Why did shota, who was said to be good when he was a child, grow up to be Hal?

On harry potter and the half-blood prince: The Cruel Youth of an English Leader. As a muggle in China, I grew up watching Harry Potter played by Daniel Jacob Radcliffe (more accurately, it should be "getting old"); Of course, this sentence may be more transparent on the other hand-Daniel Jacob Radcliffe has been playing Harry Potter for us since childhood. From the Sorcerer's Stone to the Half-Blood Prince, Harry is still the same Harry Potter, but eight years passed quickly. In the past, the child with big round glasses has grown into an English youth with bulging chest muscles and prominent Adam's apple. Obviously, Hogwarts graduates can't face any employment pressure. As a result, there is no financial crisis in diagon alley, and the Ministry of Magic has no pressure of partisan competition. So, if J·K· Rowling doesn't arrange "You know who he is", platform 9 3/4 will lead to a utopia. Again, I prefer watching movies to reading books. I haven't acted in any of the six Harry Potter movies released so far, from the philosopher's stone to the half-blood prince, or cam- or the big screen. But I didn't read the book seriously, I just browsed, but I like listening to stories. When I chat with Rowling's fans, I often ask them to tell me the stories in the book, so I read the book for a long time, but the story is very clear. Of course, I'm not a big fan, I'm just watching. However, after reading Half-Blood Prince, I suddenly felt some regret. I beat my children in rainy days, so I'd better pile them up. 1. Suspense setting I don't believe that a movie with poor suspense setting can become a commercial blockbuster, but any director who wants to pay money from ordinary people's pockets must work hard on the story suspense of the movie. In fact, the success of Rowling's original work is also a suspense success to a great extent: to a great extent, You Know Who He is and Harry with a scar on his forehead constitute a total suspense, which runs through seven novels and eight movies, and the audience wants to know the ending; The suspense of each episode is also very prominent. Basically, XXX in Harry Potter and XXX is the core suspense of the episode. Relatively speaking, the first few episodes are a little routine, and they are teachers who teach defense against the dark arts-but no one is sure whether this is caused by Rowling, so you really don't know what will happen until the last minute. As far as movies are concerned, I think Prisoner of Azkaban is the best in suspense setting. In fact, this film has shaken two big burdens: Blake's position of Sirius's good and evil and Hermione's space-time gyrator. In addition, there are some small burdens, such as Professor Lupin's werewolf identity (satirizing a happy boy, Professor rohardt), the rat transformation of wormtail and Harry Potter's meeting with the patron saint (he thought he had met his father). Of course, "baggage" and "suspense" are also two concepts in my opinion. Anything that readers/viewers want to know but don't know yet can be attributed to suspense; And "baggage" (not in the sense of comedy) is an unexpected and reasonable way to solve suspense. Once you see it, you suddenly realize that the bad guy is/is not him/her! Even if this "baggage" shakes beautifully. According to this standard, Prisoner of Azkaban should be the best of the six Harry Potter movies in suspense setting. Comparatively speaking, the Sorcerer's Stone can be regarded as a series of small experiments and worldviews. The lost chamber of secrets has made tom riddle's past confusing (the secret of horcruxes was only revealed in the movie Half-Blood Prince), and the prisoners in Azkaban have obviously reached a high point-therefore, the plot setting of the first three Harry Potter movies shows an obvious upward trend. I didn't know the content of the novel until I saw these three films, so it is basically a mystery film to appreciate. Harry Potter is like Conan in Rowling's works. With his whereabouts, the mystery gradually dispersed. Therefore, a department will have higher expectations. The goblet of fire is a turning point. "You know who he is" appeared for the first time in this episode (digression, I think it is a very wise decision to choose Ralph Fiennes to play this role, and his innate sense of British aristocratic isolation fits the role very well), and then the total suspense gradually usurped the role of the host. However, in the film Goblet of Fire, the triwizard tournament is maximized, and Crouch Jr.' s "burden" is hidden in the course of the game, so it can still be enjoyed as a mystery film. Although it's not as good as the Prisoner of Azkaban, it's at least at the original level, and it's not ugly on the big screen (only the dragons in the magical world let me down a little). Since I have done stunts, I should do better. Since Society, the series of Harry Potter movies have gradually become a bit boring. Compared with the first four movies, the whole movie is a stunt. Although this is the scene of "Do you know who he is" so far, the warm-up match is not as good as the final, and the jokes should be left to the end. Therefore, the audience only saw "You know who he is" who failed in plastic surgery and Dumbledore who was holding a wand and lashing the laser, which basically did not hinder Harry Potter-anyway, our shota was called "the chosen one" by people and monsters, and if he could not die, he would certainly not die. Personally, I feel that the club has fallen into the lowest point of Harry Potter, so I very much doubt the real reason why Half-Blood Prince, which was originally scheduled to be released last autumn, was postponed to this summer-it is estimated that WGA's troubles were just a cover, and Warner executives forced Yates and Steve Kroft to make