Deleted scenes then wandering off into PoA country

[GulPlum]

"feliciarickmann" wrote:
> I was wondering if the much talked of deleted scenes would be on 
the 
> extra more * adult * orientated DVD, talked of a few weeks ago.  It 
> would give them an *honourable * way out after spending all that 
> money, (ahem) to at least let them see the light of day, if they 
> exist of course.

I have significant doubts whether they do exist. The only thing we 
know for sure that was filmed but not included in the movie was 
Peeves, so perhaps some of that could come up. But I doubt there are 
a dozen sequences involved.
  
> I also wondered, wandering on to another topic, if I am alone in 
> thnking that a great deal rests on the reception to the third film, 
> PoA, no necessarily on CoS.  Everyone will be so relieved to see HP 
> again in some form as The Book That Must Not Be Named is not 
> forthcoming so CoS is assured by fans at least, of a decent 
> reception.  

I think that's a fair statement. By summer 2004 (the current 
projected release slot for PoA Movie) Book Five will have come out 
(!) and perhaps even Book Six. If I were in JKR's shoes, I'd use 
whatever clout I had to get Warners to release PoA Movie in June (or 
whatever summer blockbuster slot they have available), and release 
Book Six in the autumn - this would mean maximum exposure for the 
movie, and the book surfing on its coat-tails. Assuming Book Five 
comes out before the end of this year, or even as late as summer 
2003, we fans will have had enough of a dry spell to be geared up for 
PoA Movie. 

> However everyone, no exceptions, seems to have a great emotional 
> investment and involvement in the characters of PoA : witness the 
> intelligent (mostly) and lengthy discussions on Sirius, Severus, 
> Remus et al over in the HPfGU * book * department.  Getting the 
> casting of Remus Lupin right, who is according to Entertainment 
> Weekly one of the most beloved characters in Potterverse, is for 
many 
> people crucial and might dictate if a further film proceeds.  

Again, I agree. Also, these are adult characters with meaty parts to 
play (unlike, say, Dumbledore or even Hagrid) and if properly cast, 
might drive an adult audience (not necessarily HP fans) into the 
cinema. For the fans, having a "proper" Sirius and Remus will be the 
key to the movie's success. Radcliffe's blue eyes and Grint's non-
lankiness haven't stopped them being taken to fans' hearts, so I 
suspect that purely physical appearance won't be the key. Whether the 
actors chosen "embody" the characters will be far more important. 

As Columbus won't be directing it and the kids' contracts are up for 
renewal (the central half-dozen parts, including Neville, Draco, 
Dean, the Twins, etc, were only signed up for the first two movies), 
there is an additional fear that the new team might want some changes 
on that front. 

Whilst the change in directors won't be as blatant on screen as, say, 
between Batmans 2 and 3 (or, heaven help us, 4), I'm sure that there 
will several nuances which won't go unnoticed. And (assuming the 
original kids continue in their roles) whether the new  director has 
the same relationship with the kids as Columbus has enjoyed will also 
be a major factor.

> Chris 
> Columbus said he thought it would be fascinating to see the 
> characters all grow up, but I got the impression he was by no means 
> certain it would be done.

Of course he wasn't. :-) Apart from the fact that the shortcomings of 
11 or 12 year old actors are more easy to brush away than those of 14 
or 15 year olds (let's face it, each of the Trio had their weak 
points in the first movie!), these are real people with real lives to 
lead. Especially as both Radcliffe's and Watson's parents are 
(rightly) fiercely protective of their respective only chilren (Grint 
is a little different; on the one hand he comes from a large family, 
and already seems to be assured of an acting career), and there are 
well-documented cases of famous teenage film stars going wildly off 
the rails. 

