From bethz1 at rcn.com  Fri Mar  1 01:08:29 2002
From: bethz1 at rcn.com (Ms. Found in A Bottle)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:08:29 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Poll for HP BAFTA's
References: <a5je42+83i9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008201c1c0bd$999c6500$7d3bfea9@cable.rcn.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "alhewison" <Ali at zymurgy.org>

> The screen play was the thing that most annoyed me about the film.
> Harry was much more fiesty in the book, and  IMO it wasn't acting
> that made him seem wimpy. Many of his phrases were given to others
> (such as threatening to curse Dudley as Dudley wouldn't know he
> wasn't allowed to do magic).  I found it hard to accept the idea of
> Harry worrying out loud to Ron & Hermione about whether he would make
> a fool of himself playing quidditch. I suppose that was one of their
> few attempts to externalise Harry's thoughts - but that one didn't
> work for me. I did enjoy the film though, and let's face it, could
> the film have match our (well my) huge expectations.

I have to say that the thing that annoyed me the most was that Harry wasn't
nearly as fiesty in the movie as in the books.  When I first read the books
I wasn't very fond of Harry (I get in trouble for saying this, but I thought
he was
annoying), but then I saw the movie and I loved Harry (thought it was my
fascination
with Daniel Radcliffe).  But then after I re-read the series over the past
few
months it occurred to me that they just softened Harry up too much in the
movie.  No
matter how annoying I find him in the books...I just like my Harry with a
little more
spunk.

Beth




From ravenclaw775 at aol.com  Fri Mar  1 18:54:49 2002
From: ravenclaw775 at aol.com (ravenclaw775 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:54:49 EST
Subject: New Poll Added - Terry Gilliam Needed!
Message-ID: <61.1bc2e3c2.29b12879@aol.com>

I love the inclusion of David Lynch (the NC-17 Harry Potter to be sure - I'd 
pay good money to hear Snape speak ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet), 
although my vote goes for one of the four HP "auditioned" directors - Terry 
Gilliam.  I read somewhere that J-Ro preferred him herself, but even if that 
weren't true (and I couldn't tell you where I read it) he would have been my 
pick.  That man can handle darkness and humor and has a complete gift for 
artistic direction (his sets are always mind-blowing ala Jean-Pierre Jeunet). 
Brazil, his best, is easily in my Top Five Greatest Movies Ever, but I also 
love Time Bandits, The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys (not to mention Monty 
Python and the Holy Grail, co-director).  

I think the pawns of those chess set pieces in the final task sure look 
Gilliam-esque.  But that's probably just me.  
--
Ravenclaw

"Are you divergent too, friend?" 
-- 12 Monkeys



From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  1 23:09:23 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:09:23 -0000
Subject: New Poll Added - Terry Gilliam Needed!
In-Reply-To: <61.1bc2e3c2.29b12879@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5p1n3+3dub@eGroups.com>

Ravenclaw writes:

<<
I love the inclusion of David Lynch (the NC-17 Harry
Potter to be sure - I'd pay good money to hear Snape
speak ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet),
>>

I was mainly thinking, "Gee, the Dursleys would be
REALLY interesting if David Lynch were the director,"
but now that you mention Snape and Frank Booth...woo,
what a thought! ^_^

Anyway, I think Lynch's dreamy style could work well
overall in the Harry Potter world - NC-17 or not.
Unfortunately there are no ceiling fans in Hogwarts,
but you'd still get a good sense of the atmosphere
there. Oh, boy, would Hogwarts be a big, scary,
confusing place with him at the helm.

My own vote was actually for Jean-Pierre Jeunet,
though. He's a bit more whimsical, a bit less
American (not that Lynch's amazing grasp of Americana
is bad, just out of place), and just as moody. 

Another thing to consider is what stable actors these
auteurs might have brought with them. Granted, none of
them are British, but still. Ron Perlman as Hagrid?
Julee Cruise as one of the Weird Sisters? Perhaps Kyle
MacLachlan as Quirrel? *giggle* Well, maybe these are
casting choices best left to speculation.


<<
although my vote goes for one of the four HP
"auditioned" directors - Terry Gilliam. I read
somewhere that J-Ro preferred him herself, but even
if that weren't true (and I couldn't tell you where I
read it) he would have been my pick. That man can
handle darkness and humor and has a complete gift for
artistic direction (his sets are always mind-blowing
ala Jean-Pierre Jeunet).
>>

Ack! I can't believe I forgot Terry Gilliam!

Unfortunately, it's too late to add him now that there
are votes, or I'd do it immediately. Out of curiosity,
who were the other two directors?

--Anna




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  2 00:42:54 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 00:42:54 -0000
Subject: New Poll Added - Terry Gilliam Needed!
In-Reply-To: <a5p1n3+3dub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5p76e+ear9@eGroups.com>

"saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Ack! I can't believe I forgot Terry Gilliam!
> 
> Unfortunately, it's too late to add him now that there
> are votes, or I'd do it immediately. Out of curiosity,
> who were the other two directors?

There were more; according to industry rumours (don't forget that 
none of the details about choosing a director were ever made public), 
the choices were between Steven Spielberg, Brad Silberling, Rob 
Reiner, Wolfgang Petersen, Alan Parker, Ivan Reitman, Terry Gilliam 
and Chris Columbus. 

Most people I've talked to, appear to favour Gilliam. As for myself, 
although I like all of his films, I DON'T think he'd be good for this 
project, for a multitude of reasons. 

Primarily, the guy is utterly unpredictable (which is also part of 
his genius). Regrettably, what the HP franchise needs more than 
anything else is a steady hand who can deliver on time and on budget, 
without adding too much of his own personality, allowing the 
characters to speak for themselves. This is NOT something Gilliam is 
capable of doing with someone else's characters. Nor is it something 
I would LIKE to see him attempt - in all likelihood, it would come 
out one huge mess.

My own vote goes for, and has always gone for, John Boorman. He has 
impeccable film-making credentials, and also happens to be English 
(though his operating base is in Ireland). He's good with kids, both 
as a person (he has at least 3 of his own that I know of) and as a 
film director (go rent Hope & Glory. NOW). He handles fantasy well 
and does "Britishness" particularly effectively.

Completely incidentally, he also directed Tailor of Panama, now 
(regrettably) more famous as Dan Radcliffe's first big-screen 
appearance rather than the excellent anti-spy movie it is. 
Incidentally, anyone renting that movie because they want to see D.R. 
is in for a disappointment - he's on screen for a total of perhaps 3 
minutes, split between 4 or 5 scenes. And I think he has 4 audible 
lines (though one of them is the last in the movie: "can we have 
pancakes, dad?"). :-)

Far more interesting to Pottermaniacs is Boorman's audio commentary 
on the DVD, done shortly after Dan was cast for HP, to which he makes 
direct reference several times when Dan's on screen.  :-)

I actually don't have too much trouble with Columbus's work on the 
first movie, anyway. My own reservations are far more with the 
script, which emaciated Harry and made him into a bit of a wimp, and 
give Ron several new one-liners instead of several originals which 
IMO were better.






From Schlobin1 at aol.com  Sat Mar  2 03:02:40 2002
From: Schlobin1 at aol.com (Schlobin1 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:02:40 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars
Message-ID: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/13/2002 3:46:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mandm at discover-net.net writes:


> and believes that
> HP was kept out of Oscar contention largely because of it's cultural
> popularity.
> 
> 

Really?

Personally, I think that it just was not that good a film.....compare it to 
LOTR for example..there's really no comparison

Susan





"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden 
resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents 
a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays 
Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied:

'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential 
about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew 
more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  2 08:21:52 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 00:21:52 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars
In-Reply-To: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>
References: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1541980868.20020302002152@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Friday, March 01, 2002, 7:02:40 PM, Schlobin1 at aol.com wrote:

> compare
> it to 
> LOTR for example..there's really no comparison

That may be true, but I have to admit I *enjoyed* the Harry
Potter movie a lot more than I did LoTR.

LoTR was just a little too dark and angsty, with hardly a
moment to relax in there.

So I'm probably one of the few people who won't go see LoTR
again, while I'd gladly watch HP a few more times.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From azingam at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Mar  2 16:07:16 2002
From: azingam at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Allocin?=)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:07:16 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Directors and Oscars
In-Reply-To: <a5p76e+ear9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020302160716.57477.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com>

For director I put the person who did The Secret Garden (that movie was
loyal to the book, but good in its own right, and I love it to bits
anyway). Most of the other directors I've never heard of (I'm not a big
film buff in that I remember who starred in what minor role, opposite
whom and directed by blah blah).

For the Oscars, I agree with all viewpoints. LOTR was, in my opinion,
the better-made movie (time-scale, budget, yada yada yada) but it IS
dark and angsty, and watchable only if you're in the mood (goes for all
movies I suppose). HP is a laugh, good family entertainment, and I
didn't really have much to complain about when I compared the book to
the movie. However, I think that:

a) yes, HP was snubbed because of what it is - a kid's movie based on a
modern 'cult classic'.

and 

b) it was up against some blimmin' good films (LOTR, etc.)

Notice that Bridget Jones' Diary, also a blockbuster, got absolutely
nada. Maybe it's a thing against us Brits (*g*, just kidding).

Nicky

=====
[When looking into the Mirror of Erised] "I see myself holding a pair of thick, woollen socks. You can never have too many socks" -Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com



From norsecode at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  2 16:16:13 2002
From: norsecode at yahoo.com (Dawn)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:16:13 -0500
Subject: HP and LotR (formerly Oscars)
In-Reply-To: <1541980868.20020302002152@earthlink.net>
References: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>
 <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020302111613.0079f210@pop.mail.yahoo.com>

>> compare it to LOTR for example..
>> there's really no comparison
>
>That may be true, but I have to admit I *enjoyed* 
>the Harry Potter movie a lot more than I did LoTR.

I agree.  LotR was better, but HP more enjoyable.

>So I'm probably one of the few people who won't go see 
>LoTR again, while I'd gladly watch HP a few more times.

See... I went to see LotR once and thought that was 
enough.  I knew I'd get on DVD and would HAVE to 
watch it again when I did, but once in the theaters
was enough for me.  I had scene HP 3 times and that
was good... wouldn't mind seeing it 5 times, but
never got around to it.

But then, people wanted to see LotR and I went with
them, bumping my viewing of it up to 3.  Now it's 
tied with HP... and I don't think I like that.  I
think I must see HP one more time.

I'm going to London at the end of the month, and I
kind of hope it will still be playing there when I
get there, b'c I'd love to see what little changes
there are with, for example, the PHILOSOPHER's 
Stone.  :)  I'd really like that.

Dawn

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
   "It is our choices, that show what we truly are,
             far more than our abilities."

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From norsecode at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  2 16:21:07 2002
From: norsecode at yahoo.com (Dawn)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:21:07 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Directors and Oscars
In-Reply-To: <20020302160716.57477.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <a5p76e+ear9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020302112107.0079d660@pop.mail.yahoo.com>

>Notice that Bridget Jones' Diary, also a blockbuster, got absolutely
>nada. Maybe it's a thing against us Brits (*g*, just kidding).=

Not true... Renee Zellweger got a nomination
for best actress.  She would get my vote,
personally, but alas, she's got the worst odds.

