On this site I have seen so much about the Avengers/Super Hero movies and that type of movie, but nothing about Harry Potter..Is it that guys think Harry Potter is more girly and Iron man/etc., is not, just curious.
shareNot at all, the sons and nephews in my family all enjoyed the Potter movies
I saw parts of them and they looked pretty fun
Nah, Harry Potter is for boys and girls. Thing is it's for kids only, while superhero movies are for kids and adults. And there are no children here in MovieChat, of course almost nobody would discuss Harry Potter.
share[deleted]
Ok, it's primarily for kids then. I mean all Disney / Pixar animations also have a little bit mature themes for the parents to somewhat enjoy, but obviously they are primarily for kids. Contrast that to superhero movies that are for kids AND adults alike.
shareThe first movies are mostly enjoyed by kids but it’s target audience I’d say is teenagers. Boys and girls. It’s not girls or boys only but it’s Main target is teenagers and maybe young adults.
However I think many big adults do enjoy Harry Potter. Maybe not all adults who like fantasy want stuff as violent as game of thrones and want their fantasy a little more lighthearted.
I like it all ways. Lighthearted, ultraviolent and everything in between.
shareI’ve recently rewatched the whole series with my 6 year old daughter (I only watched them once before at the cinema when they first came out). The first four were great, then it got a little pedestrian for a couple of films, but then got better at the end; I didn’t realise how dark it got as the series went on.
No, I don’t think it’s just for girls.
Yes, of course! Harry Potter is for both girls and boys, just not for girls who used to be boys.
Settle down, I was just jk.
I've tried to watch them multiple times. (I'm nearly middle-aged.)
As a rule, I enjoy fantasy movies. LOTR is a favorite of mine. But the first Potter flick took me three or four times to get through. I finally did though, and then made it through the third film before calling it quits on the series.
It kind of sucks, but that's not because it's for girls. I imagine viewers of any gender can enjoy it. Or not enjoy it, as the case was for me.
The real problem is that they just aren't very good movies.
The third movie was probably the worst of the whole series. Which sucks because the third book was probably my favorite of the books. At least second-favorite maybe. I was 14 when the movie came out and I remember what high hopes I had for it, and what a total disappointment it was. It rushed the story so much and just ignored so much of the book. The movie never even explained the Marauder's Map for heaven's sake. Also, Michael Gambon, not that he isn't a good actor, but he was a terrible choice for Dumbledore. The role just doesn't fit him.
shareI don't think it's about gender. Back when Harry Potter was really popular, both boys and girls loved it. It's more the fact that the series has been fading into the background. It finished over a decade ago. Also, frankly, the movies just weren't that good. The books, however, were. I'm 30 (and a guy, if that matters) and I still love the books, I reread them every few years or so. They're good books and they were a big part of my childhood/adolescence. As for the movies, well, I liked the first two movies, but I didn't really like any of the movies that came later. They took WAY too many liberties with the story, tried too hard to be cute, and got lazier over time (for instance the costuming; the characters didn't even dress like wizards anymore from Prisoner of Azkaban onward). All around, they just weren't very well-made. The first two movies, while they had their flaws, were much closer to the books and I still like them although I haven't watched them in a long time. The later movies are mostly forgettable to me.
shareMy biggest problem with the movies is how the changed some of the main characters, mostly HP himself. Hermione is more or less the same. Ron is less charming and more clumsy in the movies. But Harry Potter... damn...
In the first novels, it was a really interesting character. Problematic, troubled, rebel, but good-hearted, smart and charismatic. They chose an actor who had zero charisma, and that meant that the character in the movies became a nerd with issues.
But that wasn't all. There was a feedback effect, and you can see how novels' Harry Potter moves from being that smart and charismatic troubled rebel in the first novels to be the nerd with issues in the last ones. And I really hated that.
Very insightful. I felt the same. I think it's always a little risky when casting child actors, because you're trying to match the look described by the author but children just don't have the level of control of themselves that adults have, and you don't know how they will do as they get older, and as the material depends less on their being tiny/adorable and more on their acting talent and charisma.
shareMore or less...
Avengers --> boys
Harry Potter --> boys & girls
Twilight --> girls
I think the avengers are equally enjoyable for both boys and girls, but I do understand why you say it’s for boys.
I think it’s a slightly un fair stigma that has always existed that action movies are mainly for boys and many people still do believe in those. But I think Kevin Faige way before this woke era has always tried to get the girls into the franchise as well, I feel like he has always tried to make girls who watch superhero films feel welcomed And I really appreciate that from him.
And it’s not because there are female heroes but because the MCU movies still have lots of elements girls enjoy in a movie including good action.
I think it’s so unfair this stigma that girls don’t like action flicks unless there is a female hero or romance.
But the marvel directors have always been inclusive when I watch an MCU film you don’t feel weird for enjoying it.
I think action movies have become quite a bit better at welcoming girls, though at times they go over the top in terms of being unwilling to allow female characters to have flaws. For example, one of my sons' least favorite action heroes is Captain Marvel. I asked why (secretly thinking they just didn't want to watch a female hero) and they said it was because she was overpowered. Basically, they said it's boring to watch a superhero who has no vulnerabilities. For example in Avengers: Endgame (sorry, it could be Infinity War, I didn't watch them all) they said essentially the only reason there was a movie at all was because Captain Marvel was...busy elsewhere. Otherwise she would have just fixed everything with her essentially infinite superpowers.
I feel that moviemakers could backtrack just a tiny bit on the superpowers of female action heroes and still make movies that girls would enjoy.
Yes definitely. That’s actually a terrible way to do female characters trying to make women perfect we are not.
We girls are human after all and we do have flaws so it’s silly action movies won’t show that.
