Richard Harris & other musings from the Reviews posted so far (SHIPping in the Movie)

[Penny & Bryce]

Hi all --

I'm so jealous of all of you who have already seen the movie once or
more (mostly the Brits it appears).  I'm also still bummed that I didn't
win tickets to the advance screening here in Houston here today.  Oh
well.  I do have tickets to 1:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m. on Friday & a noon
matinee on Saturday.

I will use some spoiler space since I intend to talk about things from
reviews people have posted ...

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

I
F

Y
O
U

N
E
E
D

I
T

Okay ...

Richard Harris: He certainly *looks* the part, but I'm with Luke, I grow
more & more disturbed by the reviews panning his performance.  I also
think it's one thing for him to admit that he hasn't read the books, but 
I'm a bit incensed at some of his comments that imply quite strongly
that he believes the books are beneath him.  I think his performance
will suffer in the later films for certain if he doesn't take a more
active interest in the role (and the films will suffer accordingly).
Dumbledore is an important role overall IMO.  Perhaps less so in this
first book; Cindy's right about that.  Although the 2 Dumbledore scenes
from PS that come to mind would require AD's twinkle, perceptiveness,
emotional warmth and sense of humor IMO.  I'm thinking of course of the
Mirror of Erised & the hospital wing scene with Harry.

I wonder if they can get out of any contracts with him for the later
films & just replace him?  I haven't even seen it yet and I hope so.
Dumbledore deserves an actor who at least cares enough about the
character to read the books. Lacking "heart" as Luke describes it is
very bad indeed in my book.

MARKETING -- Cindy asked earlier about the marketing being so low-key. 
I agree, and I think I read somewhere that this was how JKR & WB wanted 
it.  I have *yet* to see the TV trailer.  Clearly I don't watch enough 
TV.  :)

CHAT vs MOVIE -- It is hard to say whether either chats or the movie 
should be regarded as canonical (or whether chats should be regarded as 
superior to the Movie).  We *hear* that JKR has been very involved in 
the movie & consulted at every turn.  But, this is hearsay.  The chats 
do flow from her mouth/pen ... but I think Cassie's right to point out 
that it does seem some chat responses are rather contradictory (amongst 
themselves or when compared against canon).  They are also often a 
function of time pressure I would think.

The student numbers debate is a perfect example.  JKR said in a chat 
that Hogwarts has 1000 students.  Many of us (including Lexicon Steve) 
strongly disagree with this, based on the evidence in the books 
themselves.  Premier magazine says Hogwarts has 400 students, and I 
heard on the Katie Couric special tonight that the set included 300 
students.  Being a proponent of the 280-320 students school of thought, 
do I go with the chat script or the Movie evidence?  I've always thought 
that chat answer was glib or just a mistake.

LOONY POINTS -- While I take Cindy's point that perhaps the boa used in
the film was actually from Burma, aren't there likely to be alot more
Potter-philes upset at the change from Brazil to Burma (which seems on
the whole completely unnecessary) than herpetologists pointing out that
the actual snake in the film is native to Burma?  <g>  Like Catherine, I 
think this seems to be a very trivial & weird thing to change.

BTW, many thanks to everyone who is leaving very detailed reviews.  I'm 
thoroughly enjoying them.  It seems like, LOONY nitpicks aside, most of 
us are coming down on the side of this being a spectacular film that 
accomplishes alot (if not everything) that the fans could have wanted. 
I'm happy to hear that.

Al said: > One sensed that Kloves only paid half attention to the book as he scripted the film.

This is strange since all the interviews & stories have, all along, 
emphasized this notion that they were incredibly faithful in adapting 
the book, had input from JKR all along, approached the book as a 
non-fiction text, etc.  Yet, we (the truly obsessed LOONY fans) seem to 
disagree already.  Perhaps they should hire us as consultants!

Catherine commented:

> In fact, most of the problems I had with
> the film was that very good, humorous, original dialogue was replaced
> with dialogue which was infinitely inferior.

I have a feeling that this will be a big disappointment to me.  I must 
confess that I don't understand this at all.  What would be the 
motivation to change perfectly great dialogue if you're not streamlining 
per se?  Hmm.... maybe this will make more sense once I've seen the 
movie, but I doubt it.

Catherine again:

> I know it is difficult to translate a book
> such as this into a feature film - but what really worries me is that if
> this one had to be condensed to the extent that the whole plot and
> character development is very sketchy, how on earth are they going to
> manage with the others - the books get progressively longer and more
> complicated, and I don't think that a film of this nature is really
> going to do them justice.

Yes, this is very worrisome.  If SS is 2.5 hrs, one would imagine they 
can probably make CoS about the same length.  But, PoA may need to be a 
fair bit longer and goodness knows how they handle GoF (I know there's 
been discussion of 2 movies or an intermission).

Finally -- SHIPping in the Movie:

> Judging by the ratio I'd guess that
> either CC's a H/Hm shipper or else JKR is intending to follow that
> line at some point and told him to put it in.

Hee, hee.  I've had the suspicion that Kloves is H/H.  If we add 
Columbus to that mix, I'm even happier. Perhaps the word is from JKR ... 
yeah.  I'll go with that.  :)

*Loved* Cassie's notations of the H/G interaction (He ignores her!) and 
the H/H'iness going on.  Very happy indeed.

Penny
(who cannot wait to see the Movie on Friday!)