Oh, and I think a few other British actors got
nominations.... and let's not forget Gosford
Park, which racked up more than actor/actress
nods.  :)

Dawn

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
   "It is our choices, that show what we truly are,
             far more than our abilities."

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Mar  2 19:18:08 2002
From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Adhara=20Black?=)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:18:08 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Directors and Oscars
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20020302112107.0079d660@pop.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020302191808.65516.qmail@web21310.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- Dawn <norsecode at yahoo.com> wrote: > >Notice that
Bridget Jones' Diary, also a
> blockbuster, got absolutely
> >nada. Maybe it's a thing against us Brits (*g*,
> just kidding).=
> 
> Not true... Renee Zellweger got a nomination
> for best actress.  She would get my vote,
> personally, but alas, she's got the worst odds.
> 
> Oh, and I think a few other British actors got
> nominations.... and let's not forget Gosford
> Park, which racked up more than actor/actress
> nods.  :)

Adhara writes :
Hang on a minute...Robbie Coltrane WAS nominated for
his role in HP, was he not?!

> 
> Dawn
> 
>
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>    "It is our choices, that show what we truly are,
>              far more than our abilities."
> 
>
_________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
>
________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
> 
> WARNING! This group contains spoilers!
> 
> Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the
> group's Admin Files!
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/
> 
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to
> snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're
> replying!
> 
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it
> to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to
> HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf
> or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Unsubscribing? Email
> HPFGU-Movie-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
____________________________________________________________
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com



From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Sat Mar  2 20:28:28 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (c)
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:28:28 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
References: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com> <1541980868.20020302002152@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <000e01c1c228$d0518b90$1056a818@rome>

Susanne Wrote:----------------------------------------
That may be true, but I have to admit I *enjoyed* the Harry
Potter movie a lot more than I did LoTR.

LoTR was just a little too dark and angsty, with hardly a
moment to relax in there.

So I'm probably one of the few people who won't go see LoTR
again, while I'd gladly watch HP a few more times.
--------------------------------

     Actually, I happen to believe that HP was a MUCH more enjoyable movie, along with you, but also a MUCH better movie as well! Here's why, in a short version:
    1- I'm sorry to be the one to point it out to all the fanatical LOTR fans, but about 45 minutes of the movie was travelling of some sort. Introducing the Hobbits, walking along the mountains, etc..
    2- Yes, I know it was written that way, but the movie explains nothing about the plot. NOTHING, We as viewers see essentially a 3 hour promotional video for the ring. ring this, ring that. We see no storyline at all. I had one person trying to tell me that the story was the storyline of the group of warriors (sorry, the name slips my toungue at the moment), and how they form to protect the ring but how the ring breaks this group up. Now, just as a for instance of the LACK of communciation and any worthy plotline in the movie. 'cept for the setup of the rings, The warrior(forgive me, i forget his name, but he was head of the clan of warriors who were decimated protecting the borders), HATED and LOATHED the idea of using the hobbits to protect the ring. Then, they climb the mountains, and without AN explination he is suddenly playing with the Hobbits and teaching them to fight. Then, on the other side of the mountain he suddenly hates them again. And there is NO communication to explain anything at all.    
                3-There is a seriously large lack of a storyline here. Maybe it's because of the way I was taught, but as I was lead to understand it, a story consists of three parts, without which it is not complete.The three parts being: A beginning(or buildup), a climax, and an ending. As I said before, this movie felt like a 3 hour promotional video for the ring, all buildup. No climax, no ending. The way the movie was filmed, it should then have been released as they were tlaking about releasing HP 4- that is, one movie a month for three months. 
           I know a lot of LOTR fans will probably want to flame me for this post; I sincerely hope that you can at least send an intelligent response back through HPGFU-Movie instead of feeling the need to flame my email address. Also, I would wish that anyone wishing to respond to this letter also stop for a moment and try to take a very objective viewpoint. The reason I say this is because a lot of you have read the novels and are fans of the book, and as such have a tendency to defend the movie without thought as to the validity of what a detractor such as myself might say. One should also remember and consider well the point that I never read the books and have no intention of doing so, as Tolkien's writing style puts me to sleep(I tried to read the hobbit about 15 times. Each time, i'd get about 5 pages in and fall asleep). I'd honestly love to love the movie, but I can't say that I do.
    Onto the reasons I like Harry Potter's movie better:
   1- It is a complete story. See abov,e but this has a buildup, a climax, and an ending. I feel walking out of the movie that I actually saw a movie that I could enjoy, and that had at least some sense of completion.
        2) For those fans of LotR, I know the story was supposed to be one long novel. see reason 3 above before throwing out the prior HP reason. This movie was also much better, in my opinion, of setting up the Harry Potter world to the viewer. Once again, I had not read the novels when I saw the movie(although I haven't stopped reading them since, now onto my 4th time straight and the first with the british versions). But I was able to understand the setup, see most of the hints that the movie dropped, and enjoy my experience. All, while walking away wanting more- because they told a story with a lot of buildup for 70% of the movie, offhand, climax and ending the movie for about  25% of the movie, and left enough questions unanswered so as to leave us wanting more at the end of the movie(the remaining 5% of the flick). That is how a setup movie should be done, IMO. And I know as I stated above, they were meant to be one novel/film. Well, if so, they should have been released as such. 

Well, I do hope I haven't pissed off too many people, though I am interested to see how others disagree with that. Onto My next subject: The Director of the HP Films:
  While I do say I like the outcome of the HP films, and Chris Columbus did a fantastic job in my opinion(the acting by the kids was understandably stiff though forgiveable- for an example, see the scene when LV's disemboidied figure flows through Radcliffe and he falls. Stiffest fall I've ever seen in my life), there is one person who's version I'd much more desire to see: Rob Reiner. I know not many of the active list members have given him a chance from what they've said in the posts so far, but here is why:

   1- If you've seen Stand By Me, you know he can do kids films, so much so that he really captured the essence of being a kid in this film. It has a carefree attitude, and displays perfectly how they go about their actions. This was also a film adaptation of a Steven King novel, though since I haven't read the novel I really can't say that it was faithful or not. However, all the interviews on the subject point to it being very faithful, as even Steven King himself was on the set from what I understand(interviews on the special edition dvd).
  2- The Princess Bride. For doing this movie alone he should have won any contest to do HP. The only reason i would accept his not being the director would be if he didn't want to do it. This movie not only perfectly captures the essence of the novel(Trust me, go pick up Goldman's book if you've never read it before;You'll be amazed at how faithful the movie was to the book. I honestly don't think they missed out on anything at all! Even the spirit of the film was perfect!). It also captures the essence of a Fantasy Film- Action, Monsters, Love, Romance, even injecting humour into the equation. I admit to the fact that the other directors are compelling, but none in my opinion nearly as intriguing as Rob Reiner. He has a great sense of humour, and the three key abilities that everyone seems to point to: the ability to direct kids, be faithful to the novel, and to do a fantasy film!

Well, have a good day!

-Vin

"Vizzini: Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong - that's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less famous is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line!". Hahahahahah!
[Vizzini falls over dead]"
                        Vizzini from the Princess Bride, thanks to IMDB.com for the quote



.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

  WARNING! This group contains spoilers!

  Before posting to any HPFGU list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

  Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

  Is your message...
  An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
  Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
  Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
  None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
  Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

  Unsubscribing? Email HPFGU-Movie-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
  ____________________________________________________________


  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Sat Mar  2 21:54:46 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 16:54:46 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <000e01c1c228$d0518b90$1056a818@rome>
References: <8b.148bc4ee.29b19ad0@aol.com>
 <1541980868.20020302002152@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020302165446.00ab03f0@pop.iglou.com>

At 03:28 PM 3/2/2002 -0500, Vin wrote:


>    1- I'm sorry to be the one to point it out to all the fanatical LOTR
fans, but about 45 minutes of the movie was 
>travelling of some sort. Introducing the Hobbits, walking along the
mountains, etc..

Well, at its most surface level, LOTR is the story of a quest.  They spent
most of the first of it traveling. They have to, if they want to complete
their quest.

>    2- Yes, I know it was written that way, but the movie explains nothing
about the plot. NOTHING, We as viewers see essentially a 3 hour promotional
video for the ring. ring this, ring that. We see no storyline at all. I had
one person trying to tell me that the story was the storyline of the group
of warriors (sorry, the name slips my toungue at the moment),

The Fellowship. And they weren't warriors...only one or two of them could
rightly be called a warrior.  

> and how they form to protect the ring but how the ring breaks this group
up. Now, just as a for instance of the LACK
> of communciation and any worthy plotline in the movie. 'cept for the
setup of the rings, The warrior(forgive me, i
> forget his name, but he was head of the clan of warriors who were
decimated protecting the borders), HATED and
> LOATHED the idea of using the hobbits to protect the ring. Then, they
climb the mountains, and without AN explination he is suddenly playing with
the Hobbits and teaching them to fight. Then, on the other side of the
mountain he suddenly hates them again. And there is NO communication to
explain anything at all. 

Boromir...Steward of Gondor. He did not hate the hobbits.  He wanted to use
the ring, not destroy it, but was overruled at the Council of Elrond.  He
went on the quest as a representative of Gondor.  If there was any enmity
at all, it was for Aragorn. As for the hobbits, he was very fond of them,
Merry and Pippin especially (and the movie shows this, as they are the ones
he is teaching to fight).  The ring corrupts him, which is easier because
of the misgivings that he already has. So when he attacks Frodo it's not
because he dislikes him, but because he's succumbed to the lure of the
ring.  Galadriel warns Frodo of this.  And Boromir, at the last, realizes
how badly he miscalculated the danger and that he is wrong, both about the
ring and about Aragorn, and is redeemed. He dies trying to protect the
hobbits. (Don't anyone get me started on my "Boromir was NOT a villain!"
rant).


>There is a seriously large lack of a storyline here. Maybe it's because of
the way I was taught, but as I was lead to >understand it, a story consists
of three parts, without which it is not complete.The three parts being: A
beginning(or >buildup), a climax, and an ending. As I said before, this
movie felt like a 3 hour promotional video for the ring, all >buildup. No
climax, no ending. The way the movie was filmed, it should then have been
released as they were tlaking 
>about releasing HP 4- that is, one movie a month for three months. 

Well, it IS a trilogy...the story is far from over.  The first part of the
story is the forming and breaking of the Fellowship.  It's not going to end
as neatly as movies usually do because the end is still two years away.
The storyline *is* there, and consistent with both the overarching story
(the quest to destroy the One Ring before Sauron can recover it and cast
Middle Earth back into Shadow), and for the smaller story of the
Fellowship.  Sam and Frodo are on their own now...Merry and Pippin are
carried off.  Boromir & Gandalf dead.  The initial plan is in ruins, and
the remainders of the Fellowship must regroup and carry on.  It's a
convenient lull in which to end the movie...more satisfying than when the
first book ends, actually.  And it left me salivating for The Two Towers.


>I know a lot of LOTR fans will probably want to flame me for this post; I
sincerely hope that you can at least send an >intelligent response back
through HPGFU-Movie instead of feeling the need to flame my email address.
Also, I would
>wish that anyone wishing to respond to this letter also stop for a moment
and try to take a very objective viewpoint. 

