Would the series have been better with Spielberg?
He was asked to direct the first movie but said he wasn't ready for an all kids movie, his kids said he was nuts for not taking it on.
No.
share
MovieChat Forums > Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Discussion > Would the series have been better with S...
It seems fine as is.
shareNo. Rowling refused to let Spielberg have a hand in the films, because he wanted to move the setting to the US. She insisted that the story be kept in Britain, and that the films be shot in Britain, both to preserve the integrity of the story, but also to provide jobs for her fellow citizens of the UK.
Rowling was right and Spielberg was wrong. If the story had been moved to another country, it would have changed the story beyond recognition, and it'd have lost the sense of Hogwarts having a thousand years of history (more or less).
Yeah, that would have been bunk. The whole atmosphere is the British boarding school vibe, which doesn't shine as brightly in an American setting. That alone would be reason not to move it, but there's so much more to it than that.
Spielberg would have been great at adapting the wonder and childhood adventure - not to mention the spookier aspects - of the series, but not if he was going to meddle with the plot.
If the story is true... what the hell was Spielberg thinking to chuck that sense if Wizarding history and the old world charm by moving the setting to the US? It was a monumentally stupid idea, and Rowling was right to shut it down.
Spielberg's knack for childhood wonder wouldn't gave been enough to make up for a mistake like that.
Absolutely, yes. Spielberg's abilities could serve that story, but only if he was in fact willing to serve the story. If he had moved it to America (one version of this story I've heard had him wanting Haley Joel Osment for Harry) it would have been a shambles.
share