Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Considering the Sequels is a monthly film podcast that examines the merits and weaknesses of movie franchises.
In Episode 14 we finish considering the last four films of the “Harry Potter” franchise, and our featured guests are director Andrew James and “Harry Potter” enthusiast, Austin Alberico. In this show we also answer some voice mails from our Listener Feedback Hotline (801.382.8789).
Your hosts are Andy Howell, Karl Huddleston and Jason Pyles. CTS is broadcast live on Ustream the third Sunday of every month at 7 p.m. MST, and its new episodes are posted on the first day of every month.
SHOW NOTES:
I. Introductions
II. Considering the Sequels: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix; Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2; overview of the last four films and the overall “Harry Potter” franchise, 1 through 8.
III. Answering Listener Voice Mails — Kaitlin from Utah; Stacey from Salt Lake City; Derek from Salt Lake City; Geo from Salt Lake City.
IV. Wrap-Up / Credits
Andrew James, Austin Alberico, Andy and Jason give their collective verdict on this franchise, from 0 to 100 (Karl gives his scores, but they do not count toward our ratings):
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix = 80
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince = 84
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 = 88
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 = 85
Last Four Movies of the Franchise = 86
Overall Harry Potter Franchise, 1-8 = 85
Contact Us: Give us your voice mail feedback: 801.382.8789 — or e-mail us here: SequelsPodcast@Gmail.com. Catch up with us on Facebook. Visit our Considering the Cinema discussion blog, where we write about unusual films. The CTS podcast is also on Twitter: @considersequels.
Credits: Thanks to our guests, Andrew James and Austin Alberico, for being on our show. Thanks to our official sponsor, Heftel Studios, and thanks to the Dave Eaton Element for the use of Dave’s music. Thanks to Kara Brewer for her graphic designs.
Episode 14 was recorded on July 17, 2011.
OUR FIRST YEAR ARCHIVE: We have maintained our first year of rough- and amateur-sounding podcasts, which includes 12 regular episodes (such as Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings) and six BONUS episodes. Note: Our guests were very professional and impressive. These 18 shows can be found here: www.ctspodcast.blogspot.com
Hey guys, I’ll be the first to comment on your fancy new sight. Really enjoyed the episode, just a few thoughts.
First, maybe screen your listener calls better
Seriously though, you guys talked about how Harry didn’t really die and seemed kind of weak. I agree with that in a dramatic sense, but as far as why he didn’t die, I thought that was the whole point behind the elder wand. Wasn’t that kind of Snape’s and Dumbledor’s plan–that the wand wouldn’t work for Voldemort because he didn’t take it from Draco? I remember that being a bit more satisfying in the book so I’m guessing, though I don’t remember, that they probably explained that a bit better.
Another thing, in one of the books Rowling has a great line about guns. I don’t remember the exact quote but it’s in a wizard newspaper talking about how a muggle pointed a gun at someone. Then in parentheses it says “a gun is a kind of wand muggles use to kill each other.” I thought that was great and beyond being clever and also pretty telling of how outsiders would view our use of guns, it also sort of works as a way for Rowling to explain why the wizards don’t use guns–they don’t really pay attention to the muggle world and aren’t really even aware of them.
My final thought. I love the ending of the books and the movie–the 19 years later part. The kind of classic fairy tell is that the orphan who turns out to have special powers also turns out to be of royal blood and ends up the ruler. This is kind of the King Arthur myth (the early sword in the stone part). Harry is poised to do the same. He doesn’t have royal blood but he leads the revolt and kills the enemy. Also, he is in the end able to possess all three of the deathly hallows which theoretically would have made him immortal and invincible. The books talk about how when he was young Dumbledor was obsessed with gaining and possessing the three hallows. Anyway, what I love is that to Harry, none of that matters. What’s exciting to him is the idea of a happy family life, what he himself was denied. He tosses away the hallows, goes off, gets married and has kids. That’s great. You don’t defeat the evil ruler to become the ruler yourself, you defeat evil to insure a safe and happy continuance of ordinary life.
Hi Barrett,
You dazzle me as always, my friend. (Do you like how you’ve come to be somewhat feared on the Considering the Sequels podcast? You have commanded respect for the filmmaker’s art, and I like that.) Awesome recall on the gun quotation. I haven’t read the books, but I was surprised that the gun issue wasn’t covered; apparently, it was! I guess I don’t always give Rowling enough credit. As I said in the show, I was quite impressed with her Dementor characters being metaphorical representations of depression. I have to also agree with your last paragraph about Harry simply wanting a happy family life. I appreciated that, too. He truly is a likable character. I have never had any complaints about who Harry is … I just wish he had “brought the thunder,” so to speak, down upon Voldemort’s head: We, the audience, deserved to see this, and I think Harry deserved to conquer this foe with ferocity. In Episode 13 you said I was “combat-minded.” Yes, that’s probably true, but isn’t conflict the engine of drama? Thanks for commenting, Barrett. We’re always glad to hear your insights. JP
Hi Jason,
I am Barrett’s brother Mathew. We met but I doubt you remember.
Being a Harry Potter fan I enjoyed the podcast and thought I’d say a few things. First addressing the comments you made about the Sorcerer/Philosopher’s stone and the chamber of secrets not being a big part of the movie. Both of these serve to show how Harry and Voldemort have similar origins, but responded to these so differently. I could explain how but I want to be brief.
You compared the stone to the cube from Transformers. I see your point but there’s a big difference. Transformers is about violence, explosions, and objectifying women. Harry Potter, at least to fans, is about the characters so, explaining this connection/conflict between Harry and Voldemort is the entire point.
I’ll finish by referring to your comments about feeling disappointment in the lack of action when facing the spiders and, in book four, the dragon. I understand this feeling. We’ve been spoiled by movies like Lord of the Rings to expect a good fight. The thing to remember is that Harry is twelve when the spiders attack. Yes he is a wizard but he’s still a kid. Also again it shows his character. Harry isn’t brave because he’s an all powerful wizard. He’s brave despite the danger because people need his help.
Hi Matthew,
I think I do remember meeting you! Thanks for commenting. I see now where Barrett gets his good debate skills. First of all, I loved what you wrote about the difference between “Harry Potter” and “Transformers.” Hilarious — and so true. In fact, I’d like to quote your comments during our upcoming podcast on the “Transformers” trilogy. I couldn’t have said it better, and that deserves to be quoted: “Transformers is about violence, explosions, and objectifying women.”
Anyway, I also see your point about the spiders. I guess you’re right. Barrett always gets on my case about my sense of “entitlement” as a viewer — like I’m not supposed to have some expectation of quality as a paying customer. Since movies (these kind of movies) are about escapist entertainment, then I just can’t make myself feel guilty about my entitlement. It’s kind of like this: Most of us have ridden a roller coaster before, so we know what that experience is like; therefore, necessarily, we tend to hold other roller coasters up to that same thrilling standard. And so it is with movies… We were all kids once who were dazzled by the flickering images on the silver screen. Indeed, even as an adult, my eyes filled with tears from the sheer cinematic wonder that I was experiencing during Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005). In short, I am among the millions of filmic druggies, so to speak, who have experienced that high once, so I need my next big fix. And for me, it’s not just about great special effects or a well-orchestrated action sequence; it’s about those things being fueled by a good story. One thing I think we can all agree on is that those who have read the “Harry Potter” books surely have enjoyed the films more than those who have not. Unfortunately, I fall into the latter category.
Thanks for writing, Matthew.
JP