I have a quite objective viewpoint.  I didn't read the books until the end
of last year and the beginning of this year. My aunt has tried to get me to
read it for 20 years, but I could never get into it. I wanted to; there was
a story in there that I could sense and that I knew I would love, if I
could just find it.  The movie brought it to vivid life for me.  I totally
understand your comment about Tolkien's writing style, it's dense and a
very difficult, tiresome read. But the movie is breathtaking.  One two
minute scene, in which Merry & Pippin are incredulous that Aragorn doesn't
know about 'second breakfastes' or 'elevensies' sums up pages and pages
Tolkien used to establish that yes, the hobbits quite like to eat. :)


>   1- It is a complete story. See abov,e but this has a buildup, a climax,
and an ending. I feel walking out of the movie that I actually saw a movie
that I could enjoy, and that had at least some sense of completion.

I suppose this is just a matter of taste. I walked out of LOTR thinking "Oh
my God. How will I survive until next Christmas?" not "I can't believe it
ended like that, what kind of ending is that??"

>since, now onto my 4th time straight and the first with the british
versions). But I was able to understand the setup, >see most of the hints
that the movie dropped, and enjoy my experience. All, while walking away
wanting more- because 
>they told a story with a lot of buildup for 70% of the movie, offhand,
climax and ending the movie for about  25% of the movie, and left enough
questions unanswered so as to leave us wanting more at the end of the
movie(the remaining 5% of the flick). That is how a setup movie should be
done, IMO. And I know as I stated above, they were meant to be one
novel/film. Well, if so, they should have been released as such. 
>

See, this is one of the reasons I hate when people compare HP and LOTR.  As
you correctly pointed out, LOTR was intended as one novel by Tolkien.  HP
was intended as a seven part series.  You say that LOTR should have been
one movie if it was just one book.  Well...let's look at this logically.
The first HP book is, what, about 300 pages?  LOTR, as an entire novel,
would run about 1000 pages.  Then there is the scope of the two books.  HP
concerns three children and a handful of other characters and takes place
almost entirely in one location.  LOTR involves, off the top of my head, no
less than 20 major characters, traversing the whole of Middle Earth from
the hobbits in the idyllic, peaceful shire, through the forests of the
elves, into the mountains of the dwarves, across Rohan and Gondor and into
the wasteland of Mordor.  To condense such an epic story into something
that would fit into a 3 hour film would be to cut out nearly everything
about it that makes it resonate.  Having not read the books, you don't
realize how much of even the first ~300 pager was left out.  Tom Bombadil,
the barrow wights, the Old Forest, most of Bree, about half of
Lothlorien...it would be a disaster to try to make the entire story one
movie (and Peter Jackson had an offer to do just that, and refused. he was
prepared to sacrifice his chance to do the project altogether rather than
destroy it like that).  It is an epic...HP is not.  The two movies, as far
as I am concerned, cannot be compared.

This is not to imply that I didn't love HP.  I did.  I think they adapted
the book as well as they possibly could have done.  My complaints for that
movie, like my complaints for LOTR, are virtually non existent.  I simply
don't think that they are two movies that can be fairly compared.  There is
just too much of a fundamental difference between them.

Shannon
who got tired halfway through this post and wonders how much sense it
makes... :)




From kechelsen at aol.com  Sat Mar  2 21:58:51 2002
From: kechelsen at aol.com (kathye_c)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:58:51 -0000
Subject: Oscars
In-Reply-To: <1541980868.20020302002152@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a5rhur+s18o@eGroups.com>

<<That may be true, but I have to admit I *enjoyed* the Harry
Potter movie a lot more than I did LoTR.
 
LoTR was just a little too dark and angsty, with hardly a
moment to relax in there.
 
So I'm probably one of the few people who won't go see LoTR
again, while I'd gladly watch HP a few more times.>>


I have seen Harry Potter twice, and would glady see it again.  
However, I haven't seen Lord of the Rings, and I have no intention of 
doing so.  I tried to read The Hobbit when I was about 13 or 14, and 
had a difficult time getting through the book.  When I finally 
finished it, I decided NOT to go on to the Rings trilogy.  That 
decision now extends to the movie. It's simply not something that I 
think I would find of interest.

While it's good that HP was nominated for something, it's unfortunte 
that they were only technical award nominations. 

Kathy




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  3 03:58:45 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:58:45 -0000
Subject: Oscars
In-Reply-To: <20020302160716.57477.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a5s71l+lt6f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Allocin <azingam at y...> wrote:

<<
a) yes, HP was snubbed because of what it is - a kid's
movie based on a modern 'cult classic'.
>>

I disagree; according to the AMPAS web site, Walt Disney
has the record for both nominations and wins. Shirley
Temple has won, and The Sound of Music was Best Picture
of 1965. So children's movies can be nominated and even
win, they just have to be really, really good. Harry
Potter isn't, by cinema standards, a good movie. Very
entertaining, but not really...good. (Compare to
multiple-Oscar-winner Traffic, which is technically good
but about as entertaning as eye surgery. Guess which I'll
be buying the day it comes out!)

Anyway, Harry Potter isn't cult anything - cult
phenominons don't get on best seller lists, nor do they
become the second-highest-grossing film of all time.


<<
b) it was up against some blimmin' good films (LOTR, etc.)
Notice that Bridget Jones' Diary, also a blockbuster, got
absolutely nada. Maybe it's a thing against us Brits (*g*,
just kidding).
>>

I agree here. And, as I can't resist pointing out yet
again, there were much better movies than Harry Potter
that were brutally snubbed: The Royal Tenenbaums,
Mulholland Drive, and Memento, for example.

(Not to mention Final Fantasy's total lack of technical
nominations. The thing succeeded on one level only - as a
two-hour advertisement for Maya, Square's CG animation
system - and it doesn't even get a nod??)

I will say that Harry was probably due at least an acting
nod or two...Alan Rickman and perhaps Rupert Grint. But it
was a very strong year for Oscar contenders, so I can't
complain *too* much.

OTOH, it hurts me physically that Sean Penn was nominated
for "I Am Sam" and Gene Hackman was passed over. Likewise,
how can Marisa Tomei get her SECOND nomination when Naomi
Watts goes unsung?

Oh, and no, Robbie Coltrane wasn't nominated for anything.
Renee Zellweger, however, was.
http://www3.oscars.org/74academyawards/index.html


--Anna




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Mar  3 11:18:32 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:18:32 -0000
Subject: How many films have the actors signed up for?
Message-ID: <a5t0q8+nkh1@eGroups.com>

I have read various conflicting articles on how many films the 
children - and adult actors have signed up for.

Initially I had read that Dan Radcliffe etc had been signed for 2 
films - but have since read posts (in other news groups) that they 
have now signed up for PoA as well. I have also read that some of the 
adults (eg Richard Harris) have signed up for 7 films, but not Robbie 
Coltrane.

Has any of the above been confirmed by Warner Bros (I haven't found 
any confirmation)?

I also wondered why people are so sure that filming for PoA will not 
start until 2003 - why will there be a break now? 

I'm sorry if I've missed all the useful news links, but it's hard to 
distinguish between rumour and fact!

Thanks

Ali




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  3 18:45:16 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 18:45:16 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <000e01c1c228$d0518b90$1056a818@rome>
Message-ID: <a5tqvs+uvq0@eGroups.com>


--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "c" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:
>     1- I'm sorry to be the one to point it out to all the fanatical 
LOTR fans, but about 45 minutes of the movie was travelling of some 
sort. Introducing the Hobbits, walking along the mountains, etc..

i don't really understand why this is a problem. is travelling in 
movies bad for some reason? the travelling doesn't affect character 
development since, as you point out below, the complexities of 
boromir's character, for example, unfold throughout the trip.

>     2- Yes, I know it was written that way, but the movie explains 
nothing about the plot. NOTHING

i think it explains the plot pretty well - and in a more entertaining 
way than the book. did you get to the cinema late and miss the 5 
minute history that the film opens with? there's your motivation for 
everything that follows, right there.

in the rest of the movie the plot is SHOWN not TOLD, which is how 
movies are supposed to be when they're done well.

The warriorHATED and LOATHED the idea of using the hobbits to protect 
the ring. Then, they climb the mountains, and without AN explination 
he is suddenly playing with the Hobbits and teaching them to fight. 
Then, on the other side of the mountain he suddenly hates them again. 

i think shannon's post explains this one pretty well.

   
>                 3-There is a seriously large lack of a storyline 
here. Maybe it's because of the way I was taught, but as I was lead 
to understand it, a story consists of three parts, without which it 
is not complete.The three parts being: A beginning(or buildup), a 
climax, and an ending.

again, shannon dealt with this very well. the lotr is one book, 
divided into three movies. as such any division is unsatisfactory but 
i agree with shannon that the movie does it better than the book.

>Also, I would wish that anyone wishing to respond to this letter 
also stop for a moment and try to take a very objective viewpoint. 
The reason I say this is because a lot of you have read the novels 
and are fans of the book, and as such have a tendency to defend the 
movie without thought as to the validity of what a detractor such as 
myself might say.

again, i agree with shannon. i think the lotr book is poorly written 
(too many lingering descriptions of meals, while the battles get only 
a cursory mention. and those damn songs.....)

the movie, on the other hand, distills all that works well in the 
book and tells the story with much more pace and power.


>    1- It is a complete story. See abov,e but this has a buildup, a 
climax, and an ending.

i think one of the flaws with the movie is that it has TOO MUCH 
story. things that could have been covered in depth are glossed over 
to the point that the whole story suffers. if they had cut more out 
we'd all be arguing that they cut out the wrong things but we would 
have got a better movie for sure.

the intelligent and brave cuts in lotr are a prime example of how to 
do this.


i have to agree with the weight of opinion that i've seen on the list 
so far:

harry potter: excellent books, ordinary movie
lotr: ordinary book, excellent movie

i don't think hp deserves any of the significant oscars (maybe some 
of the technical ones will be in order) and i don't think the series 
will attract any while columbus is at the helm.

chris columbus produced a movie completely in keeping with his career 
so far - entertaining but not special. he is not a talented director 
and i believe that none of the HP movies will amount to anything 
special with him in charge. if anything, they'll get worse since the 
plots become considerably more complex.






From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  3 19:44:31 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:44:31 -0000
Subject: How many films have the actors signed up for?
In-Reply-To: <a5t0q8+nkh1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5tuf0+tdd5@eGroups.com>

"alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> I have read various conflicting articles on how many films the 
> children - and adult actors have signed up for.
> 
> Initially I had read that Dan Radcliffe etc had been signed for 2 
> films - but have since read posts (in other news groups) that they 
> have now signed up for PoA as well. I have also read that some of 
the 
> adults (eg Richard Harris) have signed up for 7 films, but not 
Robbie 
> Coltrane.
> 
> Has any of the above been confirmed by Warner Bros (I haven't found 
> any confirmation)?

The only contracts formally announced by Warners and/or the actors 
are that Harris signed on for all seven (and a cut of the profits), 
and Coltrane signed up for the first five with an option for the 
rest. This means that after the GoF movie, negotiations with Coltrane 
start from scratch (with Coltrane having first refusal). Several fans 
have taken this to mean that Hagrid will be bumped off in Book Five, 
though my personal opinion is that Coltrane's attitude is pretty 
typical and nothing should be read into it (though I don't refute the 
possibility that Hagrid may be bumped off!).