great efforts to revise the script. However, it is a little better than The Society and Half-Blood Prince, except that the soup is changed, and the buttons are all for the follow-up movie service: Dumbledore drank some dirty water, Snape killed the principal with Abada's death curse, and the plot was in the middle of nowhere. If you don't understand the infernal affairs behind you, treat Half-Blood Prince as a pure movie-to be honest, I don't think going to the cinema is worth spending money at all. But I still want to go to the movies-the last two episodes of Deathly Hallows will definitely go, which is the unique charm of Harry Potter. It's all about suspense In fact, there is no suspense in the Harry Potter series, especially after the book is published. Even if you are too lazy to read and go to the valley, it will be solved; If the wiki is blocked, Baidu knows that it is completely enough. However, this does not prevent the audience from flocking to the cinema for the name of Harry Potter-in the past, it was always "guessing the process but not the ending", but now "anyone can guess the ending but not the process"-but strictly speaking, even the process can be guessed. So in this era, the suspense lifestyle itself has become suspense. For die-hard fans, I think it is the real suspense to see how Hollywood shows Rowling's wonderful pen, and the suspense of the story itself has quietly withdrawn (so, Harry Potter's film reviews can be written boldly without considering spoilers). However, I still want to say a few words for David Yates, not because Director Ye is unwilling or unwilling to set up suspense, but because this episode "Do you know who he is" has officially appeared, and everything should be prepared for the final total suspense and big burden. Before the war, it was always calm and slightly weak, which seems to be the proper meaning in the title. Of course, for the audience, I think the supply of Yates still can't satisfy most people. From novels to movies, many details have to be deleted, which really tests the skill of screenwriters. In fact, the secret organization "The Society" is common in western novels-dan brown linked the "Little Monastery of Mount Zion" with the "Illuminati". Even if Yates doesn't have time to ask Brother Brown for advice, it's good to watch more skull and bones films. In fact, since Yates took over, the narrative characteristics of Harry Potter have changed: on the one hand, it is an out-and-out blockbuster; On the other hand, it is also a standard magic soap opera. 2. I think in mainstream movies, series narratives can be roughly divided into two categories: one is the narrative of characters whose time and space are relatively overhead. According to Jin's theory, the time and space in the film are "enclaves", the outside world is fleeting, but our hero is not old or handsome. The typical representative is the series, which has been almost half a century in a blink of an eye. You see James Bond is still young, and his head is dull and bright, because there is no connection between each episode of "James Bond". It is not so much a symbol as a person, and any man who meets his characteristics can become the protagonist-and then continue to follow the rhythm of social fashion. The other is Harry Potter. There are obvious connections between each story, which is a complete big story. For example, Star Trek, Star Wars and Terminator all belong to this category, but there are many prequels and branches, and sometimes the foreword is a bit incoherent. Relatively speaking, Harry Potter is the most rigorous. Not only are the stories intertwined like gears, but even the actors haven't changed-except richard harris, who died unfortunately, all the actors from the philosopher's stone to the deathly Hallows are the same. With such a large investment, such a long period, the same story and the same group of main actors (we have clearly witnessed their growth and aging), Harry Potter is obviously unique in the history of contemporary movies. In fact, this is more like a TV series, which is quite in line with the characteristics of American mini-series, but Warner with deep pockets has made it into a big screen, with greater investment and more dazzling special effects. I have a vague feeling that the success of Harry Potter series may give birth to a brand-new trend of "movie series", because with the wide spread of TV series, especially American TV series in recent years, the distance between movies and TV series has become smaller and smaller, and TV has imitated movies enough. Now the concept of "TV movie" is well known to women and children, so why can't movies imitate TV? Television shooting is a combination of film and television, and the production follows the model of TV series ("film series"). Isn't it also a combination of film and television? Harry Potter has been a great success, and if there is a suitable theme, we can do the same in the future (24 Hours can be regarded as a successful experiment). If nothing else, I think the peerless "movie series" is almost the only choice to successfully put A Dream of Red Mansions on the big screen. Of course, after all, which American TV network will give Harry Potter copyright again in the future, and it will be good for those who are loyal to the original to shoot another TV series. After all, there are too many things deleted from the film. Of course, Warner has almost gone to extremes. In order to make the Deathly Hallows clear, it is divided into two episodes. Aside from commercial considerations, it is estimated that it is really to prevent the plot from rushing-you know, "Half-Blood Prince" is up to minutes, and then it will really become a soap opera! But the producers can rest assured that no matter how they shoot, Harry Potter will never lack an audience. The article comes from Fan Wen China: