The Harry Potter Films, or at least Prisoner of Azkaban

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

If you follow Devin's work long enough, you'll eventually know he's kind of a Harry Potter fan. He's a huge supporter of the books and Rowling herself, and he's championed the films for much of the same reason he champions the MCU as a stellar example of long-form storytelling.

 

If the Canon is meant to be a sort of Noah's Ark for cinema, for films to be preserved that we would one day show to visiting alien dignitaries curious about our culture, should Harry Potter (as a staple of the 90's to the late 00's) be given fair credit for its contributions?

 

For instance, without the success of the Harry Potter, would we have the long-form serialized storytelling of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Would The Hunger Games have made that transition from YA novels to the big screen without Harry Potter having paved the way? For good or ill, Harry Potter (alongside Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings) is partly responsible for the current dominance of geek cinema on current popular culture.

 

But then, that falls into that trap our two hosts have mulled over throughout the show: is cultural impact enough of a qualifier to make it into the Canon? When you strip away that impact, what else qualifies any of the movies into the Canon alongside some of the greats? I hope it's not controversial to mention that, individually, the movies could be a little hit or miss. Everyone and their mum agrees Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the lot, so hypothetically if it were a candidate for the Canon should it be as a representative for the entire franchise (like A New Hope was for Star Wars) or is that unfair to the long-form story the series is truly meant to be?

 

At least A New Hope was self-contained. None of the Harry Potter movies... aren't, really.

 

And even if Prisoner of Azkaban were selected as the ideal candidate for the series, outside the pop cultural signifiers does it even have any other Canon-worthy qualities? Is it a good enough movie or does "good enough" just not cut it?

 

Well, obviously, no, it doesn't. As Amy has argued to the heavens on high to Devin many, many, maaaany times, the Canon should also require some semblance of higher standards for filmmaking. "Good enough" shouldn't be a qualifier for Canon candidacy.

 

What do you guys think? Would you want to hear Devin and Amy discuss the merits of the Harry Potter franchise? I know I would, personally. Besides, and if we all know Devin, it'd be a perfect excuse to hear him rant about The Cursed Child, the HP fandom and the current controversies surrounding Rowling and her use of Native American lore, religion and culture.

 

Now that, I think, would be a worthy enough endeavour to make it an episode in its own right.

[Muthsarah 124]

The fact that Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't stand-alone, and didn't have to be stand-alone, with two films' worth of character setup and world-building already behind it - is a big reason why it works so well. It feels a lot leaner than either PS or CoS (or GoF or OotP, for that matter) because it can play off contrasts with the earlier films to take shortcuts for character and plot developments, thus keeping it from bogging down in exposition dumps and allowing it more time to indulge in visual storytelling. It wouldn't work so well as a stand-alone, and it was never meant to be a stand-alone. For that reason, I would have to say it wouldn't qualify as a Canon film. It's a good film, and a huge improvement over the first two, but it wouldn't work as a Canon film if you're just viewing/recommending that film and not the whole series. And when/if Devin and Amy discuss the film, how much time do they spend on talking about the events of the previous two? Or will they just have to assume the audience has already seen and still remembers them?

 

In contrast, The Dark Knight probably could work as a stand-alone. I don't know for sure, since I grew up knowing the basics of Batman and having seen many earlier versions of the story, but I saw that film before Batman Begins, and I didn't need anything explained to be (well, I didn't know who Lucius Fox was, but that was no big deal). But I don't think Star Trek IV could, since that movie put so much focus on building on previous characterizations and concluding the arc of two earlier movies and then some.