Zoe Wanamaker hinted that she'd signed on for two with an option for 
any more, and I think Maggie Smith has refused to sign up for more 
than one at a time.

Nothing has been formally announced about the kids, but well-founded 
industry rumours are that the Trio are *expected* to return for PoA, 
though nothing has been signed. This doesn't surprise me, as Dan and 
Rupert will be 14 at the time and (presumably) in full hormonal rage. 
Apart from the psychological (and educational) impact, there's the 
question of their physical development and how it may impact on 
filming. Warners will therefore prefer to delay decisions until as 
late as they can.

> I also wondered why people are so sure that filming for PoA will 
not 
> start until 2003 - why will there be a break now? 

Nothing has been said about delaying the *start* of filming. It has 
been generally accepted that PoA won't be *released* until Summer 
2004 rather than November 2003, because 2003 for Warners is going to 
be the year of the Matrix sequels (2 is slated for July, 3 for 
November). Warners are obviously not going to release a competing 
blockbuster of their own at the same time, and have therefore 
announced a delay in PoA's release. When they start filming is 
anyone's guess, though I'd prefer them not to delay, but give 
themselves the time to finish SFX etc, which were deperately in need 
of more time on the first movie!






From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Mar  3 20:10:31 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:10:31 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: How many films have the actors signed up for?
In-Reply-To: <a5tuf0+tdd5@eGroups.com>
References: <a5tuf0+tdd5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <179130919258.20020303121031@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Sunday, March 03, 2002, 11:44:31 AM, plumeski at yahoo.com wrote:

> Nothing has been formally announced about the kids, but well-founded 
> industry rumours are that the Trio are *expected* to return for PoA, 
> though nothing has been signed. This doesn't surprise me, as Dan and 
> Rupert will be 14 at the time and (presumably) in full hormonal rage. 
> Apart from the psychological (and educational) impact, there's the 
> question of their physical development and how it may impact on 
> filming. Warners will therefore prefer to delay decisions until as 
> late as they can.

So, the listing of PoA on the imdb website doesn't really
mean that the kids have signed for this movie?

The listing has the following note attached:
<Since this project is categorized as being in production,
the data is subject to change or could be removed
completely.>

But the same note appears on the listing for CoS, which is
already being filmed.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  3 21:11:45 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:11:45 -0000
Subject: How many films have the actors signed up for?
In-Reply-To: <179130919258.20020303121031@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a5u3ih+nj33@eGroups.com>

Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:

<snip>

> So, the listing of PoA on the imdb website doesn't really
> mean that the kids have signed for this movie?

IMDB's contributors normally know what they're talking about. 
Significant bits and pieces of movies in production should be read 
as "this is our best guess based on inside information" (which I 
think IMDB mentions somewhere in its FAQs).

> The listing has the following note attached:
> <Since this project is categorized as being in production,
> the data is subject to change or could be removed
> completely.>
> 
> But the same note appears on the listing for CoS, which is
> already being filmed.

It's IMDB's standard text for anything relating to *any* movie which 
is not yet ready to be handed to distributors. They could ostensibly 
have multiple ways of phrasing things, depending on the stage things 
have reached, but they don't bother. It doesn't make a rumour more or 
less true, they're just hedging their bets by admitting it's still 
guesswork. 

For instance, you'll see exactly the same disclaimer on 
the "Thunderpants" page (Rupert Grint's forthcoming non-HP feature), 
despite the fact that it's due for release in the UK in only 3 
weeks...





From Schlobin1 at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 03:32:47 2002
From: Schlobin1 at aol.com (Schlobin1 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:32:47 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
Message-ID: <14e.9d3e17f.29b444df@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shanerichmond at hotmail.com writes:


> again, i agree with shannon. i think the lotr book is poorly written 
> (too many lingering descriptions of meals, while the battles get only 
> a cursory mention. and those damn songs.....)
> 

have to say that I think that you are missing out on some of the best books 
of the century...

I am a fanatical LOTR fan and a fanatical HP fan....those damn songs? they 
are wonderful? Oh hey for the bath at the end of the day..oh water hot is a 
noble thing?

The Road goes ever on?

Tolkien was a genius..his books are wonderful..and I am truly sorry for any 
individual who hasn't had the opportunity to savor and enjoy them. 

No, they are not an "easy read", but not everything that is easy is good, and 
not everything that is difficult is bad.

Susan McGee 





"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden 
resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents 
a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays 
Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied:

'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential 
about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew 
more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Schlobin1 at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 03:34:45 2002
From: Schlobin1 at aol.com (Schlobin1 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:34:45 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
Message-ID: <9.241d1616.29b44555@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shanerichmond at hotmail.com writes:


> i have to agree with the weight of opinion that i've seen on the list 
> so far:
> 
> harry potter: excellent books, ordinary movie
> lotr: ordinary book, excellent movie
> 

Certainly, the members of the HP list are not so stupid as to say that LOTR 
books are ordinary. Have you read them? If  not, please do not express an 
opinion (no more than I can tolerate people who say that HP is devil 
worshipping and has not read them).

I do not agree that this is the consensus of the list..because most people on 
the list have at least a room temperature iq.

Susan





"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden 
resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents 
a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays 
Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied:

'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential 
about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew 
more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Mon Mar  4 04:43:58 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:43:58 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <9.241d1616.29b44555@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020303234358.00a80e58@pop.iglou.com>

At 10:34 PM 3/3/2002 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>shanerichmond at hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>> i have to agree with the weight of opinion that i've seen on the list 
>> so far:
>> 
>> harry potter: excellent books, ordinary movie
>> lotr: ordinary book, excellent movie
>> 
>
>Certainly, the members of the HP list are not so stupid as to say that LOTR 
>books are ordinary. Have you read them? If  not, please do not express an 
>opinion (no more than I can tolerate people who say that HP is devil 
>worshipping and has not read them).

Ok...I've read them.  Am I allowed to express an opinion?  I spent 20 years
trying to read them, because I knew, somewhere buried within all that
endless description, there was a story worth reading.  A good third of
consisted of variations on "The hobbits woke and had a nice breakfast,
walked all day, and stopped for lunch.  Then they got to their feet and
walked until night, when they had their dinner and fell asleep."  Tolkien
created a world that he obviously loved dearly, and made sure to show us
every pebble in it.  Now, to some people that is a wonderful thing. To
others, it becomes tedious and we wish he'd just get on with the story
already.  It wasn't until *after* seeing the movie, seeing the characters
suddenly become alive and interesting, that I was able to read the books.
The things about them that annoyed me still annoyed me. But I found that
once someone gave me a reason to care about the characters, I was able to
look past those things and find the story that I had known was there all
along. And it is a marvelous story (though really, almost *too* tragic for
me...took a while for me to come to terms with the end...and no one will
ever be able to convince me that Samwise isn't the hero of this tale!). I'd
have to call it a diamond in the rough.  

I had no such problems with the HP books.  They have been, without fail,
absolute page turners.  I wouldn't call the HP movie ordinary;  I think
perhaps it tried to cram a bit too much in, but I loved it all the same. 

The whole notion of comparing Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, whether
in book or movie form, is simply an exercise in futility.  They are no more
comparable than, for example, Psycho and The Sixth Sense.  Two fine films
whose only point of overlap is their genre.


>I do not agree that this is the consensus of the list..because most people
on 
>the list have at least a room temperature iq.

Do you really find it necessary to insult those who don't agree with you?  

Shannon




From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Mar  4 11:25:53 2002
From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (adhara_black)
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:25:53 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
Message-ID: <a5vlk1+kejk@eGroups.com>

Hello all,
I wonder if we should rewind a little. How did we end up comparing 
LOTR with HP? Is it just because the films were released around the 
same time?

I have read both sets of books, and the more I think about it, the 
more I find it's like comparing apples with pears really. The Tolkien 
books were written in an era very different from the nineties and 
probably with a different reader in mind. Unlike HP, the story 
doesn't keep one foot firmly in the real and present world. And also 
unlike HP, LOTR takes itself very seriously IMHO. I always found that 
my male friends and relatives got 'into' LOTR a lot easier than 
girls. It is darker, and has a true cult-status (I can imagine 
hardcore Tolkien fans being abhorred by the wider appeal the books 
may now get through the film). HP is a mega-success story that 
appeals to, well, everyone... 

-Adhara (who hopes she hasn't thrown even more oil on the fire with 
this)






From srae1971 at iglou.com  Mon Mar  4 11:42:59 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 06:42:59 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a5vlk1+kejk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020304064259.00a867b0@pop.iglou.com>

At 11:25 AM 3/4/2002 -0000, Adhara wrote:
>Hello all,
>I wonder if we should rewind a little. How did we end up comparing 
>LOTR with HP? Is it just because the films were released around the 
>same time?

It's that and they're both immensely popular fantasies.  When I started
posting to this discussion it was mostly to try and show how they aren't
similar at all.  Got a little sidetracked, though. :) 

> And also 
>unlike HP, LOTR takes itself very seriously IMHO.

It does.  There's nothing light hearted about it, though it does have its
moments of humor.


Shannon




From Schlobin1 at aol.com  Mon Mar  4 22:25:23 2002
From: Schlobin1 at aol.com (Schlobin1 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:25:23 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
Message-ID: <a2.21ad21de.29b54e53@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/3/2002 11:45:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
srae1971 at iglou.com writes:


> I had no such problems with the HP books.  They have been, without fail,
> absolute page turners.  I 

But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?

Susan





"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden 
resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents 
a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays 
Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied:

'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential 
about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew 
more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  5 16:56:45 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:56:45 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a5vlk1+kejk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a62tcd+3o5a@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "adhara_black" <adhara_black at y...> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wonder if we should rewind a little. How did we end up comparing 
> LOTR with HP? Is it just because the films were released around the 
> same time?

i think that, though they are both very different, a comparison is 
fair. the hp stories were drawing comparisons with lotr since at 
least the second book - although it's fair to see that the timing of 
the two movies has raised the prominence of the comparison.

i do think that they have some common ground but even if they didn't, 
would that make a comparison redundant? if so, how would you pick a 
best movie oscar, since it's unfair to compare, say, lotr with a 
beautiful mind. it has to be possible (though not always fair) to 
compare two movies.

similarly, comparing books has to be possible when you look at, say, 
quality of writing (grammar, imagery, pace and style), character 
development, strength of plot, authenticity etc.

it wouldn't be right to compare the lotr movie with the hp books 
(that's when you get into apples and oranges) but comparing two 
movies or two books seems fine to me. as does comparing two versions 
of the same story.




From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Tue Mar  5 21:54:45 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:54:45 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
Message-ID: <a63er5+2odl@eGroups.com>

---------Susan Wrote:-------------
But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?

