Referendum on the Director

[ftah3]

Tam wrote:
>I liked Snape's "sprint" (and you *know* he began talking the
> *second* class was to begin)

Gol, I'm glad I'm not the only one.  I thought that bit *embodied* 
Snape.  I mean, lacking the wider expository boundaries of text, a 
film has to describe a character visually, and preferably in one very 
telling moment.  His entrance into the classroom had me at "wow, that 
is *Snape*" quicker than Hermione could tell me where to find a 
bezoar. :-P

Cindy said
> > 3.  I think he showed an inability to combine scenes to save time
> > that could be spent better elsewhere.  For instance, do we need
> > several Mirror of Erised scenes, or could all of it have been
> > accomplished in one scene?  Can't we combine the hut on the rock 
with
> > Privet Drive, both to save time and to enhance continuity?

And Tam replied:
> I think we needed those Erised scenes to reiterate how deeply Harry
> feels that big hole in his heart that comes from never knowing his
> parents.  And I think we needed Privet Drive alone, as a base for 
The
> Dursley Years!

Ditto Tam.  I really don't think Columbus went wrong in deciding what 
to keep and what to cut.  He left out some people's 'pet' scenes, 
sure, but he had to use scenes which would do three jobs: further the 
plot of *this* movie; set up certain things for following movies; and 
explain the wizard world and Harry's place in it in as simple a 
visual way as possible to make the movie accessible to both readers 
and non-readers.  Obviously, he's not going to be perfect about it, 
but imho, I think he did a fab job.  Of course, to-may-to, to-mah-to.

Cindy wrote: 
> > 4.  He is not very good at deciding what to keep and what to cut,
> > which will be critical in the next two films.  Keeping Norbert and
> > the Troll wasn't wise given the important things that were 
deleted.
> > If JKR "wouldn't let him" cut certain things, then we need a 
director
> > who can be a bit more persuasive.

On the other hand, JKR was the only one who could tell him, "If you 
*don't* leave this in, or if you change *this*, something that 
happens later will make *no* sense" ~ and I think I did read 
somewhere that she gave that particular brand of input.  And as Tam 
said in his/her reply, what works in a book doesn't necessariy work 
in a movie (for example, imho, Snape's longer speech during the first 
potions class wouldn't have worked in the movie, while his dramatic 
entrance and shortened monologue did).  On the other hand, what do I 
know?  %-)

Cindy wrote:
> > 5.  He made the soundtrack too loud.  There's just no excuse for 
that.

Hmm, I guess I didn't notice.

> > 6.  His mastery of special effects techniques is questionable.  
When
> > a character (Peeves) is cut not because the story requires it but
> > because the special effects were poor, I think the director has to
> > take responsibility.  I'm not even going to mention the centaur.

Imho, the special effects were as good as any of that brand of CGI 
animation today, *especially* considering that this movie (unlike, 
say, Shrek, where the animation was admittedly more sophisticated) 
wasn't CGI based.  Firenze was not as natural as the human actors, 
but his movements, to my eyes, were as natural as, for example again, 
the princess in Shrek.  On the other hand, her moments of herky-
jerkiness were much less noticiable, since she wasn't walking 
alongside human actors.  (For the record, I base this opinion on 
comparing HP with my multiple viewings of both Toy Story movies, 
Disney's Dinosaur, Shrek, and that goofy new Saturday morning cartoon 
here in the US called Cubix.  LOL.  This would all be thanks to my 3-
year-old....)

At any rate, I'm actually glad Peeves was cut.  Imho, he would have 
been unecessary and too cutesy.  He works in the book, but he would 
have been just a jarring clown on the screen, imho.

Cindy:
> > 7.  My biggest overall gripe about the movie was the lack of
> > continuity.  

I don't really know what you're referring to here, so I can't address 
it. 

Tam:
> Well, most of my co-workers who saw the movie never read any of the
> books, and still thought it wonderful, and from that and the 
comments of
> fellow viewers who also hadn't read them (hey, I like to eavesdrop 
when
> I'm in line!), it does seems to stand alone.

Ditto this.

> Tam, glad to have found this list and listening to the soundtrack 
for
> maybe thirtieth time since Saturday...

So the soundtrack is good?  I've thought about buying it, but wasn't 
sure it would be worthwhile for stand-alone listening....

Mahoney
also glad to have joined up on this list!