Harry Potter movie series 20th anniversary
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:08 am
It would be remiss not to acknowledge that other big movie fantasy movie series of the early 21st century also celebrating the 20th anniversary of its first installment. That's right, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone, in its native UK) also debuted in December 2001.
I had a rocky path to Potter fandom. Prior to the movies, I paid Potter no attention, as it was a book series aimed at kids. It become such a phenomenon that movies were of course inevitable. And when it worked out that its first movie would debut just ahead of LOTR, whose fans had waited half a century for a good adaptation, I was resentful. Buzz of enormous box office projections for Potter only rubbed salt in it for me. Needless to say, I never even saw the first movie in the theater, though apparently it did not need my support, as it made over $1B US. Somehow, by the time the second Potter movie rolled around, I had made my piece with Potter. I think the reviews probably helped. Potter was being received as an enjoyable but very safe and unimaginative adaptation of its source, while FOTR was getting reviews along the lines of the "lightning from a clear sky" review that the book itself got (from CS Lewis, I think, but I can't confirm that). I saw the first Potter on disc and thought, yeah, that was cute, I'll see the new one in the theater. And of course, the second movie was so much better than the first. For years after that, I looked forward to a new Potter movie.
For me, Harry Potter had a great advantage over LOTR: I had never read the books. Therefore, I could go into the movies with absolutely no expectations and thus enjoy them completely based on their own merits as movies. That is a luxury I never had with LOTR, and the impact of it cannot be overstated. I was just utterly blown away by LOTR the first time I read it and it made an impression on me that has lasted for over 40 years. There is no way I could go into a movie adaptation without outsized, totally unrealistic expectations, and of course there could be no way an adaptation could meet such expectations. Potter suffered no such crippling handicap for me, and I could embrace it as sheer fun.
Flash forward twenty years, and both dueling titans are getting a second look. I read an article just the other day (in the Guardian, I think) that reiterated the sentiment from 20 years ago: Potter was fine, but FOTR soared. From my own perspective, I think it's safe to say both franchises have tarnished a bit over the years. Jackson's hamfisted Hobbit adaptation damaged its predecessor for many, and his other post-LOTR offerings have made him look like a one-trick pony (except his documentaries, which garner raves). Potter has had two stumbling blocks. The second Fantastic Beasts movie got a drubbing from critics and audiences were not much kinder. And JK Rowling is struggling to learn that the right to have an opinion does not entitle you to have people like that opinion, no matter how much money you made previously. She has canceled herself in the eyes of many former supporters. The next movie, The Secrets of Dumbeldore, may be a make it or break it moment for the franchise.
But back to Potter itself. I think perhaps its biggest accomplishment was the casting of the child actors. Those kids did such a good job and just owned the screen, even when battling wits with the likes of Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. And oh the late great Rickman, how he sank his teeth into Snape! I just loved hearing him deliver his venom-laced lines. We also got two distinct but equally wonderful renditions of Dumbeldore, and more British acting royalty than we could shake a stick at. But even with great actors, a movie can flop. But not Potter. They put such love and care into these adaptations, and it shows. I still enjoy sitting down and rewatching the eight Potter movies every winter and I look forward to doing that in the near future, just after the holidays.
I had a rocky path to Potter fandom. Prior to the movies, I paid Potter no attention, as it was a book series aimed at kids. It become such a phenomenon that movies were of course inevitable. And when it worked out that its first movie would debut just ahead of LOTR, whose fans had waited half a century for a good adaptation, I was resentful. Buzz of enormous box office projections for Potter only rubbed salt in it for me. Needless to say, I never even saw the first movie in the theater, though apparently it did not need my support, as it made over $1B US. Somehow, by the time the second Potter movie rolled around, I had made my piece with Potter. I think the reviews probably helped. Potter was being received as an enjoyable but very safe and unimaginative adaptation of its source, while FOTR was getting reviews along the lines of the "lightning from a clear sky" review that the book itself got (from CS Lewis, I think, but I can't confirm that). I saw the first Potter on disc and thought, yeah, that was cute, I'll see the new one in the theater. And of course, the second movie was so much better than the first. For years after that, I looked forward to a new Potter movie.
For me, Harry Potter had a great advantage over LOTR: I had never read the books. Therefore, I could go into the movies with absolutely no expectations and thus enjoy them completely based on their own merits as movies. That is a luxury I never had with LOTR, and the impact of it cannot be overstated. I was just utterly blown away by LOTR the first time I read it and it made an impression on me that has lasted for over 40 years. There is no way I could go into a movie adaptation without outsized, totally unrealistic expectations, and of course there could be no way an adaptation could meet such expectations. Potter suffered no such crippling handicap for me, and I could embrace it as sheer fun.
Flash forward twenty years, and both dueling titans are getting a second look. I read an article just the other day (in the Guardian, I think) that reiterated the sentiment from 20 years ago: Potter was fine, but FOTR soared. From my own perspective, I think it's safe to say both franchises have tarnished a bit over the years. Jackson's hamfisted Hobbit adaptation damaged its predecessor for many, and his other post-LOTR offerings have made him look like a one-trick pony (except his documentaries, which garner raves). Potter has had two stumbling blocks. The second Fantastic Beasts movie got a drubbing from critics and audiences were not much kinder. And JK Rowling is struggling to learn that the right to have an opinion does not entitle you to have people like that opinion, no matter how much money you made previously. She has canceled herself in the eyes of many former supporters. The next movie, The Secrets of Dumbeldore, may be a make it or break it moment for the franchise.
But back to Potter itself. I think perhaps its biggest accomplishment was the casting of the child actors. Those kids did such a good job and just owned the screen, even when battling wits with the likes of Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. And oh the late great Rickman, how he sank his teeth into Snape! I just loved hearing him deliver his venom-laced lines. We also got two distinct but equally wonderful renditions of Dumbeldore, and more British acting royalty than we could shake a stick at. But even with great actors, a movie can flop. But not Potter. They put such love and care into these adaptations, and it shows. I still enjoy sitting down and rewatching the eight Potter movies every winter and I look forward to doing that in the near future, just after the holidays.