Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

trailer break: ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’

Take a break from work: watch a trailer…


It was only a couple of weeks ago that we saw the first teaser for the last Harry Potter flick (well, the first part of the last flick), but Warner Bros. is clearly determined to torture us all summer. We should have a Harry Potter movie now, like this weekend, but instead we have to make do with a new trailer.

And yes, this trailer seems intent on torturing us with all its drama and excitement and kissing and danger and noseless villains. And with the 3D thing. Why did they have to do that? Why couldn’t they just leave it alone? Harry Potter doesn’t need to be in 3D. But anything meant to be a blockbuster now is going to be in 3D, because it inflates box office takings, and it’s all about the box office horserace.

*sigh*

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows opens in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. on November 19.



Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106
posted in:
movie buzz | trailers
  • Pausner

    I’m not a big fan of 3D either. I don’t understand why it’s being promoted so heavily. If it’s the future of movies, why not let the power of the 3rd dimension speak for itself.

    However, I’d like to know if similar statements and debates were raging when colour was new to movies. Is it or is it not analogous? (Harry Potter doesn’t need to be in colour…)

    Could that be outlined better so the current debate has context?

  • Kathy A

    I did like the 3D in the fifth film, which only lasted from the time the group are flying the thestrails into London through the end of the Voldemort/Dumbledore battle at the Ministry. The idea of making the entirety of these two films 3D after-the-fact is just ridiculous.

    That aside, I am sooo looking forward to these movies! That trailer hits all the high points of the book, IMO, and gives me hope that these might be as good as I’m wishing they will.

  • markyd

    Yeah, I saw this yesterday. I think it’s a fantastic trailer. Totally gave me shivers. Then it was cheapened by the “in 3D” crap. It really is getting ridiculous. Thing is, unless the masses stop spending extra for 3D crap it’s not going to stop.

  • Alli

    We can still see it in 2D though. I hope that they will have a midnight showing in 2D, because I really don’t want to be distracted by the 3D the first time I see it.

  • bats :[

    The comedian Craig Ferguson (aka, “TV’s Craig Ferguson”) encourages people who are interested in experiencing 3D presentations to attend something called “live theater.”

    :D

  • Barb

    I don’t get what all the hype is about 3D. I’m perfectly happy with 2D and hi-def.

    Really good trailer.

  • Left_Wing_Fox

    Heh, there is a part of me which, when people ask ‘Why 3d?” replies with “Why colour? Why sound?”

    I’m not denying that there’s a lot of bad fake 3d out there. But there was a lot of bad uses of color and sound in films too. You don’t need a running monologue during a pantomime, and you don’t need to colourize a black-and-white film which uses the limited medium artistically.

    And yes, a sense of depth is more than just a gimmick. Many directors will try and show a sense of scale, or depth, or vastness to an object, but the flattening effect of the camera makes these shots less effective than they could be with genuine spacial perception. Similarly, directors always attempt audience immersion. As much as we decry the corny cliche of the chainsaw buzzing into the audience, Plenty of films will put the camera in harms way, as we are sot at by volleys of arrows, or have cars hurled at us, or race in first-person immediacy through forests, trenches and tunnels. 3d enhances those experiences, and the desire to show them is as old as the medium itself.

    There;s probably going to be a lot of crap until the mature production technology of Avatar becomes commonplace, and the gaudy attempts at novelty give way to simple immersion, much the way color, or surround sound has.

  • MaryAnn

    However, I’d like to know if similar statements and debates were raging when colour was new to movies. Is it or is it not analogous? (Harry Potter doesn’t need to be in colour…)

    Could that be outlined better so the current debate has context?

    Whether or not people said the same thing about color is really beside the point. The vast majority of the 3D we’re seeing today is absolutely crap, either terrible-looking and hence very distracting (as in *Clash of the Titans* and *The Last Airbender*) or else barely noticable and hence pointless.

    I don’t object to *good* 3D, genuinely immersive 3D, as James Cameron used it in *Avatar,* but that’s not what we’re getting. The “analogous” argument could only have occurred if early color films were in false colors. But they weren’t.

    What we’re getting today, however, are films shot in 2D and converted in a postproduction process into 3D (this is the case with *Deathly Hallows*: it was not shot in 3D). At worst, it looks awful. At best, it’s almost unnoticable. The only reason to do this is to boost box office via inflated ticket prices.

    The kind of 3D we’re getting is — apart from *Avatar* — akin to colorizing black-and-white films. Which *is* an abomination.

    We can still see it in 2D though. I hope that they will have a midnight showing in 2D, because I really don’t want to be distracted by the 3D the first time I see it.

    I don’t know what the situation is like in other markets, but when a film opens in New York in both 3D and 2D, the 3D showings greatly dominate: it becomes almost impossible to find a 2D showing at a convenient time at a convenient theater: the 2D showings seem to be relegated to old, crappy theaters, perhaps because those theaters haven’t invested in the new equipment. If a movie is opening in 3D in NYC, there really isn’t much choice but to pay extra to see it in 3D.

