filmed a sort of 'highlights of Harry Potter'. A film must be much more than a number of beautiful scenes one after the other.

[Monkfish]

Colli...............TSS?

Don`t you mean TPS.;) :D

[Colli]

Originally posted by Monkfish
Colli...............TSS?

Don`t you mean TPS.;) :D

Nope! :p

;)

[Monkfish]

Darn colonials!;) :D

[Seriphus]

Take a look at LotR: PJ did an adaptation of LotR for the screen. Exactly. PJ took LoTR, used some elements of a great book and created a great movie. CC took some great books that, I feel, were being viewed purely as some massive money-making franchise for WB and churned out a visual dialogue of what happened in the books.

I think I've probably stated 'Americanisation' as one reason the movies weren't as good as they could have been myself. I don't mean that in a derogatory way to America, but to me the movies didn't have the same atmosphere as the books. They were very Hollywood in terms of the big effects and elaborate gothic scenery. I think in a way CC tried too hard to make the movies 'British' and in doing so failed to capture the actual feel of the books.

But the main things, as far as I'm concerned, were that they were made very much as a kids' movies and didn't manage to capture the sophistication and humour of the books; the characters just weren't the characters that I have in my head and not even a good enough replacement, despite the undisputed talents of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris et al; and finally I don't think these movies should be being made until all the books have been published. It just feels like WB cashing in on the phenomena at the moment and it would be good if the production could have been kept on hold and then little touches could be put in that relate to the whole story, because I can imagine scenarios such as wishing, for example, that they'd put Mrs Figg in the first movie because she has such an important part in book 5.

The problems I have with the movies are not all to do with CC, but I am looking forward to seeing what someone else can do. And I really couldn't see CC successfully producing a story as dark as GoF .

[qleap]

ok, I just agree with all Seriphus said :D

as fo Tim Burton for HP....:notworthy
well THAT would make a good dark story ;)

[Pilgrim Grey]

What I'm wondering is who decided to make the film so literal? Was it Cloves, Columbus (kinda ironic that they wanted to keep the film from being American and then hiring a guy named Columbus :p ) or Rowling? I have a sneaking suspicion that it was Rowling not wanting anything left out or changed dramatically that turned the films into a highlights reel. COS especially felt disjointed, which is very suitable for kids (when they describe something to you: this happened, and then this happened) but not good at all for the later films. Anyway, I'm looking forward to see what the new director will do.

[LuthienElentari]

Yeah I agree. This director is supposed to be really good,so I have my confidence in him. I think that maybe he'll do a better job then CC. Maybe:confused:.


And about the George Lucus thing. I think that the movies have gotten worse and worse. I mean Episode number 2 was ok but the old ones are so much better. I personally think that George Lucus has gotten so wrapped up about fame that the movies have gotten kinda destroyed. There is so much I would of cut out in Episode 2. Anyway, We were talking about Harry Potter.

[Fleurdelacour]

I'm agreeing with Seriphus too :)

I said this in another thread, it was like there was no passion in the film making. When you watch the FotR SE dvd and watch all the behind the scenes stuff, you see all the crew and cast they've all got a passion for LotR. It wasn't a Hollywood film, Peter Jackson and co just loved the books, really wanted to stay loyal as they were REAL fans themselves. And Columbus didnt do that. He movies are awful. I'm preying that this Mexican will fix it...

Does anyone remember a few years back, Steven Speilburg wanting to REALLY Americanise the books, Hogwarts High and Cheerleaders, Hayley Joel Osmont for Harry, and things like that. :p

Coloumbus is hardly credible, he did Mrs Doubtfire and Bicentenniul man, clieched American "family" films. Hardly gripping or groundbreaking :rolleyes:

You can tell I really dont like him! :p

[Colli]

Originally posted by Pilgrim Grey
kinda ironic that they wanted to keep the film from being American and then hiring a guy named Columbus :p

I know you're joking and all, but I've got to stick my tongue out at you anyway. :p

1) Christopher Columbus was Italian
2) He never actually set foot in what is today the United States.... he discovered many of the Caribbean islands and parts of Central and South America.