Making movies is extremely disruptive both socially and academically 
for the young stars. Although they'll be in a position to demand (and 
get) mega-bucks for making each successive HP film, and thus assure 
their future financial independence, the question at the fortemost of 
their parents' minds is whether or not they're *happy*. Thankfully, 
in this case we won't see something we've seen several times before 
with child stars, where the parents make a grab for their kids' 
money - all of the Trio's parents are more than comfortably well off 
already! (I know someone who works with Mrs Watson, and the kind of 
money she makes would make most people green with envy.) :-)

A related issue I've raised several times before is that school years 
2004/2005 and 2005/2006 will be Radcliffe's and Watson's GCSE years 
at school - arguably the most important for any child in the British 
education system. I really don't see their parents allowing them to 
spend those years making movies, regardless of how well they're doing 
with on-set tuition. Warners will then have to decide whether to 
delay filming, or to recast the parts.

So of course it would be interesting both from the film-makers' and 
fans' perspective for the same actors to remain for the entire 
series, but there are just too many reasons why this might not become 
true. It's not impossible for it to happen (after all, some child 
actors have managed seven year stints on TV series), but it's going 
to be extremely difficult for all concerned.

Financial compensations aside, Radcliffe's not going to have an easy 
adult life as "The Man Who Was Harry Potter" if he makes all the HP 
movies, but if someone else takes on the part for later ones, at 
least he'll be able to share the moniker. Regardless of what he 
chooses to do with his life, especially if it's not in show business, 
that's one thing I do *not* envy him. I keep thinking about Mark 
Lester (Oliver Twist in "Oliver!" when he was ten, over 30 years 
ago), who despite having given up on showbiz in his teens and going 
into medical practice, is still occasionally hounded by gossip-
mongers.

> Finally, (sorry) why do they feel obliged to make GoF into two 
films 
> as I heard recently?   

What, you only just caught up with that one? :-) Columbus and Heyman 
have been repeating that as their ideal solution ever since they 
started working together...

> Not a grumble, just puzzled.  It is a large 
> book but much can be condensed, in fact I thought it would be a fun 
> project to pass away the time when I fly to New York in late 
September

I've been thinking about that a lot myself. A few numbers: GoF is 
just under three times the size of PS/SS; they lost perhaps one-fifth 
at most of PS/SS for the movie (yest still incurred the wrath of 
several fans), so even if they keep to the same kind of ratio, GoF 
Movie would still need to be over twice the length of PS/SS Movie.

I'm currently just finishing my first re-read (!) of GoF and have 
been thinking about what could be excised all along. 

Here are my thoughs, more or less in story order.

The Hogwarts Express and the Sorting can both go. The arrival of the 
other schools, the announcement of the Tournament and the wand-
weighing can be concatenated (all the last needs to do is to remind 
us what's inside Harry's wand, and to give John Hurt another 
cameo). :-) SPEW can be abbreviated to a side-plot. Personally, I'd 
gladly get rid of the whole Yule Ball and everything surrounding it, 
but I fear this won't happen. Harry's discovery of the egg's "secret" 
can be made into less of a climax and the whole Prefects' Bathroom 
sequence could go. 

What *can't* be lost? In order, going to the Weasleys, the World Cup 
(it's the only instance of flying other than the First Task, and 
people want to see flying in an HP movie!) Events surrounding the 
World Cup (meeting various MOM folk, the Twins' bet, the Dark Mark, 
etc). The concept of the Portkey has to be introduced as well. 
Moody's "problems" could be introduced at that point, too.

The first sequence with Sirius (in the cave) is needed to tie 
together several expositional matters. I'd dearly love to get rid of 
Rita Skeeter as well, and although a couple of her bits push the 
narrative forward, this could be done by Dumbledore, McGonagall or 
even Sirius. I'd also like to get rid of the Pensieve (it smacks too 
much of a plot device to me) and have Crouch Jr's trial told in a 
straight flashback. 

I can't really see anything from the introduction of the Third Task 
onwards which could be chucked out. 

All in all, I really can't see this story being told in less than 3-
3.5 hours and that is an *awfully* long movie to target at kids...

I think I have more to say, but it's late and perhaps I should shut 
up.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, UK