 

EDIT: Also, it wasn't PoA that put the Potter films on the map and started the recent YA boom. Both PS and CoS had already done that, as would the (arg, FIVE) films afterwards. PoA was the first really good one, the first one that still holds up, but the series had already left its impact.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

The fact that Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't stand-alone, and didn't have to be stand-alone, with two films' worth of character setup and world-building already behind it - is a big reason why it works so well. It feels a lot leaner than either PS or CoS (or GoF or OotP, for that matter) because it can play off contrasts with the earlier films to take shortcuts for character and plot developments, thus keeping it from bogging down in exposition dumps and allowing it more time to indulge in visual storytelling. It wouldn't work so well as a stand-alone, and it was never meant to be a stand-alone. For that reason, I would have to say it wouldn't qualify as a Canon film. It's a good film, and a huge improvement over the first two, but it wouldn't work as a Canon film if you're just viewing/recommending that film and not the whole series. And when/if Devin and Amy discuss the film, how much time do they spend on talking about the events of the previous two? Or will they just have to assume the audience has already seen and still remembers them?

 

In contrast, The Dark Knight probably could work as a stand-alone. I don't know for sure, since I grew up knowing the basics of Batman and having seen many earlier versions of the story, but I saw that film before Batman Begins, and I didn't need anything explained to be (well, I didn't know who Lucius Fox was, but that was no big deal). But I don't think Star Trek IV could, since that movie put so much focus on building on previous characterizations and concluding the arc of two earlier movies and then some.

 

EDIT: Also, it wasn't PoA that put the Potter films on the map and started the recent YA boom. Both PS and CoS had already done that, as would the (arg, FIVE) films afterwards. PoA was the first really good one, the first one that still holds up, but the series had already left its impact.

 

I meant the Harry Potter films as a whole, with PoA serving as a kind of representative, but, yeah, I otherwise agree 100%.

 

But that said, I do believe Pottermania is such an integral part of contemporary popular culture that it needs a position in the Canon in some form or other.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

Yeah. The Harry Potter series is so significant that even the films are canon-worthy. I'd go so far as to say that the films are stronger than the books--or at least that I enjoy the films more than I enjoy the books, since it's kind of silly to compare works across mediums. I think they end up streamlining the story in a big way, and it works to the series' benefit that they trim nearly all of the fat from the books.

 

Prisoner of Azkaban is the obvious choice, since it's the best of the series--though, I do think that Deathly Hallows Pt. I is a knockout picture. The first film is probably also worth discussion, since it carves out the world we follow for eight films, and it proves that this is a viable film franchise.

 

100% for Harry Potter for consideration in the canon.

[Muthsarah 124]

I meant the Harry Potter films as a whole, with PoA serving as a kind of representative, but, yeah, I otherwise agree 100%.

 

But that said, I do believe Pottermania is such an integral part of contemporary popular culture that it needs a position in the Canon in some form or other.

 

Nah. PS, CoS, and GoF just aren't very good. They feel too much like script readings, episodic and horribly paced (and PS and CoS have just dreadful child acting). And DH is (by design) unbalanced and incomplete, yet still each part is overlong. OotP is...decent, but not a standout. I do like HBP quite a bit, but that makes only two out of (arg, EIGHT) movies that are in any way noteworthy, with PoA being the most significant one as it's the first one whose tone and pacing feels right (and it just looks and sounds a hell of a lot cooler too), so it's the one that provided the template for all the ones that followed. Overall, the Harry Potter film series isn't worthy of being in The Canon because most of them are clunky adaptations of above-average children's books with good production values and a lot of really good actors slumming it up for their children and grandchildren, playing bit players who are all far more engaging than the protagonists.

 

I don't mean to hate on the books or anything else in the universe, and if you like the Potter films, cool, I have my pet franchises too. But MOST OF the movies aren't especially good as movies go. They don't do for the books what really good adaptations typically do, namely develop and re-tell for another medium, as if they were written to be movies first; they're mostly just quoting and doing some light editing while still leaving so much in that they always feel rushed. And while that's typically awesome if you like the original stories and just want those, I'd rather a Canon FILM be one that can stand on its own and not just feel like a visualization of a novel.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

 

Nah. PS, CoS, and GoF just aren't very good. They feel too much like script readings, episodic and horribly paced (and PS and CoS have just dreadful child acting). And DH is (by design) unbalanced and incomplete, yet still each part is overlong. OotP is...decent, but not a standout. I do like HBP quite a bit, but that makes only two out of (arg, EIGHT) movies that are in any way noteworthy, with PoA being the most significant one as it's the first one whose tone and pacing feels right (and it just looks and sounds a hell of a lot cooler too), so it's the one that provided the template for all the ones that followed. Overall, the Harry Potter film series isn't worthy of being in The Canon because most of them are clunky adaptations of above-average children's books with good production values and a lot of really good actors slumming it up for their children and grandchildren, playing bit players who are all far more engaging than the protagonists.

