ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Petra <ms_petra_pan at y...> 
wrote:
> Geoff, in HPFGU-Feedback message #471:
> > Which means that we may have to start playing
> > leapfrog between lists. I also belong to the
> > Movie group but, because I have limited time
> > and I concentrate on the main list, I get to
> > that group about once a month. It is draconian
> > to suggest that /any/ film support is off-
> > limits. For example, is it now going to be
> > ruled that C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien as
> > inadmissable?
> 

Petra:
Though I can sympathize with your being indignant
> about possibly becoming inconvenienced with having 
> to leapfrog between lists (dare I guess that this 
> is one reason why people hate posting OT posts 
> at OTC where they belong?!) I am at a loss as to 
> why you dread the unlikely event that mentions 
> of the *literary* figures Lewis and Tolkien in a 
> post would send you hopping to the *movie* list.
> 
> For what it's worth, I had laid out why I 
> consider films to not be canon in 
> 
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/4605
> 
> "To add to the various objections raised already
> in other posts, I would like to point out that to
> cite JKR's influence on the screenwriter as
> support for canonizing the movies relies on an
> assumption that what we all saw on the screen/DVD
> is exactly as Kloves had set down on paper.
> 
> This assumption would be incorrect."
> 
> and
> 
> "the movie
> as envisioned by Kloves should be represented by
> the shooting draft. His vision then underwent 14
> revisions. Some of these revisions are major,
> some are minor, and some seem to bear the
> fingerprints of person(s) other than the one who
> originally set the shooting draft down on paper.
> This is too many degrees of separation from JKR
> for my comfort - to canonize materials that can
> only claim tacit approval from JKR seem rather
> dodgy to me"
> 
> You might find the discussion around there 
> about whether or not HP films should be 
> considered HP canon to be of interest.
> 
> I also ended up touching upon this issue in 
> 
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5423 and
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5443
> 
> if you care to check out that conversation.

Having read your reply, I realise that I worded my post in such as 
way that it was open to misinterpretation. What I was trying to 
suggest was we might reach a situation that any reference to JRRT or 
CSL per se would be ruled inadmissable.
 
What I feel is ridiculous is to impose a complete dichotomy between 
film and book. As I commented in a later post, I often get involved 
with discussions on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and, in both 
cases, passing references are often made to the film versions - not 
major references but passing ones and these will often help to 
illuminate ideas etc.I first read the Lord of the Rings in or about 
1955 and, surprisingly perhaps, the film versions have drawn my 
attention to details which I have overlooked in 25-30 readings.
 
I am not indignant about having to leapfrog. I feel that the 
guidelines being laid down are not realistic in attempting to create 
a book world outside which the films do not exist and, as I have 
already said, if you are going to be consistent, than you must rule 
that speculation on Books 6 & 7 is off-topic because these books do 
not (yet) exist.
 
Yours amiably
 
Geoff