I think tv slightly understands this better that female protagonists should have flaws as well. Actually that’s part of why sex and the city worked so well because our girls weren’t perfect.
They were all great successful women but had flaws.
The women of the series House MD were also really Interesting because they were heroic in their own but all had flaws
Cameron sometimes got way too Emotionally involved, thirteen was a little too wild and Cuddy sometimes couldn’t be logical and took things a bit too personal.
Actually all characters were likable and flawed and this is how you create great characters.
But I think Kevin Faige way before this woke era has always tried to get the girls into the franchise as well, I feel like he has always tried to make girls who watch superhero films feel welcomed And I really appreciate that from him.
But the marvel directors have always been inclusive when I watch an MCU film you don’t feel weird for enjoying it.
“Regarding that, I don't understand modern obsession with "female viewers need female role-models". Super-hero stories role-models are about abstract values, like friendship, or fairness, or hard work, values that are very much gender independent.”
What female viewers need are stories that appeal to them. And you're right, Kevin Feige did quite well creating a franchise with stories that had a bit of everything (humor, action, romance, thriller, adventure). So everybody liked them.”
Yes definitely.
It does bother me too that some people think girls have to like the female characters and guys the male characters.
Great characters are for everyone, I love Wonder Woman but I also love IronMan( yes I do like both DC and Marvel ).
On the inclusivity issue.
I guess didn’t explain myself well because I also hate being inclusive for the sake of it and doing it political or with an agenda.
What I meant is that The marvel films have always been inclusive in the way of giving us stories we all can enjoy and just giving us great characters. That’s after all the strength of this franchise: great characters.
This is why endgame was such a big deal for the fans because they gave us the end of a story with characters we Care a lot. We feel them close to us.
Looks like there's a size limit on posts. Anyway, I was going to add, as you point out, being unwilling to allow heroes to have flaws or vulnerabilities makes them homogeneous and also boring.
shareSo agree.
This why it’s so hard to bring SuperMan to the big screen. Because he seems like he is perfect that he never makes mistakes or he is always the most perfectly moral guy.
Just like why some people found Cap boring at the beginning of the franchise so when Winter Soldier came up we saw him have more struggles with his personality and way of thinking and Civil War showed us a more flawed side of Steve being so stubbborn against the accords.
The accords were not good but instead of saying hey let’s negotiate and see how can we fix them he went rouge and became a revel. Civil war made us see Steve while being a very nice guy he had his flaws
Yes, exactly; I guess that's why he had to have kryptonite, so that he would have some kind of vulnerability. I think people generally lost interest in the SuperMan model because of his being so moral. Perfect characters just aren't that interesting. IronMan, I think, is interesting partly because his natural tendency is to be very egotistical and a bit cocky. People can relate to that and it also creates opportunities to make more interesting narratives. When you say Cap, do you mean Captain America? I think I saw those but I don't remember the details.
shareYes with Cap I meant Captain America.
And yes people find IronMan interesting because he is someone who constantly makes mistakes and always looks for ways to fix them. Even when he is trying to do something right he does the wrong thing like Ultron.
He created Ultron to protect the universe but Ultron did the opposite or had the opposite intentions.
Tony also meant good by being in favor of the accords but he also did some mistakes with it. He should have also listened more to Steve and while Steve ( Capitan America) was too stubborn Tony needed more patience to explain them and convince the team to sign.
the way reacted with the video while understandable it wasn’t the right thing if he waited to calm and see Bucky wasn’t really responsible for his parents death a fight could have been avoided.
Tony Stark is a good man but he ain’t perfect and that’s part of what makes him so engaging and flawed characters are easier go give them an arc.
IronMan even though he did a lot of mistakes he changed a lot from his first to his last film.
"Regarding that, I don't understand modern obsession with "female viewers need female role-models". Super-hero stories role-models are about abstract values, like friendship, or fairness, or hard work, values that are very much gender independent."
---
I think that is true, or that is the ideal, perhaps. I think one failure of "old tyme" superhero movies was that sometimes they focused too much on the idea that heroism depends on specific qualities that are limited by gender, eg muscularity. Although I didn't necessarily perceive it at the time, I think the overall impression was that you can only be heroic if you are muscular. Or, put another way, your heroism is in direct proportionality to your muscle size (Or whatever other male-only trait they were talking about). I think this tended to lead, maybe subconsciously, to a value system where size=value. Girls, being smaller, would find that not really that interesting.
But really, I think the underlying abstract question is, what are those gifts FOR, whether that be muscularity, super speed, laser vision, or what-have-you? I think the superhero story is really about the idea of learning to use your gifts for service rather than for your ego or your self-aggrandisement, or to get back at the guys who bullied you in high school, etcetera. So, as you point out, it's really gender neutral and abstract. Having girl superheroes is very compatible with this. Superheroes are not real anyway so no reason why it needs to be Superman who has magical powers rather than Supergirl.
I think one problem with superheroes who have no vulnerabilities is that, even if they are more gender-balanced or are diverse in other ways, it's based on the idea that having these physical qualities makes someone intrinsically better than other people. So we need to have Captain Marvel have essentially infinite power in order to make sure people realise that girl superheroes are just as good as boy superheroes.
I think superheroes like SpiderMan has changed this idea that all heroes need to look buffed and very masculine and hunky.
Peter Parker is just a kid who becomes a hero and he is very geeky and cute but he doesn’t look like Captain America or Batman.
I think SpiderMan has shown us that superheroes come in many different ways and look different.
If I’m not mistaken he is the first hero who is a teenager but not a sidekick like Robin
agree. Not sure who came first as all these superhero comics were already in existence before I was born.
share