 

I don't mean to hate on the books or anything else in the universe, and if you like the Potter films, cool, I have my pet franchises too. But MOST OF the movies aren't especially good as movies go. They don't do for the books what really good adaptations typically do, namely develop and re-tell for another medium, as if they were written to be movies first; they're mostly just quoting and doing some light editing while still leaving so much in that they always feel rushed. And while that's typically awesome if you like the original stories and just want those, I'd rather a Canon FILM be one that can stand on its own and not just feel like a visualization of a novel.

 

A valid argument, but maybe a tad dismissive of the sheer gravitational pull this series had back in the day.

[JosephDaley 26]

There is no world that I want to live in where the Harry Potter film's make it into The Canon. I'm a diehard when it comes to Harry Potter, so my opinion is heavily biased towards the books, but the film's are so slight by comparison, hit or miss doesn't even begin to describe how pockmarked the disparity of quality among them really is. Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the best of the bunch, and the only one that I think could be considered Canon worthy, but Pottermania belongs to the books, and its impact on our culture belongs solely to those books. If this were a Canon of the most important touchstones of Pop Culture period, then the books (and films by extension) merit inclusion as a guarantee. But this is strictly film, and none of the Harry Potter films deserve to be included.

 

In closing: the *books* inspired the podcasts, the conventions, the Wizard Rock, the Midnight Book releases, and Pottermania. The movies just let in the normals, as Devin called them.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

There is no world that I want to live in where the Harry Potter film's make it into The Canon. I'm a diehard when it comes to Harry Potter, so my opinion is heavily biased towards the books, but the film's are so slight by comparison, hit or miss doesn't even begin to describe how pockmarked the disparity of quality among them really is. Prisoner of Azkaban is easily the best of the bunch, and the only one that I think could be considered Canon worthy, but Pottermania belongs to the books, and its impact on our culture belongs solely to those books. If this were a Canon of the most important touchstones of Pop Culture period, then the books (and films by extension) merit inclusion as a guarantee. But this is strictly film, and none of the Harry Potter films deserve to be included.

 

In closing: the *books* inspired the podcasts, the conventions, the Wizard Rock, the Midnight Book releases, and Pottermania. The movies just let in the normals, as Devin called them.

 

Yeah, I can get behind this 100%. Come to think of it, Kiki's Delivery Service alone is rather better than most of the movies.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

In closing: the *books* inspired the podcasts, the conventions, the Wizard Rock, the Midnight Book releases, and Pottermania. The movies just let in the normals, as Devin called them.

And there is no film without Birth of a Nation, yet They Live is in the canon. There's room for both, just as there's room for the films and books as pillars of modern pop culture. Also, who cares if "normals" like Harry Potter for the movies? That's such a condescending, hipster bullshit argument, no matter who made it. Populism is totally valid. Movies are for everyone, not just those who put the work in to understand every facet of art and media. If the films helped popularize these huge stories, just as Casino Royale and the 007 films popularized the Ian Fleming novels, then why can't we indulge them? This is a podcast about film, and Pottermaina was clearly so huge. Why can't we represent that through inducting one of the movies? One question that we should ask ourselves: Should the canon represent solely the medium, or should it represent our culture as well? We've inducted films on cultural significance before. Harry Potter is culturally significant. We should 100% consider one of the films for the canon.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

And there is no film without Birth of a Nation, yet They Live is in the canon. There's room for both, just as there's room for the films and books as pillars of modern pop culture. Also, who cares if "normals" like Harry Potter for the movies? That's such a condescending, hipster bullshit argument, no matter who made it. Populism is totally valid. Movies are for everyone, not just those who put the work in to understand every facet of art and media. If the films helped popularize these huge stories, just as Casino Royale and the 007 films popularized the Ian Fleming novels, then why can't we indulge them? This is a podcast about film, and Pottermaina was clearly so huge. Why can't we represent that through inducting one of the movies? One question that we should ask ourselves: Should the canon represent solely the medium, or should it represent our culture as well? We've inducted films on cultural significance before. Harry Potter is culturally significant. We should 100% consider one of the films for the canon.