So :p, :trout:, and ;)

[Seriphus]

Coloumbus is hardly credible, he did Mrs Doubtfire and Bicentenniul man, clieched American "family" films. Hardly gripping or groundbreaking I didn't realise he'd done Mrs Doubtfire, he should be locked up for that one. :rolleyes: The book is fantastic, heart-warming and very funny; the film is over-the-top, sickly and tries too hard to be funny. Sorry, that's a whole different rant. :p

[LuthienElentari]

Originally posted by Fleurdelacour


I said this in another thread, it was like there was no passion in the film making. When you watch the FotR SE dvd and watch all the behind the scenes stuff, you see all the crew and cast they've all got a passion for LotR. It wasn't a Hollywood film, Peter Jackson and co just loved the books, really wanted to stay loyal as they were REAL fans themselves. And Columbus didnt do that. He movies are awful. I'm preying that this Mexican will fix it...



I agree the LOTR cast really does have a passion for the books. And I think thats the key for a good movie. Because they know what happens and they take it seriously because they themselves are fans. And Columbus likes the books but some of the choices he has made have been awful. Like SS that movie was awful. When I first saw it I loved it. But now that I have seen it so many times I have relized that the movie was awful. The special affects didn't look good, Acting was bad ( except Rupert) and some other people, and the movie was out of proportion. Anyway, thats why I think Lord of the Rings is a better movie. Because of the passion that goes into it. But in COS he did a better job.

[Peregrinning Took]

Oooh, hot topic there Sam, I'm surprised more people haven't posted.

I agree with what Fleur said, about how there was no passion involved. I think that's the main reason that Chris did such a terrible job (yes, I do think both movies were terrible). If you look at the ways that LOTR and HP were conceived as movies, it's very different. PJ & Co. spent about eight years until we finally have all three movies out. Chris spent...what? Two or three years? :p It wasn't even Chris's dream really to see the books made into movies. Actually, I think I would have preferred to have all seven books published before turning them into movies. Figg turned out to be an important link between the Muggle and Wizarding world, and it'll be stupid when she's interested in Movie 5 without nonbookers having previous knowledge of her.

:notworthy Tim Burton :notworthy

As for the SW issue....George Lucas, while he's not a very good director, can come up with story ideas. He's just not good at portraying them. For example, my fav Original Trilogy SW flick is Episode 5, and that wasn't directed by Lucas. He shouldn't've bothered to make Ep. 1 and 2 (not sure if I want to go see Ep. 3). *shudder*

[Little Miss]

PS and CoS were... a good way to waste a couple of hours. but nothing more. there was no depth, it was just a straighforward story, much like someone said earlier "this happened, and then this happened, and then that happened, and then the man took his turban off and some other stuff happened" etc etc.

the books are beautiful pieces of literature, woven with subtelties and sophistication, little touches that really wouldn't have been hard or expensive to stick into the films to breathe a bit more life into them, but CC neglected to do this, and thats why i hate him.

Tim Burton on the other hand... i dont think he would have been that good for the films either. i mean he's great, i love his work and all, but his films always end up either... twisted, or slightly confusing. i mean, i dont know how many of you have seen Big Fish, but... i wasnt as impressed as i thought i'd be with a tim burton film. i couldn't see and HP films being a sucess if done in that kind of style, or indeed the style of any other of tim burton's films. his are more beautifully simple stories made complicated (or incoherantly jumbled up, whatever), wheras HP is a beautifully complicated story that, to be made into a decent film, needs to be simplified without losing its beauty or to the extent that it becomes bland, which was the problem with the first two.

i'm thinking, perhaps the person who did The Princess Bride would have been good (providing they're still alive)

come to think of it, who did Lost in Translation? because much as its a funny comparison to make, i think that style would kind of fit with the HP stories. or maybe i'm just mad, its possible.

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Little Miss
come to think of it, who did Lost in Translation? because much as its a funny comparison to make, i think that style would kind of fit with the HP stories. or maybe i'm just mad, its possible.

Sofia Coppola both wrote and directed it.