Harry Potter

Expensive platform shoes?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Does he show his dong at the end, like in that play?

Harry Potter And The Pushing Of The 12A/PG-13 Certificate Boundaries.

colly wrote:

But on a serious note - how did this special-effects heavy, massive cast of famous names pic only cost 125 million to make, yet the relatively bare QOS cost 200 million?

Talent?

That is really interesting however - hardly seems right.

colly wrote:

But on a serious note - how did this special-effects heavy, massive cast of famous names pic only cost 125 million to make, yet the relatively bare QOS cost 200 million?

Helga ain't cheap.

I thought the last POTTER cost about 240, so I'd be really surprised if this one cost less.

QoS' costs are largely about insane overtime on postproduction to get it into theaters on-time, much like TERMINATOR 2 a couple decades back.

The last two Potters were filmed together, let's not forget. I believe they decided on the split once shooting was already underway. Perhaps the actors and crew were paid as if it was one production.

trevanian wrote:

QoS' costs are largely about insane overtime on postproduction to get it into theaters on-time, much like TERMINATOR 2 a couple decades back.

Wait, I thought it was the overload of locations? The cost of moving all that hardware and crew across the globe must have racked up the budget.

Sharky wrote:

trevanian wrote:

QoS' costs are largely about insane overtime on postproduction to get it into theaters on-time, much like TERMINATOR 2 a couple decades back.

Wait, I thought it was the overload of locations? The cost of moving all that hardware and crew across the globe must have racked up the budget.

That's a big factor too, you're right. But they should be used to that by now, since nearly all Bonds do the globetrotting thing to some degree (LTK not withstanding.)
Having to cram nearly 1000 vfx shots into a tragically abbreviated post schedule, a la QoS, is something else altogether, though, and if Bond gets used to doing things that way, the costs are going to be crazy, and quality control is going to be a nightmare.

Back on topic, I really liked this one (have dug all the post-Columbus Potters, though Cuaron's remains the best.)

Now I feel okay about picking up and reading the last two books, which I held off on because I wanted to be surprised in the cinema at what happened. The Alan Rickman stuff was very moving and effective (not to the 'bernardo bernardo' level I experience when watching Bronson die in MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, but then again, what is?)

trevanian wrote:

Sharky wrote:

trevanian wrote:

QoS' costs are largely about insane overtime on postproduction to get it into theaters on-time, much like TERMINATOR 2 a couple decades back.

Wait, I thought it was the overload of locations? The cost of moving all that hardware and crew across the globe must have racked up the budget.

That's a big factor too, you're right. But they should be used to that by now, since nearly all Bonds do the globetrotting thing to some degree (LTK not withstanding.)
Having to cram nearly 1000 vfx shots into a tragically abbreviated post schedule, a la QoS, is something else altogether, though, and if Bond gets used to doing things that way, the costs are going to be crazy, and quality control is going to be a nightmare.

That's what I find odd. In the CR stunt documentary, they have that phoney line about "doing it for real." Or something. Even then it was a major stretch, but two films on and they do a 360. The fx mightn't be as obvious or larger than life as in DAD, but it's still physically impossible, cartoonish and overbearing.

The "digital intermediate" thing hit the nail on the head. Apparently Meheux and Campbell took the negative to some vfx company called Framestore CFC, and they did the mastergrade. I admit, they did alright job on the title sequence, but they managed to make the rest of the film look both cold and like a fisher price toy.

Back on topic:

Radcliffe showing his dong, but still no tits? I'll pass.

I only enjoyed the first three for their John Williams scores, which gave them a veneer of magic that the movies never deserved. After that, I lost interest. Too much angsty, soap opera crap and TV grade direction.

CFC Framestore does AWESOME VFX work for Cuaron, but I don't know anything about their CR involvement. I do think the way CR was treated/affected in the DI was excessive, but maybe the producers were just trying to protect their restartup investment with extra 'polish' (to the point for me that it looked tarted-up.)

The first couple DIE HARD movies only looked okay to me, but man, the last one? It is like it takes place somewhere near the PITCH BLACK planet. Does anybody remember what blue skies look like?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/29/harry-potter-actor-indecent-exposure


Look at that head...

Bahaha!

Somebody shrunk Tony Soprano and Exeter from THIS ISLAND EARTH.

He's wearing flesh-coloured make-up in the photo, clearly.

Midgets are always randy bastards.

I've not read the books, but I'll rewatch the five first movies and discover the other ones. For the moment, the two first are too much childish for me, even if there are good scenes and quite dark atmospheres which contrast with characters' youth. The third is apparently a big betrayal of the book but it's the best of the four first. The fourth shouldn't have put together Voldemort's rebirth and the Quidditch World Cup (another childish thing...). I've not watched the fifth for a while and I'll surely do it soon. Then, until the fourth...

1 - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
2 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
3 - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
4 - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I didn't find the third one a betrayal, it just felt like a really good movie instead of a prosaic thing, which is how 1 & 2 played for me. I only read the first five, but I've actually not been upset by anything they left out in the films.

Jack Wade wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

What actors play the older characters? Or do they simply age Radcliffe and Co. with CGI?

Same actors with crappy makeup and costumes that make them look like they're playing dress-up as 30-year-olds.

Yeah, I finally just watched it and it's kind of funny. Could have hired older actors, but I guess this was a no-win scenario, would have been hard to go along with that kind of ending and not have the actors you watched for ten whole years in those roles. They look absurd, but I guess it's just something you gotta roll with. I pretty much did, despite the chuckling.





Gotta say, Malfoy looks the worst. Probably why he doesn't get a close-up.

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous.

Harry Potter's redheaded wife is the most believable as an adult.

Gotta say though, Emma Watson = MILF.