 

That said, what do you think of the arguments laid here about the actual quality of the films, even PoA, in of themselves? You can make the argument, for instance, that Casino Royale is not only more polished but possesses a technical flourish the HP movies might have lacked.

 

This is me taking the Amy side of the argument.

[Head Spin 112]

See, I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan but my experience jibes with what Joseph Daley said: The Harry Potters fans I know range from "really like" to "dislike" on the films, but the bottom line is that the movies aren't a major enough part of the media franchise to get this huge historical importance cachet that I"m hearing on this thread.

 

They were very popular and successful, but that's because Harry Potter is easily Canon-worthy in the category of "media franchises" and "YA book series;" I wouldn't credit any film in the series much less the series as a whole for being such a big deal that it gets significant credit for its impact on the culture.

 

"Popularity/Success," "Quality," and "Historical Importance" are three separate axes. It's the book series that earns the the latter two, not the films. The films are fine, and Azkaban is very good and easily the only candidate for the Canon among them all.

 

So my argument is twofold: Like I said in the Breakfast At Tiffany's thread, I think historical impact should always be secondary to quality. If a movie cant stand on its own, then I don't really care how important it was; this isn't a film history podcast. I've always taken it as one where people vote on their judgments of the art, and take the history in context afterwards. And I don't think any of them are great or exceptional to a Canon level, with the possible outside exception of Azkaban, which might be arguable - however, this thread has mainly been about the importance of the whole series.

 

Secondly, I don't think that the Potter films deserve any historical importance rub. They're one successful branch of the Harry Potter tree, but not particularly influential or even all that major, I think, within the Harry Potter fandom, much less the public at large (and I think you'd need to have the scope set at "public-at-large" to make the importance argument here).

 

They're fine. Enjoy them, love them, but they aren't Canon-worthy. They were a pleasant afternoon to thousands of people, but not all-time-greats.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

See, I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan but my experience jibes with what Joseph Daley said: The Harry Potters fans I know range from "really like" to "dislike" on the films, but the bottom line is that the movies aren't a major enough part of the media franchise to get this huge historical importance cachet that I"m hearing on this thread.

 

They were very popular and successful, but that's because Harry Potter is easily Canon-worthy in the category of "media franchises" and "YA book series;" I wouldn't credit any film in the series much less the series as a whole for being such a big deal that it gets significant credit for its impact on the culture.

 

"Popularity/Success," "Quality," and "Historical Importance" are three separate axes. It's the book series that earns the the latter two, not the films. The films are fine, and Azkaban is very good and easily the only candidate for the Canon among them all.

 

So my argument is twofold: Like I said in the Breakfast At Tiffany's thread, I think historical impact should always be secondary to quality. If a movie cant stand on its own, then I don't really care how important it was; this isn't a film history podcast. I've always taken it as one where people vote on their judgments of the art, and take the history in context afterwards. And I don't think any of them are great or exceptional to a Canon level, with the possible outside exception of Azkaban, which might be arguable - however, this thread has mainly been about the importance of the whole series.

 

Secondly, I don't think that the Potter films deserve any historical importance rub. They're one successful branch of the Harry Potter tree, but not particularly influential or even all that major, I think, within the Harry Potter fandom, much less the public at large (and I think you'd need to have the scope set at "public-at-large" to make the importance argument here).

 

They're fine. Enjoy them, love them, but they aren't Canon-worthy. They were a pleasant afternoon to thousands of people, but not all-time-greats.

 

Mind you, The Canon has inducted a fair few films of questionable quality based solely on historical value (I.e. Forest Gump). There is an argument to be made that to omit something of that value is to fail to capture the totality of a time and place.