----------------------------------

     It's a very simple premise that seems to be lost on a lot of 
people who are either very educated or who read a LOT. See, when 
people do a lot of one thing and start to gain "taste," as it were, 
they tend to forget what exactly that thing is. Movies and books are 
the two penultimate examples of this: Books are written for one of 
two main purposes. The first is for Information and Learning. The 
second, and more popular reason is simply entertainment. LotR and HP 
are simply that- Entertainment. Why is easy equated with good? 
Accessible with excellent? Simple. If a person with a job, with a 
busy life, comes home from a long day at work, tired and exhausted, 
do you really want to read a book about some world that you have to 
get a dictionary out to understand? (I'm not saying it about any 
book in specific) Movies also cause this phenomenon- they are also 
written for information and learning or for entertainment. So why 
exactly is it so bad when a movie, like Harry Potter, is made to 
Entertain as opposed to being totally accurate? Why must it be a 
science? Let's face it- most(but not all)critics of books and 
movies, as well as most people at home, want to believe that they 
are fullfilling some greater purpose than entertainment when they 
read a book, or watch a movie. But simply put, that's all they are. 
And a lot of people nowadays don't want to believe it.
    This leads into my second point: While maybe the LotR movie was 
enjoyable for people who read the novels first- and for that, I am 
happy for all of you. But almost all of you misunderstood the point 
I was trying to get across with my first posting, which is probably 
my fault as I should probably have explained it in a different way. 
See, my problem isn't that it's accurate to the books- from the 
concensous(did I spell that right? I don't think so) of most people 
I know they were. Rather, my problem is that the movie itself 
doesn't do a moviegoer justice- someone who hasn't read the books. 
It doesn't explain the movie well, nor the plot, nor the characters 
out. Yes, it gives them a great backstory, but doesn't explain why 
the characters go from hating each other to being close friends. 
They go from caring mostly about their own races and kingdoms to 
suddenly caring about each other and the hobbits because they showed 
the characters climbing up a mountain and Boromir suddenly deciding 
to teach the hobbits how to fight. Did the book explain it more? I'm 
sure of it, because every single person who explains to me the same 
things gets it from the book. Movies aren't and should be a science; 
you shouldn't have to go home and read a book as a prerequisite to 
being able to understand a movie version of the same book. 
      So, essentially, yes, it is a good thing to have 
accessibility. It's because a lot of people have read the book 
before seeing the movie that they understand the LotR movie. As I've 
stated before, this is one of the bigger flaws of people judging the 
movie. I didn't mean to offend anyone when I asked for people to be 
objective; I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular. What I meant 
was to ask you to stop and consider my points- the best method being 
to try and see the movie while trying NOT to take anything you read 
from the book and applying it to the movie. Of course, I'm NOT 
asking you all to do that- I don't have the money to give you to see 
the movie, and I wouldn't ask you to spend it to go see the movie 
again in theatres. But I will ask you to try to go over in your mind 
the movie, and see exactly where they explained that Boromir didn't 
hate the hobbits? All they showed was him arguing with the council 
that they shouldn't be defending the ring, that they shouldn't be 
allowed to go(and as I recall being the fantasy version of a racist 
in the process). However, none of his dialogue seemed to denote that 
it wasn't a personal matter, or that he really liked them but just 
didn't want them there at that moment. 
       On a bit of a side note, this part of my posting is to be 
directed towards Susan.

-----------Susan Wrote:-----------
Certainly, the members of the HP list are not so stupid as to say 
that LOTR books are ordinary. Have you read them? If  not, please do 
not express an opinion (no more than I can tolerate people who say 
that HP is devil worshipping and has not read them).

I do not agree that this is the consensus of the list..because most 
people on the list have at least a room temperature iq.
----------------------------------

        Susan, this is the PRIME example of why I asked people to be 
more objective before posting to the list when referencing this 
discussion. Although you were referencing Roleplayer's post, I take 
this as a personal affront as well, due to the fact of the way that 
you state your response. First of all, Let me explain something. I 
am not an uneducated person by any stretch of the imagination- I do, 
admittedly, have a somewhat eclectic sense of taste, but by no 
stretch am I ignorant or stupid. As a matter of reference for all 
the people who think before posting, I state the following for 
credentials(though it shouldn't be needed): I frequently read the 
classics, my favorites being Dumas and some Shakespeare. I read John 
Grisham's law novels(admittedly, his older titles, they are a recent 
undertaking of mine and I haven't made it to anything recent yet). 
For the US people out there I scored a 1260 on my SAT's and am 
currently studying for a bachelor's in computer science with every 
intention to go into Video Game programming, which while sounding 
childish to some, to anyone with any knowledge of the programming 
world will note freely that game programming is the toughest and 
most difficult realm of the programming world, due to the extensive 
knowledge that must be gained  and the extensive programming that 
must be done to make a game. When I was applying for colleges here 
in the northeast, I was scouted by Rensalear Polytechnic Institute, 
a very good computer college, among others. So, as stated here, I am 
by no means a stupid person. I also by no means have a "below room 
temperature IQ." Yet, I think that the Tolkien LotR books are 
ordinary at best. Why? Simply put, it shouldn't be a chore to read a 
book. I read for pleasure when I read books like LotR, HP, etc... 
The way they should be read is such. But I do not feel that I should 
have to exercise my brain trying to understand everything. While 
reading "The Three Musketeers" and "The Count of Monte Cristo"(both 
in unabridged form) I admit to not knowing every word said, or every 
phrase stated by the characters. Let's face it, the books are a 
couple of hundred years old and not every slang term or every object 
has survived in common tongue nowadays. Want to know why they are 
great books? Why they are the classics? Because you can still read 
them. Everything you need to know you either do or you can infer it 
from the text. I'd love to get into specifics but I don't have the 
books in front of me. Now what does this have to do with LotR? Well, 
it's also fun to read and interesting to find that these books have 
still survived. But LotR, in my opinion, lacks the one feature that 
all classics seem to have: the ability to convey a great story(which 
LotR has, somewhere, down deep, beneath a skin of boring and dull 
writing) with ease. Granted, Dumas and others are becoming harder to 
read as time passes, but that is NOT because the writing was bad, 
that is only because the terms used are growing further and further 
from the common vernacular of the modern world. I admit that one day 
technology will probably grow to the point that people will actually 
have to read history "books" to know what paper was, or ink, or a 
sword. But LotR, while a classic in a lot of people's minds(and for 
them, I feel good, they can see past his writing to get to the 
story), starts out the road to being a classic with a disadvantage: 
As Shannon stated in her post:"I totally understand your comment 
about Tolkien's writing style, it's dense and a very difficult, 
tiresome read."  So, Susan, yes, I have more than a "room 
temperature IQ," but NO, the LotR books are not classics in my mind 
nor will they be. And if you can't stand an opinion like that, 
please, for everyone's own safety, do NOT leave your house. For even 
walking to the edge of your street you will find that someone has 
passed you with a different opinion, and they have every right to 
believe in it. You don't have to agree with every person you meet
(Lord only knows I don't), but you do have to respect their ability 
to have an opinion. 
       Now I must also point out that not liking LotR and calling HP 
Devil worshipping are completely different in every sense. Have I 
read the books? Not in their entirety. Have I tried? yes. If you 
believe that this is a problem, I'm sorry for you. But don't insult 
me or other list members based on your tolerances and what you 
percieve of the world. By declaring members of this list "stupid" 
because they don't like LotR as much as you is no different in any 
way than the people you "can't tolerate" calling HP devil 
worshipping. Basically, you both convey the same ignorant message 
that has pervaded the history of the world, that has caused more 
senseless deaths and shameless wars than anything else: If you don't 
agree with me, you must be wrong an ignorant and therefore are not 
worth being here. That is possibly the most ignorant belief in the 
world itself. And if that is truely what you believe, then that is 
probably when you should stop yourself and reevaluate your life and 
beliefs to this point. Not because you aren't smart, or whether or 
not your opinions are wrong or that your beliefs are, but because if 
you can't believe that you COULD be wrong, then you almost certainly 
are wrong. 
        I do not mean to offend anyone in my post(though I realize 
if she reads this, Susan probably hates me, and for that I am 
sorry). On a side note, to all those who were in the chat room on 
sunday: I do apoligize if you misunderstood my poor attempt at 
humour: these postings regarding LotR were not an attempt to 
aggrevate LotR fanatics- I was just joking when I said that. The 
opinions within, however, are for the most part mine(or borrowed and 
are now mine:-))


-Vin
      




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  5 16:36:59 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:36:59 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <9.241d1616.29b44555@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a62s7b+di1h@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Schlobin1 at a... wrote:> 
> Certainly, the members of the HP list are not so stupid as to say 
that LOTR 
> books are ordinary. Have you read them? If  not, please do not 
express an 
> opinion (no more than I can tolerate people who say that HP is 
devil 
> worshipping and has not read them).
> 
> I do not agree that this is the consensus of the list..because most 
people on 
> the list have at least a room temperature iq.

once again, i agree entirely with shannon. but i just wanted to make 
some additions.

i have read the book and am in possession of an oven temperature iq 
(yeah, yeah, it depends how high you set the oven. still and all, my 
iq would bake a nice potato!) but i stand by my comments.

imo the lord of the rings is a great story poorly told and the movie 
fixes many of those problems. and despite what you might think many 
people do agree with me. read around some literary criticism and see.

for example, from the london review of books:
"Obviously there is a problem with the elves and so on. Obviously 
there is a problem with the prose. Obviously there are problems to do 
with women, and race and racism, and the general matchstick-cathedral 
labour-of-madness nature of the project."

and later:

"But The Lord of the Rings isn't just a novel, with a plot and a 
dreadful prose style."

now those quotes come from an article DEFENDING tolkien 
(http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n22/turn2322.htm), written in a one of the 
world's most respected publications about books by a writer whose iq 
comfortably bests room temperature. and yet still she acknowledges 
problems with the book.

when it comes to the movie you only have to look at the shower of 
awards (and nominations) to see that the wealth of critical opinion 
supports the movie.

whereas, in the case of hp (just to drag myself back on-topic!), the 
reverse seems to be true. the critics love the books but, as the lack 
of awards show, are somewhat lukewarm on the movie.

hence my initial assertion:

hp: excellent books, ordinary movie
lotr: ordinary book, excellent movie

(incidentally, there is a school of thought which suggests that bad 
books make good movies and good books make bad ones but i won't go 
into that here.)

none of which means people shouldn't enjoy tolkien's book or 
columbus' movie. to each their own and all that....






From srae1971 at iglou.com  Wed Mar  6 00:33:14 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 19:33:14 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a62tcd+3o5a@eGroups.com>
References: <a5vlk1+kejk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020305193314.00a9cbb0@pop.iglou.com>

At 04:56 PM 3/5/2002 -0000, Adhara wrote:
>--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "adhara_black" <adhara_black at y...> wrote:

>i do think that they have some common ground but even if they didn't, 
>would that make a comparison redundant? if so, how would you pick a 
>best movie oscar, since it's unfair to compare, say, lotr with a 
>beautiful mind. it has to be possible (though not always fair) to 
>compare two movies.

What I dislike about the comparisons is the way HP--as a fantasy--is being
compared to LOTR as a fantasy.  What was the most common headline when LOTR
came out?  "LOTR runs Rings around Potter!" (and you'd think some editor in
the world would have said, 'wow, mr movie critic, don't you think that's a
little too easy and that every movie critic on earth will use that same
headline?' but noooo.)  But my point is, you didn't see that with A
Beautiful Mind, or Moulin Rouge.  HP & LOTR are being compared because they
are both fantasies, and very little else.  They do have some common ground,
but only insofar as they contain elements that virtually all fantasy
stories contain. (see Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey.") As fantasy films
(and books), HP and LOTR strive for different things, and IMO they both
achieve those very different things in very different ways.

