Harry Potter 3 - Different Style?

Bischofftep

Bischofftep

Well-known member
Hey all:

Just saw "Prisoner of Azkaban" and noticed a lot of things about it which seemed very different not only from previous Harry Potter flicks, but also from most cinema today. Wondered if anyone else had thoughts about things like...

* Film stock. Wow... super-grainy and didn't seem to have a lot of contrast to it. Was this just a bad copy my theater showed, or was this the original intent? Lots of dark, and a good bit of mid... but very very few highlights. Intentional? Appropriate for a dark-motif story? And that grain! Woo...

* Long cuts. Seemed that the camera stayed on target longer than in most films. There weren't as many cuts to different views as I think I see elsewhere. Or am I just getting more sensitive to this as I edit my own material? I think I liked it... seemed to be that there were more opportunities for the scene to develop without jumping from view to view so much.

* Steadicam? Noticed a lot of follow-the-action and some apparently hand-held/steadicam-type shots. Any time someone's going somewhere the camera seemed to want to follow them as they went. Again, I'm not sure if I liked it or not, but it did seem to portray well the underlying tension that built throughout the whole movie. Naturally, I kept saying to myself... "hey... since I got a DV Rig Pro and can't afford a tripod now maybe I can shoot like that all the time!" Ain't the human mind a grand invention?

Just looking to see if any of this makes sense.
 
Re: Harry Potter 3 - Different Style?

..what youll notice though is that if its in a major motion picture, people will say..  "Oh was it grainy..i didnt notice.. was it shakey.. i didnt notice.. was it blown out , or oversaturated..i didnt notice ...it just looked really good to me"   cause they are expecting it to be really good, and want to like it. but if you did the same exact thing.. they would be like " it so grainy and shakey... why is it like that?" cause they wil be looking for anything they can to stop you from being anything they have to look up to.    however if you show your material to an audience that does not know you.. they will probably like it.  

the whole hand held,, and gritty and blown highlights, and all that garb scene is really poular right now in big budget productions..    theres no reason you cant acheive an awsome look with the dvx , and a handfull of tapes alone, but what it all comes down to is the human element .. the equipment can do the job .. the question is.. can you? can your actors? can your DP? can your director?.. ect..
 
Re: Harry Potter 3 - Different Style?

i would wager that alot of that is due to the new director. the latest potter film is directed by Alfonso Cuaron, the guy who did Y tu mama tambien. To go from Chris Columbus (Bicentennial Man) to Alfonso will make a film feel totaly different. I havent seen the movie yet, but friends have and they say the difference between the 2 is pretty apparent. Its interesting to see how 2 directing styles can alter the feel of a similer story.
 
Re: Harry Potter 3 - Different Style?

It was definitely quite grainy. The Harry Potter films are shot in Super35, and one of the knocks against S35 is a propensity towards grain, but then again the LOTR series was also all S35 and I don't remember them looking nearly as grainy...
 
Re: Harry Potter 3 - Different Style?

This is by far the best of the Potter films. Cuaron, the director of the third, is far and away a better filmmaker than Columbus, who prior to the first two Potters, made, ahem, Home Alone.

The mise-en-scene was joyous, the visual look appropriate and thrilling, and the long takes were indeed long takes. Not a whole lot of "coverage" but steadicam long shots which TRULY gave one a larger sense of depth and allowed the material to just simply flow. And yeah, the triple-decker bus sequence was as madcap and exciting as a Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, or Jerry Lewis film. As they said a thousand times in the film, 'brilliant!'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top