[Head Spin 112]

Mine you, The Canon has inducted a fair few films of questionable quality based solely on historical value (I.e. Forest Gump). T

 

Others disagree about that quality. That's why they voted those in. And my argument is that the "value" is minor; the real value is in the rest of the media franchise.

 

There is an argument to be made that to omit something of that value is to fail to capture the totality of a time and place.

 

Are you making that argument? Because "capturing the totality of a time and place" is a stretch, and I don't think it can be made. Just because it was based on something that was massively popular and meant a lot to people doesn't mean that it all carries over arbitrarily to its films.

 

Sorry to go all "line-by-line." That always comes off as aggressive, and I mean it all with respect. But I disagree, and I stand by everything in my longer post that went unchallenged.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

 

Others disagree about that quality. That's why they voted those in. And my argument is that the "value" is minor; the real value is in the rest of the media franchise.

 

 

 

Are you making that argument? Because "capturing the totality of a time and place" is a stretch, and I don't think it can be made. Just because it was based on something that was massively popular and meant a lot to people doesn't mean that it all carries over arbitrarily to its films.

 

Sorry to go all "line-by-line." That always comes off as aggressive, and I mean it all with respect. But I disagree, and I stand by everything in my longer post that went unchallenged.

 

S'all good, man, no harm done and no need to apologize. Even I don't think the films deserve to be in the Canon, and I say this as a legit fan of the books/franchise. But it's always interesting to play devil's advocate. Their arguments should never be dismissed out of hand.

[HoldenMartinson 221]

That said, what do you think of the arguments laid here about the actual quality of the films, even PoA, in of themselves? You can make the argument, for instance, that Casino Royale is not only more polished but possesses a technical flourish the HP movies might have lacked.

 

This is me taking the Amy side of the argument.

I actually think that the third one is terrific. It has this really icy, foreboding tone that is able to manage moments of quirkiness, tenderness, and tension with equal grace. The direction is solid--which, of course it is--and the cinematography is so nimble, capable of grandiosity, intimacy, and often great visual jokes and storytelling. I honestly think you could watch Prisoner of Azkaban without any dialogue, and still know what is happening--even the time travel stuff. Thematically, it's a bit harder to peg, but I see it being largely about the nature of perception, one's understanding of the past, and making up for lost time. We also see Harry grow as a character, or at least into a real character. In the first two films, he's proactive enough to service the plot, and he's sort of being guided through this crazy world. In Prisoner of Azkaban, we see Harry actually making mistakes, being impulsive, and trying to carve his own path. He's trying to be his own person, but he's caught in the middle of a legacy that he didn't choose, and is being pulled into situations for which he's predestined. Daniel Radcliffe allows Harry to struggle without being overly angsty or insufferable. I think it stands alone as its own film--though, I think they maybe should have kept the Firebolt subplot as was in the books, if I had any serious complaints; otherwise, it feels like a tag that doesn't quite work as well as it could. Do I love this film? No. I think Deathly Hallows Pt. I is more cinematic, and has a stunning performance from Emma Watson--not to mention "The Tale of Three Brothers," which should have gotten an animated short Oscar nomination--but if I were to pick one that encapsulates this world, and where these characters get to do their thing in even doses, I'd go with Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Threshold 93]

Maybe

Prisoner of Azkaban Vs The Harry Potter Series?

Akin to Godfather 1&2 Vs all of the Godfather trilogy?

 

Like how Casino Royale is the one James Bond film representing the rest of their impact.

 

I fuckn love Prisoner of Azkaban. More stylish and impressive than anything before or after in the series.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

