Still More Musing on Adaptations

[Cindy C.]

Lino wrote:

> The thing that does bug me are all of the details that
> were changed, seemingly -- to me anyway-- for no other
> reason than a lack of attention to detail. The snake
> is one example that has been brought up here. In fact
> the very first thing we see in the film is the
> Put-Outer working in reverse (from furthest lamp to
> closest, instead of closest to furtherest). Snape's
> class not being in a dungeon, the color of some
> people's hair, Hargid saying he got fluffy from a
> Irishmen instead of a Greek, etc. 

I'm not sure I'd chalk these thing up to sloppiness and inattention 
to detail.  For instance, the snake scene makes more sense in the 
movie than the book, IMHO.  As Alex, our resident snake enthusiast 
explained, the movie snake is a (fake) Burmese Python.  Why?  Movies 
are visual, so perhaps they wanted a large, colorful snake, and maybe 
Brazilian Boas don't fit the bill.  Failing to change the snake's 
origin would have led to claims that the filmmakers made an error and 
don't understand snakes.  So they change the dialogue to be accurate 
and avoid an avalanche of nit-picky letters.  I doubt it was a slip-
up, and I would have made the same decision, as the snake's origin is 
unimportant to the story.

As for the Put-Outer, I'll have to take your word that the movie 
order is backward (and bestow upon you a special citation for L.O.O.N-
iness for spotting this).  But perhaps they are setting up the shot, 
and they observe that having Dumbledore extinguish the closest lamp 
first fouls the lighting or obscures him or something.  So they fix 
it on the spot, not out of ignorance of the book, but because of the 
practical issues in filming a movie.

As for Irish vs. Greek, I have no idea.  It could be that they felt 
it was more logical for Hagrid to believe the man to be Irish if it 
is supposed to be a cloaked Quirrell.

Cindy (sounding like a member of S.A.D. again)