  • Nate

    What we’re getting today, however, are films shot in 2D and converted in a postproduction process into 3D (this is the case with *Deathly Hallows*: it was not shot in 3D). At worst, it looks awful. At best, it’s almost unnoticable. The only reason to do this is to boost box office via inflated ticket prices.

    The kind of 3D we’re getting is — apart from *Avatar* — akin to colorizing black-and-white films. Which *is* an abomination.

    All these films were already in production when Avatar was released and I think it’s clear that they’re just trying to cash in on that film’s success (with varying degrees of success so far).

    The best we can do is just ride out this wave of bad conversions until Tron Legacy and the post-Avatar 3D films like Pirates of the Caribbean 4 arrive.

  • Rosalyn

    I am inordinately excited about the next installment of Harry Potter. These movies get me in touch with my inner 13-year-old like nothing else.

  • Orangutan

    What we’re getting today, however, are films shot in 2D and converted in a postproduction process into 3D

    So, a better analogy would be taking a movie filmed in black and white (let’s say Casablanca, for example) and letting Ted Turner colorize it?

  • Karen_P

    The trailer looked pretty cool – right up to the crap about 3D. Coraline and Avatar were both pretty awesome in 3D, but both were envisioned that way from the start. I’m just not at all into the rampant 3D retrofitting going on.

    Fortunately, I live in a town with crappy old movie theaters, 2D will be readily available :-)

  • Dokeo

    I’m one of those people with an optical inability to see 3-D on film (My real world depth perception is minimal, but I also can’t see those “magic eye” posters, so there’s a silver lining). Thus the whole “see it in 2-D vs. 3-D” debate doesn’t mean much to me. I just worry that in 5 years there won’t be any movies playing in 2-D anymore.

  • Michael

    I found a TV ad I saw yesterday for Last Airbender to be particularly fitting (I’m paraphrasing some of this save for the important part at the end, which I swear was so perfectly timed):

    Voice over: “Next week…the epic struggle…for the fate of the world…begins!”
    (We see scenes from the movie during and after the above.)
    Voice over: “The Last Airbender!”
    (We see more shots)
    Voice over: “…in 3-D!!!”
    (Immediate shot of kid screaming)
    Kid: “NOOOOO!!!!”

  • RogerBW

    It’s obviously advantageous to keep using unadjusted ticket income to measure a film’s success: that way you can keep talking about “biggest film ever” as inflation continues.

    Is it possible to get hold of data on numbers of tickets sold? That seems to me a much more reasonable basis on which to judge a film’s popularity with the audience.

  • Matt C

    Box Office Mojo does have estimates of the number of tickets sold. That’s your best bet for number of tickets sold versus the monetary amount. (For example, “Avatar” would’ve had to gross over $900M domestically to top the tickets sold for “Titanic.”)

  • Alex

    “Heh, there is a part of me which, when people ask ‘Why 3d?” replies with “Why colour? Why sound?” ”

    Colour and sound are vital components to properly telling a story. (“Cut the BLUE WIRE”; the sound of a creaking floorboard as the ax murderer stalks a victim). There is ZERO storytelling reason for having 3-D. No one has been able to provide any sound reason for 3-D being necessary other than just a gimmick. There is nothing in Avatar or Toy Story 3 – or Harry Potter – that requires 3-D in order to tell the story.

    What annoys me is that, while 2-D versions are being made available for these films, most theatres don’t bother carrying them. This past weekend I wanted to go to a movie, and the ONLY 2-D option available at my local theatre happened to be a couple of minor comedies, the latest Tom Cruise bomb, and the new Twilight which I have zero interest in. If theatres can soak customers for a few more dollars, of course they’ll go for the more expensive option. (I’m waiting for the battle to begin when a third-party inevitably puts reusable 3-D glasses on the market.) So I cannot assume that HP&DH will actually be made available in a format that I want to view. As a consumer it has had the effect of dampening my enthusiasm for the film. My father has already said he won’t go in 3-D – and he’s a huge Potter fan. We’ll just end up watching the Blu-Ray.

    I find 3-D distracting, uncomfortable physically, and I already got a scuff on my $400 eyeglasses from the pair of 3-Ds I wore when I went to see Avatar (which was an experience that made me go “never again” for 3-D).

    If Dokeo is correct that there will be no 2-D films playing in theatres in 5 years, that’ll simply be the end of me going to theatres, just like the many people who stopped going to the movies when smoking was banned. Granted, in that case it was a POSITIVE change and the people who still refuse to go because of it are being a bit childish. But get down to brass tacks and the philosophy is the same – our enjoyment is being hampered by change, therefore we refuse to play the game anymore.

Pin It on Pinterest