I actually think that the third one is terrific. It has this really icy, foreboding tone that is able to manage moments of quirkiness, tenderness, and tension with equal grace. The direction is solid--which, of course it is--and the cinematography is so nimble, capable of grandiosity, intimacy, and often great visual jokes and storytelling. I honestly think you could watch Prisoner of Azkaban without any dialogue, and still know what is happening--even the time travel stuff. Thematically, it's a bit harder to peg, but I see it being largely about the nature of perception, one's understanding of the past, and making up for lost time. We also see Harry grow as a character, or at least into a real character. In the first two films, he's proactive enough to service the plot, and he's sort of being guided through this crazy world. In Prisoner of Azkaban, we see Harry actually making mistakes, being impulsive, and trying to carve his own path. He's trying to be his own person, but he's caught in the middle of a legacy that he didn't choose, and is being pulled into situations for which he's predestined. Daniel Radcliffe allows Harry to struggle without being overly angsty or insufferable. I think it stands alone as its own film--though, I think they maybe should have kept the Firebolt subplot as was in the books, if I had any serious complaints; otherwise, it feels like a tag that doesn't quite work as well as it could. Do I love this film? No. I think Deathly Hallows Pt. I is more cinematic, and has a stunning performance from Emma Watson--not to mention "The Tale of Three Brothers," which should have gotten an animated short Oscar nomination--but if I were to pick one that encapsulates this world, and where these characters get to do their thing in even doses, I'd go with Prisoner of Azkaban.

 

Sure, but what do you think of the arguments made against HP in this thread?

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

Maybe

Prisoner of Azkaban Vs The Harry Potter Series?

Akin to Godfather 1&2 Vs all of the Godfather trilogy?

 

Like how Casino Royale is the one James Bond film representing the rest of their impact.

 

I fuckn love Prisoner of Azkaban. More stylish and impressive than anything before or after in the series.

 

So you'd definitely argue Prisoner of Azkaban, in of itself, is a worthy Canon contender?

[HoldenMartinson 221]

 

Sure, but what do you think of the arguments made against HP in this thread?

I personally admire and respect Head Spin and Joseph Daley have to say, really whenever they speak to any topic, and I think I see where they're coming from. The movies are a part of a franchise. A major part, though certainly not the focus. That said, Harry Potter was so meteoric to the culture. As far as film goes, you've launched at least Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson--who are slowly, but surely rising as some of our most exciting actors. Not that this is a serious argument, but one of the best episodes Extras is easily Daniel Radcliffe's, and we don't get things like that without the Harry Potter films, specifically. Also, I look at it the same way we look at including films emblematic of other things--like inducting Cannibal Holocaust because of what it represents for exploitation films and found footage. I think for better or (mostly) worse, Harry Potter is sort of the reason YA franchises exist the way they do. Maybe that means Twilight, or The Maze Runner, or The 5th Wave, or whatever, but it also means The Hunger Games and A Series of Unfortunate Events--which I think gets better as time passes. One could also make the argument that properties like Harry Potter, as well as The Lord of the Rings made things like Game of Thrones possible. I think it helped prove that these kinds of films could make money. The first one came out a few months before The Fellowship of the Ring, and still made more money--just shy of a $1 billion worldwide, years before that was the standard. I don't think that box office is necessarily indicative of quality, but these films consistently made hundreds of millions of dollars. Seriously. When your eight film franchise sustains momentum so consistently that your lowest grossing entry is just short of $800 million, you can't ignore that. Hell, you can be sure that we're gonna tackle Marvel at some point, and you have to acknowledge that the comics come first in the same way the books come first with Harry Potter. We have Superman in the canon. We're gonna get something for Marvel. We should have something from Harry Potter. Franchise films are important. I'd love to talk about Ozu and Malle as much as the next guy. Prisoner of Azkaban is not even in the same league as any of those directors' films, but it's still a really artful franchise film that we typically don't get. I think that, whatever place it has in the hierarchy of its core franchise, Prisoner of Azkaban is among the best that type of filmmaking has to offer.

