What?/Macaulay Culkin/Biggerstaff/NO 4-hour version/wands

[joanne0012]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "witchgrrl2004" <witchgrrl2004 at y...> wrote:
> This doesn't have much to do with Harry potter, but what exactly 
> happened to the kid in the home alone movies? were his parents like 
> super-obssesed with his movie career or something? Someone please 
> explain this to me

Macaulary Culkin is the most (in)famous of several photogenic children born to 
stage-obsessed parents who pushed the children into continuous performances 
(Culkin did 14 movies in 8 years), mishandled their money, and then 
incorporated the children into their messy divorce.  Culkin himself was 
married at 17 and divorced recently. Very sad tale.

http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/person/details/0,7124,BIO-P+16081,00.html

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "megrose_13" <megrose_13 at y...> wrote:
> The only real problem I have with actors' ages are Dean Tomas and 
> (sadly) Sean Biggerstaff.  Isn't Wood supposed to be about 15?  16?  
> He looks far too old to be 16!  But yet, he is so cute!  Ok, enough 
> of that.  Did anyon else notice this or am I just wierd?  LOL

Believe me, we ALL noticed, LOL.  Biggerstaff is 18, not too old to play a 
16-year-old IMHO and yet also not jailbait.

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "boyblue_mn" <boyblue_mn at y...> wrote:
> 
> Also, there is a petition on the internet somewhere, demanding that 
> Warner release the full 4 hour version when it is released on DVD.

Columbus has asserted that there never was a 4-hour version.  Although we do 
know that there's footage that was never used (based on interviews and 
preview clips etc.), an entire extra 90 minutes would be a bit of overkill, 
espeically on a film with such a tight production schedule.  Here's the 
Columbus interview:

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story=3454&ss=Chris+columb
us&cp=1

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "oz_widgeon" <littlered32773 at y...> wrote:
> What I find the most interesting about the site you listed is that the 
> 'core' is in the handle, not the wand itself.  Does anyone else have 
> an opinion (either way) on this?  In the movie, I was quite surprised 
> by the 'chunkiness' of several of the wands (I had pictured them 
> slimmer-like the thickness of a pen or drinking straw),  

The core must be in the wand itself, not the handle, since when Ron's old wand 
was disintegrating the unicorn hair was sticking out of the tip. I, too, pictured 
the wands as much more slender, probably because of Olivander's comments 
about qualities like "whippy" and "swishy".  The movie wands were definitely 
NOT how I had pictured them when reading the books.