Harry Potter Source Evaluation
When was it published?: 8th November 2011
What I learned from it?: When comparing how accurate the characters are in the novel to the actors who played them on screen, I learned that they had to scrap the idea that Harry had his mother's green eyes due to the fact that Daniel Radcliffe was majorly allergic to the green contact lenses. This led to them changing Lily Potter's eyes to blue as well in order to maintain the motif.
Why was it created?: It was created to share a conversation between J.K Rowling and Daniel Radcliffe about their experiences on the Harry Potter set and their opinions on the world that had been created. It was published a little after the release of the final movie, which had exclusive interviews on the DVDs when they were available to buy in stores.
How reliable is it?: It is reliable because it is a typed out version of a spoken interview between two of the most important people who were involved in the making of Harry Potter. J.K Rowling had to influence to guide decisions and Daniel Radcliffe was there to witness them.
When was it published?: 14th October 2020
What I learned from it?: I found out about some of the main differences between the books and the films, including the relationships that are ruined when taken to the screen, and some of the questionable endings for characters such as Voldemort.
Why was it created?: It was created to highlight some of the things that were left out from the Harry Potter films. It is uncertain to see whether Stephanie Ashe who wrote the article thought this negatively impacted the film, but by calling them 'important details' it suggests that she wanted them to be included.
How reliable is it?: The differences are reliable as I have seen them discussed elsewhere as well as noticing them myself. However, what could be classed as important is subjective so there could be some personal bias.
https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-marauders-book-facts/
When was it published?: 29th February 2020
What I learned from it?: I learned a lot of things that were missing from the films that would have given a bigger impact regarding the Marauders. For example, we don't see their close friendship and barely any of their time at Hogwarts.
Why was it created?: It was created to tell people who haven't read the Harry Potter books a bit of context about the previous generation who attended Hogwarts, which may fill in some plot holes that were missed on screen.
How reliable is it?: It is reliable as it is just stating the facts of what was missing from the films compared to the book. I have most of the differences elsewhere too.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/136251.Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#other_reviews
When was it published?: Frequently updated since the release of the book
What I learned from it?: I learned that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was the highest rated book on Goodreads. It gave an overall amount of stars the book had received, and lots of individual reviews from the public.
Why was it created?: It was created so that people could share their opinions on the books and recommend it to others. It is a platform where book lovers can express their feelings about certain reads, and in this case, people were filled with praise for the Harry Potter books.
How reliable is it?: It is reliable because over 3 million people have voted on the book which is a very large scale review. It is rare to have such a wide spread amount of people comment on a singular book.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/2001-11-16-harry-review.htm
When was it published?: 16th November 2001
What I learned from it: The opinion of a top critic from Rotten Tomatoes commenting on the Philosopher's Stone movie. Claudia Puig thought that the film was lacking some of the humour and wittiness that was prevalent in the novel.
Why was it created?: It was created so that the critic could comment on the film and give their honest opinion.
How reliable is it?: It is more helpful rather than reliable as it gives an individual opinion on the film, however the general message of the criticism is echoed in many other reviews I found on Rotten tomatoes, making it somewhat reliable.
https://www.salon.com/2004/06/03/prisoner_azkaban/
When was it published?: 3rd June 2004
What I learned from it: I learned that many of the top critics believed this was the first excellent Harry Potter adaptation. They thought it appealed to older audiences, not just children, as the books do too.
Why was it created?: It was created so that Zacharek could comment on the film and evaluate how the introduction of a new director could change the style of the films so much.
How reliable is it?: It gives a personal opinion on the film, allowing us to have an insight into what many top critics believed.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire-20051201-gdmjsf.html
When was it published?: 1st December 2005
What I learned from it: I learned that one reviewer thought that the film lacked a sense of fun due to certain aspects of the series being cut out. For example, Mrs Weasley was removed from the storyline as well as the Dursleys, removing a lot of comedy from the film.
Why was it created?: It was created so that the reviewer could comment on the things they perceived as negative in the Goblet of Fire movie.
How reliable is it?: It gives a personal opinion of the film, but a opinion that is generally shared by other top critics.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118428191638465246
When was it published?: 13th July 2007
What I learned from it: I learned that Joanna Kaufman thought the fifth film was lacking in texture and interest because it had missed out many things from the book. She thought it was bleak and fragmented, although this is not an opinion shared by many other reviewers.
Why was it created?: It was created for the reviewer to comment on the film as express their dislike for how it was portrayed on the screen.
How reliable is it?: Once again, it gives a personal opinion from a top reviewer, allowing us to see what different people thought of the adaptation.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-lkdxls59p7x
When was it published?: 16th July 2009
What I learned from it: I learned that many reviewers thought that the Half Blood Prince was exceptionally good. However, it made them aware of how poor the first five films that been. They thought that the plotting, the adolescent acting and caricatures had been enveloped by magic so we had been unaware until now how good the films could have been if these were improved.
Why was it created?: It was created so that Kevin Maher could comment on the negatives of the previous films, but also applaud The Half Blood Prince.
How reliable is it?: The Sunday Times is a well regarded newspaper in the UK which aims to comment on a variety of topics, including entertainment. Although it is a personal opinion, it allows me to gain and insight into what top critics thought of the film.
https://nypost.com/2010/11/18/weary-potter/
When was it published?: 18th November 2010
What I learned from it: I learned that the reviewer thought that the Deathly Hallows Part 1 lacked a lot of fun and had no dramatic payoff, purely being a money making scheme.
Why was it created?: It was created so that the critic could reflect upon the failures that Part 1 brought along when taken to the screen. However, they also show their interest in the next film and hope that Part 2 would bring a better conclusion.
How reliable was it?: There is a general consensus that although Part 1 was probably necessary for the plot, it did feel incomplete and just an accessory to Part 2. I have seen this comment across many reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_deathly_hallows_part_2_2011
When was it published?: 2011
What I learned from it: I learned that the general consensus for the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was that it was an excellent conclusion for a magical franchise. It received a rating of 96% from top critics.
Why was it created?: Rotten tomatoes was created to allow people to rate and review films or tv shows and give recommendations to others.
How reliable was it?: Rotten Tomatoes is reliable because it is one of the largest review sites in the world with thousands of people leaving their opinions of different films. For each movie, it has reviews from different people around the globe, all from different backgrounds. It produces a scale that couldn't be found elsewhere.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317408/highest-grossing-film-franchises-series/
When was it published?: 2021
What I learned from it: I learned that Harry Potter is the third highest grossing film franchise following the MCU and Star Wars. It is worth $9.2 billion.
Why was it created?: To tell people about how much franchises are worth.
How reliable was it?: Statista has been established as one of the most reliable websites for statistics in the world, working alongside large companies and providing data on many different things. Therefore, it is likely that these figures are accurate.
Comments
Post a Comment