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

I personally admire and respect Head Spin or Joseph Daley have to say, and I think I see where they're coming from. The movies are a part of a franchise. A major part, though certainly not the focus. That said, Harry Potter was so meteoric to the culture. As far as film goes, you've launched at least Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson--who are slowly, but surely rising as some of our most exciting actors. Not that this is a serious argument, but one of the best episodes Extras is easily Daniel Radcliffe's, and we don't get things like that without the Harry Potter films, specifically. Also, I look at it the same way we look at including films emblematic of other things--like inducting Cannibal Holocaust because of what it represents for exploitation films and found footage. I think for better or (mostly) worse, Harry Potter is sort of the reason YA franchises exist the way they do. Maybe that means Twilight, or The Maze Runner, or The 5th Wave, or whatever, but it also means The Hunger Games and A Series of Unfortunate Events--which I think gets better as time passes. One could also make the argument that properties like Harry Potter, as well as The Lord of the Rings made things like Game of Thrones possible. I think it helped prove that these kinds of films could make money. The first one came out a few months before The Fellowship of the Ring, and still made more money--just shy of a $1 billion worldwide, years before that was the standard. I don't think that box office is necessarily indicative of quality, but these films consistently made hundreds of millions of dollars. Seriously. When your eight film franchise sustains momentum so consistently that your lowest grossing entry is just short of $800 million, you can't ignore that. Hell, you can be sure that we're gonna tackle Marvel at some point, and you have to acknowledge that the comics come first in the same way the books come first with Harry Potter. We have Superman in the canon. We're gonna get something for Marvel. We should have something from Harry Potter. Franchise films are important. I'd love to talk about Ozu and Malle as much as the next guy. Prisoner of Azkaban is not even in the same league as any of those directors' films, but it's still a really artful franchise film that we typically don't get. I think that, whatever place it has in the hierarchy of its core franchise, Prisoner of Azkaban is among the best that type of filmmaking has to offer.

 

Damn, might just be the best argument in its favour yet. Thanks!

[HoldenMartinson 221]

Damn, might just be the best argument in its favour yet. Thanks!

Oh, stop it you!!

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

Oh, stop it you!!

 

When it comes to Canon debates, I like seeing a wide berth of opinions. The better articulated, the brighter the light it shines on the subject matter. It might lead to some interesting ideas or viewpoints I'd never have considered prior and I value moments like that. You, HeadSpin, you guys brought valid arguments to the table.

 

Now, at the end of the day I don't think Harry Potter as a film franchise is strong enough on its own merits to qualify for the Canon, I am glad to see good arguments for its inclusion at all. That's the important thing for me.

[ManishMathur 33]

Harry Potter should be represented in the Canon. It's a major media franchise that has completely influenced every YA series after it, from Twilight to Hunger Games to Maze Runner to Divergent. Those series are popular, some are even well-regarded with major crossover appeal. Of course, The Canon is a movie podcast, so I don't think it's fair to exclude HP just because the movies are just one part of the fandom. If there were a books version of Canon or an amusement park version, I'd also include HP.

 

I read the books and loved the movies (I subscribe to the idea that books and film are inherently different media so no movie can be a direct translation; of course the movies make some missteps but overall I love them and rewatch them frequently).

 

In the movie series, POA is probably the most visual and ambitious film. My favorite is HBP but I know a lot of people don't like that one.

 

It might be interesting to pit HP agaisnt the other great YA franchise Hunger Games. POA vs. Catching Fire?

[Philly Cheesesteak 92]

Harry Potter should be represented in the Canon. It's a major media franchise that has completely influenced every YA series after it, from Twilight to Hunger Games to Maze Runner to Divergent. Those series are popular, some are even well-regarded with major crossover appeal. Of course, The Canon is a movie podcast, so I don't think it's fair to exclude HP just because the movies are just one part of the fandom. If there were a books version of Canon or an amusement park version, I'd also include HP.

 

I read the books and loved the movies (I subscribe to the idea that books and film are inherently different media so no movie can be a direct translation; of course the movies make some missteps but overall I love them and rewatch them frequently).

 

In the movie series, POA is probably the most visual and ambitious film. My favorite is HBP but I know a lot of people don't like that one.

 

It might be interesting to pit HP agaisnt the other great YA franchise Hunger Games. POA vs. Catching Fire?

 

Now there's an idea...

[NathanGordon 1096]

I was never interested in Harry Potter; even if Azkaban is a good movie, I still need several other books or films worth of background to get it. I don't like massive franchises for this reason, the investment they ask of the viewer. Fortunately, this YA fiction trilogy->obligatory film quadrilogy thing seems to have busted post-Hunger Games.