In general, things like the Oscars come down to a bunch of very subjective
criteria. What one Academy member deems the mark of quality will be wildly
different from another member's standard.  Being a movie awards junkie, I
get very involved in who wins and loses, and I know that awards are often
given based on things that have nothing to do with the nomination. (see Al
Pacino's win for Scent of a Woman...I firmly believe it was a belated win
for Dog Day Afternoon and The Godfather) While I want desperately for Lord
of the Rings to win, I know that it doesn't prove anything...only that the
majority of the Academy liked it as much as I did.





From malia at q7.com  Wed Mar  6 01:42:00 2002
From: malia at q7.com (Malia Kawaguchi)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:42:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <a2.21ad21de.29b54e53@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203051738360.355-100000@q7.q7.com>

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 Schlobin1 at aol.com wrote:

> srae1971 at iglou.com writes:
> 
> > I had no such problems with the HP books.  They have been, without fail,
> > absolute page turners.  I 
> 
> But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?
> 
> Susan

Actually, usually it's the other way around.  The obscure and difficult is 
usually seen as automatically "better" than the easy and accessible.

I think that's why I love HP so much.  To be good AND easy AND accessible 
AND excellent is quite a feat. 

Tolkein is difficult and excellent.  JKR is easy and excellent.  Very 
different flavors of excellent, some valued more by some than by others.

-M




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  5 17:02:03 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:02:03 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a5vlk1+kejk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a62tmb+8a31@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "adhara_black" <adhara_black at y...> wrote:
> I have read both sets of books, and the more I think about it, the 
> more I find it's like comparing apples with pears really. The 
Tolkien 
> books were written in an era very different from the nineties and 
> probably with a different reader in mind. Unlike HP, the story 
> doesn't keep one foot firmly in the real and present world. And 
also 
> unlike HP, LOTR takes itself very seriously IMHO. I always found 
that 
> my male friends and relatives got 'into' LOTR a lot easier than 
> girls. It is darker, and has a true cult-status (I can imagine 
> hardcore Tolkien fans being abhorred by the wider appeal the books 
> may now get through the film). HP is a mega-success story that 
> appeals to, well, everyone... 

just in case my last post came off as too dismissive, i wanted to say 
that i think that all the points above are sound. there are vast 
differences between the two works. but in my view, since they share a 
medium (and in this case a genre), a comparison is fair.

you did make me think of one interesting difference: the lotr story 
has a very clear sense of good and evil. you are either on one side 
of the other.

but in the world of hp, it is not always clear who can be trusted. 
and sometimes it's hard to say whether an action is truly good or 
truly evil.

i wonder if this difference reflects are growing awareness of the 
complexity of contemporary life as contrasted with the simpler age in 
which tolkien was writing? if so, this might explain why the hp 
stories make so many people uncomfortable - there is no aslan or 
gandalf figure whose great sacrifice will save the day.

not yet at least ;)




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Wed Mar  6 03:45:33 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 22:45:33 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re:Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <a63er5+2odl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020305224533.00aa35a0@pop.iglou.com>

At 09:54 PM 3/5/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>again in theatres. But I will ask you to try to go over in your mind 
>the movie, and see exactly where they explained that Boromir didn't 
>hate the hobbits? All they showed was him arguing with the council 
>that they shouldn't be defending the ring, that they shouldn't be 
>allowed to go(and as I recall being the fantasy version of a racist 
>in the process).

Hmm.  In that scene, Boromir suggests they use the Ring, not destroy it.  I
can't recall him making any references to any characters, with the
exception of Aragorn.  At the point he does this, it's not even established
yet that Frodo will be the one to take the Ring to Mordor.  No, he never
actually SAYS that he likes the Hobbits (he doesn't even know them yet...in
fact probably the only one he'd even seen was Frodo) but there's no reason
to think he doesn't, either.  The only 'racist' elements of that scene are
between Legolas and Gimli.  Gimli starts out hating the elves, and Legolas
doesn't care for Dwarves, either. Maybe you're inadvertently combining the
actions of these three characters?  But Boromir is never shown to have
anything against the Hobbits.  So it's not terribly surprising when you see
him goofing around with Merry & Pippin later.

As far as whether I know all this from the books or the movie...I couldn't
tell you for myself.  It seems pretty obvious to me.  I know quite a few
people who haven't read the books, and upon questioning, they never got the
impression that Boromir didn't like the Hobbits...it was the mission he
disliked.

>However, none of his dialogue seemed to denote that 
>it wasn't a personal matter, or that he really liked them but just 
>didn't want them there at that moment. 

Again, I just don't see where you're getting this notion.  Boromir doesn't
even acknowledge the Hobbits until the end of the Council, when Frodo says,
in one of the things taken straight from the book (and one of the things
that made me keep trying to read it for 20 years) "I will take the Ring,
though I do not know the way."  :)

Shannon




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar  6 19:12:49 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:12:49 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a62tmb+8a31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a65pnh+4kij@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" 
> 
> i wonder if this difference reflects are growing awareness of 
the  complexity of contemporary life as contrasted with the 
simpler age in which tolkien was writing? <<


Er, would you really call the World War II era a less complex time 
than now? With fifty years of perspective it's easy to see who the 
bad guys were and what should have been done to stop them, 
but it was by no means clear at the time. The HP world is not as 
dualistic as Tolkien's, but dualism does not equal simplicity, it's 
just a different world view.


I think what people are overlooking here is that  *all* works of art 
simplify. Monet's water lilies paintings tell you absolutely nothing 
about the structure  the flowers. He wanted the viewer to 
concentrate on their colors. Rowling tells you very little about the 
grand sweep of wizarding history. Imagine HP as written by 
Tolkien: we'd get the names of every single Minister of Magic and 
all the merchieftains too! But we'd never go shopping or play 
Quidditch.

 Both HP and Tolkien simplify character by a similar device. 
Tolkien's human characters are seen through the Hobbits' eyes, 
as we see the adults in Harry's world through his. It takes an 
extra level of analysis on the part of the adult reader to see 
through this device and notice that Aragorn does make mistakes 
and struggle with the flaws in his character, and that Snape's 
actions are out of keeping with his supposed hatred of Harry.  
This is novelistic trick doesn't translate very well to film, IMO. It's 
interesting that in the LOTR movie Aragorn was given an entirely 
different character flaw, and that in the HP movie Snape's 
loathing of Harry is softened.

Pippin






From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  6 10:19:00 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:19:00 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020305193314.00a9cbb0@pop.iglou.com>
Message-ID: <a64qek+okm4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Shannon <srae1971 at i...> wrote:

> What I dislike about the comparisons is the way HP--as a fantasy--
is being
> compared to LOTR as a fantasy.  

these movies shouldn't necessarily be set against one another. but we 
can often learn more about something by comparing it with a similar 
thing. for example, steve kloves might learn a few things about 
taking a complex book and turning it into a great movie.

come to think of it, since the lotr movies are all done, francis 
walsh and philippa boyens (the screenwriters) might well be free. 
somebody tell warner to book them for PoA.




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  6 22:52:52 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:52:52 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a65pnh+4kij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a666k4+8318@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Er, would you really call the World War II era a less complex time 
> than now? > 

well, i wasn't really talking about international relations. though 
you could argue that politics is more complex now. certainly the 
european, consensus approach seems to acknowledge previously ignored 
complexities. in the us though, it seems that imperialism still 
prevails. i guess it depends where you sit.

i was thinking more about things on a social level. society from the 
thirties through to the fifties was much better behaved. in britain 
(and both writers are british so that's where the influences come 
from) in the 30s-50s the emphasis was on conformism, fitting-in. any 
abnormalities - homosexuality for instance - were to be hidden.

now, after the advent of teenagers, drugs, an explosion of popular 
culture, an increase in leisure time, things have changed. and one of 
those things is the notion of right and wrong. up until the sixties 
right and wrong was defined by those in power - now the lines are 
blurred. in many areas of life people make a sense of right and wrong 
for themselves.

my thought was simply whether anyone else thinks that tolkien and 
jkr's books reflect those changing notions of right and wrong. in 
jkr, rule-breaking is sometimes ok, not everyone who helps you is 
doing so because they share your cause and so on. in tolkien, 
regardless of the flaws and peccadilloes of individuals, every 
character is either for good or for evil.

of course there are a lot of generalisations in that but like i said, 
it was just a thought.
 
> in the HP movie Snape's loathing of Harry is softened.

the simplification of character traits was one of the things that 
bugged me most about the movie. thus snape is nicer, dumbledore is 
humourless, and harry - and here was my biggest problem - is the big 
hero.

in the books harry doesn't actually ACT very much (certainly not 
until PoA at any rate) things simply happen to him. it's harry who 
figures out most of the plot - which is not the case in the books. 
when snape is picking on him we see that he was actually taking notes 
on snape's speech. whereas in the books, harry often isn't paying 
attention, often snape is quite right to question him (though not so 
maliciously as he often does).

this loss of complexity is one of the saddest things about the movie. 
and it didn't have to be that way - i've seen movies with complicated 
characters, honest! it can be done mr kloves!





From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  6 08:33:13 2002
From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:33:13 -0000
Subject: Thoughts on SS, the Centaur
Message-ID: <a64k89+pke6@eGroups.com>

A while back on OT-Chatter  Amber ? wrote: 
> I remember that before the HP movie came out, some people were
>worried about it changing their mental image of the books. Or that 
>everyone wouldn't be able to think of Harry without imagining Daniel.
>I thought about it today and came to the realization that the movie 
>has changed very little about what is in my mental mind when I read 
>the books.

For me the film didn't detract anything from the book. It only
enhanced it for me.  Take Hagrid for instance.  In reading him in the 
books I began to not like him as much, he started to annoy me by his 
childishness and bumbling.  The main list would call it his total
lack of Toughness.  I had lost sight of his sweetness of character
and the movie brought it back for me.  

Another character I liked seeing was Hermoine.  I thought Emma Watson 
did a great job in portraying the know-it-allness of the character.  
After seeing her play H I saw why Harry and Ron found her a pest
before the Troll incident. I had emphasized with her enough that in 
reading her I didn't see why two boys would be so put off by her.

The only other way the film has influenced me is now in reading the 
book I can hear Harris as Dumbledore and Rickman as Snape- neither of 
which I would consider a bad trade off at all. :)

John Walton (among others) complained of the "laughable special
effects (e.g. centaur)" in the film.

What do so many people have against the centaur?  Why is the poor 
creature so maligned?  I didn't find the special effects that bad,
I've certainly seen worse in other big budget movies.  To me he didn't
look especially fake-unlike the dying unicorn LV was drinking from. 
Is some of the dislike due to the fact that he wasn't the more
typical "good-looking" centaur as is seen in fantasy such as Xena?

When it comes to directors I thought Chris Columbus did a good job. 
I can imagine far worse directing of Harrry Potter than his.  Besides
of what movies of his I've seen I've like- tho I will point out I
haven't seen any Home Alone movies or Bicentennial Man. (I looked 
forward to Bic. Man until I heard Robin Williams was starring and
then I had the sinking feeling that my view of Asimov's story would be
quite different from the movie.)  However he was involved in some of
my favorites including Adventures in Babysitting and Young Sherlock 
Holmes.

