Digest 151

[Mary Korth]

"I was disappointed by the fact that Hermione's female
dormmates were never introduced, and that Dean and
Neville got short shrift in favor of Seamus' non-canon
explosions)"

I have to agree with you about Neville and Seamus. 
There was absolutely no reason to make Seamus the
klutz. Without Neville being the forgetful/clumsy one,
his appearing in the common room to stop the trio from
going through the trapdoor really doesn't make sense -
or rather, its nowhere near as potent as it is in the
book.  But - Dean didn't have that large a part in the
first book, and neither did Lavender Brown or Parvati
Patil.  They couldn't include every single character
from the book - the movie would have been 5 hours
long! (Not that I'd have minded that.... ;-) )

"They are NOT making Dobby a CGI character! PLEASE!
No! I don't think I can stand more bad graphics."
 
While I have to agree with you that I'd rather have
some form of a puppet/live action Dobby than a CGI
one, I have to quibble with what you say about the
graphics.  Granted, some of the graphics in the first
movie (the troll, parts of Quidditch...) weren't the
greatest.  But I just finished reading the
(unbelievably long) article in Cinefex... did you know
that the snake Harry speaks to in the london zoo was
CG?  Small movements were done by a puppet snake, but
most of it was CG.  I hadn't noticed.  Also - in the
troll scene, when the troll picks Harry up by his
ankles, that's not really Daniel (except, of course,
for the parts when he's talking).  That's a CG Harry. 
and all of the winged keys were CG.  I'm no expert
though - a lot of the Cinefex article went right over
my head.  I guess what it comes down to is this - I
enjoyed the movie for the exact same reason I enjoyed
the books: the story.  I watch it when I need a
quickie escape to Hogwarts, and I'm not worrying about
the graphics.    

Just thought I'd put my "two knuts" in on the debate
over the score.  Music is a completely subjective
topic, so this is my opinion only - take it for what
you will.  I got the soundtrack when it cam out in
October, and immediately fell in love with the
Quidditch track.  I could visualize the entire game
while listening to the music.  That, to me, is what
the definition of a good movie score is - music that
serves the picture and expresses things that light and
color and motion alone cannot.  When I saw the movie,
I had to agree with my friend Nate, who complains
about the swelling nature of John Williams' work. 
There are times when the music becomes to much of its
own entity - too overpowering.  But another bit of the
score that (to my knowledge) isn't on the CD struck me
very positively when I saw the movie - the first bit
in Diagon Alley.  I thought the way Williams used the
different instruments (strings in particular) to
create unusual sounds was a great way of showing
musically that this place is just a little bit
different than the ordinary, a little bit more
magical.  

Regardless of what we think of his work, I think that
we at least need to have enough respect for the
complexity of it.  I'm a freshman in college - a music
major.  Going through my music theory class and seeing
how hard it is to compose four measures of four-part
piano music, I can't help but have tremendous respect
for anyone who composes on such a grand scale.  (even
if it does occasionally get a little too grandiose.)

but like I said, that's just my opinion!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com