Stephen Kloves, and shippiness.

[David]

Yes, I agree. It must have been a fantasticly difficult task writing 
a screenplay for this film, and I thought he tackled that aspect of 
it well. But I really did not like his dialogue. His idea of how us 
Brits speak is completely and utterly wrong, and I think the dialogue 
left a lot to be desired. There were lines like, in Diagon 
Alley, "But Hagrid, how am I to pay for it all, I haven't any money." 
This line made me cringe both times I saw it (and others too, this is 
just an example). People in Britain have never, and will never speak 
like that. If he'd said "But Hagrid, how am I going to pay for it 
all, I haven't got any money?" it would have been much more realitic, 
just because of two words, 'going' and 'got'. The existing versions 
just made it sound like a primary school play.

Is he British? I really doubt it, because his idea of how we speak is 
so unbelievably stereotypical that it almost wrecked the whole film 
for me. But all the other aspects made that up for me:o)

Anyway, I'm glad to have that off my chest...now:

I'm a newcomer to the Harry Potter community, and you all seem to be 
talking about 'shippiness' or something. What does this mean? Is it 
something to do with romance? If someone could explain it, I'd really 
apreciate it:o)

Dave

Random Quote Generator: I show not your face but your heart's desrie.
--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., caliburncy at y... wrote:

> This is a tough question, because it's very hard to separate what 
is 
> ultimately the result of Kloves and what may have been more the 
> result of someone else like Columbus or Heyman or the chief editor, 
> etc.
> 
> But assuming we were to attribute *all* final screenplay decisions 
to 
> Kloves (which is certainly not actually the case) then I would have 
> these things to say:
> 
> On the whole, a reasonable job for what I do think was a very 
> difficult task.  I particularly think he made some good scene 
> combinations in a way that might not have occured to me and that 
> worked pretty well.  Especially some of the roaming around the 
school 
> scenes were combined in a manner that seemed fairly plausible and 
> didn't severely damage the unfolding of the story.  So I must give 
> some credit there.
> 
> The humor changes and exorcises, though, are a shame.  I was not 
> expecting most of the book humor to make it into the movie, but 
> really the only character left with hardly any humorous lines that 
> were actually from the book is Ron.  Some of the new lines were 
good 
> and some not so good, but ultimately the issue I see here is that a 
> lot of the fun in this kind of adaptation (that was clearly 
designed 
> with fans in mind) is to hear some of your favorite lines being 
> spoken.  So to replace these with new material is not so much fresh 
> and appreciated as it is often a tad disappointing.  Some of the 
> changes were done from a kind of created necessity, like the loss 
of 
> the "Are you a witch or not?" line in the Devil's Snare, because 
they 
> had redesigned the Devil's Snare to be Hermione's task (replacing 
the 
> purpose of the potion challenge), characterized by her level-
> headedness under pressure.  Obviously, the "Are you a witch or 
not?" 
> situation would have undermined this.  But some other line changes, 
> it seemed to me, could have easily stuck more to the original.
> 
> Also, the handling of necessary exposition in the beginning (at 
> Hogwarts) was rather poor, I thought.  A lot of unnecessary 
> exposition was overemphasized, and too much of the necessary 
> exposition was glossed-over, making for a lot of "filling in the 
gaps 
> with info from the book" that is simply not possible for anyone 
that 
> hasn't read it.  This is why I feel the movie, strangely enough, 
does 
> not stand on its own well at all.
> 
> But I don't know how much of this is truly Kloves fault and how 
much 
> is simply the daunting nature of the task.  Perhaps replacing him 
> with someone else would help, but perhaps not; I honestly don't 
know 
> enough to say for sure.
> 
> -Luke