I considered a fantasy casting mention but I caught myself in the
nick of time and refrained. :)

A Goldfeesh

      They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy,
      She inherited a million books and when she died they came to me.
          I can't help it if I'm lucky.
			Dylan, "Idiot Wind"  (the lyrics sound like this in a          
                                      live version)





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Mar  7 11:19:00 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:19:00 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a666k4+8318@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a67ib4+3tpi@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" <shanerichmond at h...> wrote:


> the simplification of character traits was one of the things that 
> bugged me most about the movie. thus snape is nicer, dumbledore is 
> humourless, and harry - and here was my biggest problem - is the 
big 
> hero.
> 
> in the books harry doesn't actually ACT very much (certainly not 
> until PoA at any rate) things simply happen to him. it's harry who 
> figures out most of the plot - which is not the case in the books. 
> when snape is picking on him we see that he was actually taking 
notes 
> on snape's speech. whereas in the books, harry often isn't paying 
> attention, often snape is quite right to question him (though not 
so 
> maliciously as he often does).
> 
> this loss of complexity is one of the saddest things about the 
movie. 
> and it didn't have to be that way - i've seen movies with 
complicated 
> characters, honest! it can be done mr kloves!

Isn't it strange how differently we can interpret the same film. The 
screen play really annoyed me as I felt that it made Harry alot more 
wimpy. In the books I felt he was MORE of a hero! He is the one who 
decides that he is never going to go to the dark side, he makes the 
decision to go it alone against "Snape" to get the Philosopher's 
Stone. In the film, many of his "brave" speeches are either dumned 
down or given to other characters. Other speeches are given to him(eg 
worrying about being on the Quidditch team) that I couldn't imagine 
the book Harry saying.

I do agree that in the book things happen to Harry and he is also 
quite inattentive. I want to see Harry more fiesty  and complex - but 
still a hero!

Ali







From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Sat Mar  9 10:06:09 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:06:09 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Thoughts on SS, the Centaur
References: <a64k89+pke6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c1c752$1b39c0e0$71af1e3e@stephen>

>A Goldfeesh said:

>What do so many people have against the centaur?  Why is the poor 
creature so maligned?  I didn't find the special effects that bad,
I've certainly seen worse in other big budget movies.  To me he didn't
look especially fake-unlike the dying unicorn LV was drinking from. 
Is some of the dislike due to the fact that he wasn't the more
typical "good-looking" centaur as is seen in fantasy such as Xena?

I think that my main problem with the centaur was that he moved so stiffly. He should have walked like a horse, and he just walked like a horse that had really bad arthritis!! Also, I would have preferred him to be a little less ugly, though he wouldn't have had to be extremely good looking!

I agree with your unicorn comments though - couldn't they have produced something more like the ethereal horselike creature most people think of as unicorns?

Lucy the Drifty


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  9 18:57:02 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 18:57:02 -0000
Subject: Should we rewind perhaps?
In-Reply-To: <a67ib4+3tpi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6dltu+gpsu@eGroups.com>

"alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:

<snip>
> I do agree that in the book things happen to Harry and he is also 
> quite inattentive. I want to see Harry more fiesty  and complex - 
but 
> still a hero!

The one big thing that was really lacking for me in the screenplay 
(as far as Harry is concerned) is that we completely lost his wicked 
and sarcastic sense of humour. 

Sarcasm and satire are the only weapon of the weak against the strong 
and bokk-Harry uses them very well. In the film, Harry just took 
everything on the chin, and Ron was left with all the one-liners.

It's therefore little surprise that Rupert got most of the fan 
plaudits for the part, because Ron was very vocal and funny, and had 
many stand-out lines. Most of Daniel's memorable lines were wimpy or 
introspective and whilst such parts are generally more difficult to 
play, they don't get noticed anywhere near as much.

>From what I can gather from interviews, Dan appears to be far more 
like the book Harry, and I get the distinct impression that 
he "doesn't take shit from anyone". Playing Harry the way Kloves 
wrote him probably demanded far more talent from Daniel than is 
generally acknowledged...





From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk  Sat Mar  9 22:54:16 2002
From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman)
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:54:16 -0000
Subject: Thoughts on SS, the Centaur
In-Reply-To: <a64k89+pke6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6e3qo+u4b4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "ameliagoldfeesh" <ameliagoldfeesh at y...> 
wrote:
> The only other way the film has influenced me is now in reading the 
> book I can hear Harris as Dumbledore and Rickman as Snape- neither 
of 
> which I would consider a bad trade off at all. :)

I disagree with this, totally.  Not with Alan Rickman, who I think 
was perfect (before you jump on me, Amanda!), but Richard Harris was 
terrible.  No twinkling, no humour, no eccentricity.  I would have 
preferred Ian Richardson (House of Cards/Gormenghast) or Ian McKellen.

> 
> John Walton (among others) complained of the "laughable special
> effects (e.g. centaur)" in the film.
> 
> What do so many people have against the centaur?  Why is the poor 
> creature so maligned?  I didn't find the special effects that bad,
> I've certainly seen worse in other big budget movies.  To me he 
didn't
> look especially fake-unlike the dying unicorn LV was drinking from. 
> Is some of the dislike due to the fact that he wasn't the more
> typical "good-looking" centaur as is seen in fantasy such as Xena?

I totally agree with John on this.  The centaur was totally lame.  
The dialogue was stilted, wooden and cliched;  it isn't the centaur 
which is maligned but the way he was portrayed in the film.  No 
beauty, grace, majesty about him at all - in fact he looked quite 
ugly and ineffective.  It was also a very good example of Kloves 
using dialogue from the book and taking it out of context.  The 
line "This is where I leave you" makes absolutely no sense in the 
context of the film.

> When it comes to directors I thought Chris Columbus did a good job. 
> I can imagine far worse directing of Harrry Potter than his.  

I can imagine worse, but I can also imagine much, much better.  I do 
think that the children in particular needed more direction.  They 
are all obviously talented, but this wasn't as apparent as it could 
have been - more subtlety was needed.  At the end of the day, despite 
the fact that the film was very pretty, it seemed flat to me, and 
was  very much a children's film, where as the books have never felt 
to me as children's books.

Catherine (who probably hasn't posted on this list since the preview 
weekend)





From azingam at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Mar 10 15:21:56 2002
From: azingam at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Allocin?=)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:21:56 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Thoughts on SS, the Centaur
In-Reply-To: <003d01c1c752$1b39c0e0$71af1e3e@stephen>
Message-ID: <20020310152156.64072.qmail@web14905.mail.yahoo.com>

>A Goldfeesh said:
> 
> >What do so many people have against the centaur?  Why is the poor 
> creature so maligned?  I didn't find the special effects that bad,
> I've certainly seen worse in other big budget movies.  To me he
> didn't
> look especially fake-unlike the dying unicorn LV was drinking from. 
> Is some of the dislike due to the fact that he wasn't the more
> typical "good-looking" centaur as is seen in fantasy such as Xena?
 
What I didn't like about the centaur was his height. He absolutely
towered above Daniel! Now before horse riders start saying that horses
can be tall, I know. I've ridden horses, from welsh ponies to
thoroughbreds, and even though Harry is supposed to be small, I never
got the impression that the centaurs were that humongous. Do centaurs
have two sets of shoulders (human and horse)? Because it seemed that
the horse part of Firenze must have been about 16h, PLUS the human part
on that. And that face seemed a little too unhuman, too flat (he looked
a bit like my Voldemort, with such a shaped face).

As for the unicorn...I barely noticed it in all of my viewings.
Voldemort had my attention all the way.

Speaking of which, did he look like a Lethifold to you or what?

Nicky

=====
Patience is a virtue,
Possess it if you can,
Sometimes in a woman
But never is a man.
~ Heffer D.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com



From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Mar 11 04:19:47 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:19:47 -0600
Subject: actor for Lupin?
Message-ID: <3C8C3063.3DFE6AD6@kingwoodcable.com>

For a while now I've been trying to figure out who would suit Lupin for
PoA. First...he has to be pretty thin, because Lupin is somewhat
malnourished. He also has to be kind, and receptive to those around him.
He also needs to be handsome (cause that's how I picture him).

So...I was thinking.......Guy Pearce. 

I've enjoy him so far in all the movies I've seen him (only 3 - Memento,
Count of Monte Cristo, Time Machine).

Here's a good picture from the Time Machine...about how I'd expect to
see Lupin:
http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=ss&group=0268695&photo=CT-3979.jpg&path=pgallery&path_key=Pearce,+Guy

Anyway...it's just a thought 8-)
-Katze



From chiflipgrl at aol.com  Mon Mar 11 14:00:25 2002
From: chiflipgrl at aol.com (chiflipgrl at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:00:25 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] actor for Lupin?
Message-ID: <b4.7df0feb.29be1279@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/10/2002 10:39:39 PM Central Standard Time, 
jdumas at kingwoodcable.com writes:


> For a while now I've been trying to figure out who would suit Lupin for
> PoA. First...he has to be pretty thin, because Lupin is somewhat
> malnourished. He also has to be kind, and receptive to those around him.
> He also needs to be handsome (cause that's how I picture him).
> 
> So...I was thinking.......Guy Pearce. 

OOoh... That would be a VERY interesting choice! Lupin is supposed to be 
relatively young looking, right? (I think I need to reread the series. I'm 
getting a bit dusty.) Yet, he has to be intimidating. I agree with the "thin 
and malnourished" concept because, heh, Guy needs to get a few cheeseburgers 
a day and start a bulking-up routine.

But, come to think of it, he might be quite perfect for the job. But he's not 
British, he's Australian... They'll let that slide, right??

*~*~*~* Janice *~*~*~*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 11 15:12:07 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:12:07 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203051738360.355-100000@q7.q7.com>
Message-ID: <a6ihg7+5vb1@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Malia Kawaguchi <malia at q...> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 Schlobin1 at a... wrote:
> 
> > srae1971 at i... writes:
> > 
> > > I had no such problems with the HP books.  They have been, 
without fail,
> > > absolute page turners.  I 
> > 
> > But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?
> > 
> > Susan
> 
> Actually, usually it's the other way around.  The obscure and 
difficult is 
> usually seen as automatically "better" than the easy and accessible.
> 
> I think that's why I love HP so much.  To be good AND easy AND 
accessible 
> AND excellent is quite a feat. 
> 
> Tolkein is difficult and excellent.  JKR is easy and excellent.  
Very 
> different flavors of excellent, some valued more by some than by 
others.
> 
> -M

I hope I'm not going to sound too horribly snobbish, but have you 
never tried reading Kafka or Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Faulkner? 
Steinbeck? Thomas Mann? Conrad? Virginia Wolf? Joyce (Ulysess is 
still sitting hopefully on my book shelf)? Shakespeare?

I have to say that I find it somewhat ridiculous that people here 
describe Tolkien as difficult. I have read LOTR goodness knows how 
many times and for me it's definitely under the category of fun 
reading.
(Although it *is* much more intense than HP. In fact, my emotional 
involvement with the story is so high it can become painful. The 
amazing thing about the movie (for me) was that I reached the same 
level of involvement as with the book. Fantastic.)

