good information sources?

[irbohlen at email.unc.edu]

Well, now that the film has been out for a while...can you think back to all the 
scoops, info, etc. we got over the past year? Was there any source that 
turned out to have consistently accurate info?

I thought of this because I recently got back a Sept. Entertainment Weekly I'd 
loaned to a friend with a cover story on HP. I skimmed it again and noticed 
two pieces of info:

1) " a recent edit clocked in at four hours" -- I guess this is the source of the 
"four-hour director's cut" dream.  Well, nobody wants a 4-hour Harry Potter 
more than I, but think about it--did they really pay John Williams to score 4 
hours of film? And the editor to do a four-hour version? Sadly, I think not. 
However, we may be lucky and get a few unused scenes on the DVD, as on 
the Gladiator DVD.

Just when I got excited about the possibility of the above, I read this:

2) Because Radcliffe didn't have green eyes, "computer animation painted 
them in during postproduction." Well, we all know this didn't happen. 
Although, given the green eyes in all the printed stuff from the movie it was 
obivously meant to. [If I had a chance to ask Chris Columbus one question, it 
would be "what was the problem with Harry's eyes?" just out of technical 
curiosity]

Anyway, I would have thought Entertainment Weekly was a fairly trustworthy 
publication--it's not a tabloid and in fact is part of the Time Warner empire. 
I've even grown skeptical of direct quotes that I read online or in magazines 
because who knows if they were transcribed correctly? Perhaps only 
interviews that you see yourself on video or radio are trustworthy?

Any thoughts?

Ivis the elderly