Naama, who also thinks that the HP movie was .. ummm .. <euphemism> 
ordinary </euphemism>

 





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 11 15:49:18 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:49:18 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <a63er5+2odl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6ijlu+j03q@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "caes56" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:
> ---------Susan Wrote:-------------
> But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
>      It's a very simple premise that seems to be lost on a lot of 
> people who are either very educated or who read a LOT. See, when 
> people do a lot of one thing and start to gain "taste," as it were, 
> they tend to forget what exactly that thing is. Movies and books 
are 
> the two penultimate examples of this: Books are written for one of 
> two main purposes. The first is for Information and Learning. The 
> second, and more popular reason is simply entertainment. 

There are other purposes, you know. For instance, emotional release 
(which can be painful and not entertaining at all, but still be very 
valuable) or artistic pleasure which is again different from "pure" 
entertainment. And on a side note - Information and Learning can be a 
source of great pleasure also.


> LotR and HP
> are simply that- Entertainment. Why is easy equated with good? 
> Accessible with excellent? Simple. If a person with a job, with a 
> busy life, comes home from a long day at work, tired and exhausted, 
> do you really want to read a book about some world that you have to 
> get a dictionary out to understand? (I'm not saying it about any 
> book in specific) Movies also cause this phenomenon- they are also 
> written for information and learning or for entertainment. So why 
> exactly is it so bad when a movie, like Harry Potter, is made to 
> Entertain as opposed to being totally accurate? Why must it be a 
> science? Let's face it- most(but not all)critics of books and 
> movies, as well as most people at home, want to believe that they 
> are fullfilling some greater purpose than entertainment when they 
> read a book, or watch a movie. But simply put, that's all they are. 
> And a lot of people nowadays don't want to believe it.


But Susan didn't say (and I'm sure she doesn't think) that accessible 
and easy is *bad*; She asked why are accessible and easy equated with 
*good*. There's nothing wrong with a book or a movie being easy - 
entertaining as you call it - it's just that this quality shouldn't 
be confused with excellence. A book/movie can be easy and good, easy 
and bad, difficult and good or difficult and bad. The fact that HP is 
easy to watch has nothing to do with it's being good (in your 
opinion) or bad (in mine). 

>     This leads into my second point: While maybe the LotR movie was 
> enjoyable for people who read the novels first- and for that, I am 
> happy for all of you. 
<snip>
> See, my problem isn't that it's accurate to the books- from the 
> concensous(did I spell that right? I don't think so) of most people 
> I know they were. Rather, my problem is that the movie itself 
> doesn't do a moviegoer justice- someone who hasn't read the books. 
> It doesn't explain the movie well, nor the plot, nor the characters 
> out. 
<snip>
Movies aren't and should be a science; 
> you shouldn't have to go home and read a book as a prerequisite to 
> being able to understand a movie version of the same book. 
>       So, essentially, yes, it is a good thing to have 
> accessibility. 


I agree that if you don't get the plot of a movie then it's not 
accessible in a very basic way and that's definitely not a good 
thing. I have to say, though, that many people who have not read the 
book enjoyed the movie very much. I know it's the last thing you want 
to do, but maybe you should see it again? <g> 


> I didn't mean to offend anyone when I asked for people to be 
> objective; I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular. What I meant 
> was to ask you to stop and consider my points- the best method 
being 
> to try and see the movie while trying NOT to take anything you read 
> from the book and applying it to the movie. 

I'd love to have been able to do that! Just as I'd love to be able to 
read LOTR for the very first time again. However, once it's in your 
head, it's impossible to make it go away. I don't KNOW and can't know 
what's it like to see the movie without having first read the book. 
Again, I can only say that many enjoyed the movie who did not read 
the book.

<snip quite reasonable rant against Susan>

Another side note: one of the things I learnt from the HP and LOTR 
movies is that strict adherence to the book is not a guarantee of 
excellence. Of the two, HP follows the book much more closely and 
it's such an uninteresting movie, IMO. I came to understand that 
interpretive license is maybe necessary (or a symptom?) for 
inspiration.

Naama




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Mon Mar 11 15:53:19 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:53:19 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <a6ihg7+5vb1@eGroups.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203051738360.355-100000@q7.q7.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020311105319.00a79dd0@pop.iglou.com>

At 03:12 PM 3/11/2002 -0000, Naama wrote:

>I hope I'm not going to sound too horribly snobbish, but have you 
>never tried reading Kafka or Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Faulkner? 
>Steinbeck? Thomas Mann? Conrad? Virginia Wolf? Joyce (Ulysess is 
>still sitting hopefully on my book shelf)? Shakespeare?

Yes to all the above except for Dostoyevsky, Mann and Tolstoy. I've read a
lot of things, actually.  I loved Conrad and absolutely worship
Shakespeare.  Joyce is iffy.  Wonderful sometimes, worthless others.  Kafka
is ridiculous (granted, of his works I've only really read The Trial, which
was such a pointless exercise that I still resent it and won't read
anything else he's written <g>). Woolf, I've read a few things. I prefer
her shorter works to her novels (To The Lighthouse put me to sleep more
than once). Generally, I tend to read things that look interesting to me
though,  not just things that are written by names who are on the
"Important Authors" list.  Perhaps it's terribly unfashionable of me, but I
like books wherein something actually happens. Possibly that's why I prefer
sf/fantasy over mainstream literature.

>I have to say that I find it somewhat ridiculous that people here 
>describe Tolkien as difficult. I have read LOTR goodness knows how 
>many times and for me it's definitely under the category of fun 
>reading.

He's difficult because he's tedious.  He made a great story rather
uninteresting for me.  I read through Fellowship the first time about five
years ago, and found that I had absolutely no reaction to Gandalf dying.
Tolkien spent more time talking about Middle Earth than he did about the
characters in it, and he didn't make me care what happened to them.
Thankfully, Peter Jackson *did* make me care and I can see past the things
in the book that obscured the story for me all those years.

>(Although it *is* much more intense than HP. In fact, my emotional 
>involvement with the story is so high it can become painful. The 
>amazing thing about the movie (for me) was that I reached the same 
>level of involvement as with the book. Fantastic.)

The amazing thing about the movie for me is that it did produce an
emotional involvement for me.  And now that I have that, I can read the
books and keep hold of it.  As a result, I'm better able to appreciate the
books.

>Naama, who also thinks that the HP movie was .. ummm .. <euphemism> 
>ordinary </euphemism>

It was entertaining, and very true to the book.  It moved a bit too quickly
though.  Which is odd because that's what some people complain of
Fellowship, that the pace was too relentless.  The difference, to me, was
that in HP, it wasn't that the pace was too fast, but that the scenes
seemed to end about 10 seconds too soon.  Made it just a bit choppy. But I
loved it all the same. :)

Shannon






From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk  Mon Mar 11 16:18:59 2002
From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:18:59 -0000
Subject: subtitles and supporting audio details
Message-ID: <a6ildj+ikgp@eGroups.com>

Apparently one in every hundred HP film prints in circulation in the 
UK have been subtitled for deaf viewers using a new access system. HP 
and the PS is the first film anywhere to be issued with this system 
deployed.

Anyone here actually been to a screening which deployed this system?

There is a campaign being mouted to get the access technlogy 
installed in all British cinemas. The URL below gives details and 
follow up for those interested.

Myself I will be watching out for any sightings of the augmented 
presentation... and it realy would be magic if something like the 
campaigns aims came true...

Edis (who is deaf...)


The details and the campaign are at:

http://www.yourlocalcinema.com/proposal.2002.html










From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 11 21:53:17 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:53:17 -0000
Subject: Guy Lupin
In-Reply-To: <3C8C3063.3DFE6AD6@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a6j90d+pnhp@eGroups.com>

Katze writes:

<<
So...I was thinking.......Guy Pearce. 
I've enjoy him so far in all the movies I've seen him
(only 3 - Memento, Count of Monte Cristo, Time Machine).
>>


I've seen him in an almost entirely different 3 movies:
Memento, L.A. Confidential, and Priscilla, Queen of the
Desert. I think he's great, but the clause in his
contract requiring him to play an asshole might be a
problem. ^_~

Unfortunately I can't offer an alternative, though, as
every British actor I know of is already IN Harry Potter.


--Anna
PS: Hugo Weaving (Lord Elrond in LotR and Agent Smith in
The Matrix) costarred in Priscilla. Not bad for a
little-known Australian drag flick!

PPS: Guy Pearce made the cutest girl. ^_^




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Mar 11 22:19:50 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:19:50 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Guy Lupin
References: <a6j90d+pnhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C8D2D86.AF43845@kingwoodcable.com>

saintbacchus wrote:
> I've seen him in an almost entirely different 3 movies:
> Memento, L.A. Confidential, and Priscilla, Queen of the
> Desert. I think he's great, but the clause in his
> contract requiring him to play an asshole might be a
> problem. ^_~
> 
> Unfortunately I can't offer an alternative, though, as
> every British actor I know of is already IN Harry Potter.

I never saw Priscilla. I'll have to check it out sometimes.

He wasn't an asshole in Memento (slightly disturbed/insane because of
his condition which is understandable), and was very endearing in the
Time Machine. I think that he's got great talent, and could play most
anything...provided he wanted to.

He was originally born in England...will that qualify? He could probably
do a great British accent as well. Heck...Russell Crowe pulled it off in
Gladiator (this is to an American ear though), so why could he?

Hrmm...I'm starting to get my hopes up...better stop now before it
consumes me.
-Katze



From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 12 05:09:11 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:09:11 -0000
Subject: Guy Lupin + Geoffrey Fudge
In-Reply-To: <3C8D2D86.AF43845@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a6k2hn+nacj@eGroups.com>

Katze writes:

<<
I never saw Priscilla. I'll have to check it out
sometimes.
>>

Do - it's a riot!

I suppose Felicia is as nice as she can be expected to
be, so that kind of breaks my chain of logic. I do
think Leonard in Memento was an asshole, though. Going
through cities hunting guys down randomly? Writing
down the license number of your buddy to remind you to
kill him later? Unless you believe Teddy is full of it
(and he may well be), Leonard's an asshole.

But that's besides the point. Guy Pearce = great. He
wouldn't be my first choice for Lupin (too sinister!),
but I belive he could pull it off.

Oh, oh. I just thought of a British actor not in HP:
Geoffrey Rush! I love Geoffrey Rush! He would make a
terrific Fudge, ne?

--Anna




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 12 12:11:42 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:11:42 -0000
Subject: Oscars, HP Directors!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020311105319.00a79dd0@pop.iglou.com>
Message-ID: <a6kr9u+tkvu@eGroups.com>

I, somewhat snobbishly, asked:
 
> >I hope I'm not going to sound too horribly snobbish, but have you 
> >never tried reading Kafka or Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Faulkner? 
> >Steinbeck? Thomas Mann? Conrad? Virginia Wolf? Joyce (Ulysess is 
> >still sitting hopefully on my book shelf)? Shakespeare?

Shannon put me to shame by replying: 

> Yes to all the above except for Dostoyevsky, Mann and Tolstoy. I've 
read a
> lot of things, actually.  

<snip reading list and reading preference>

And added, regarding Tolkien:
> 
> He's difficult because he's tedious.  He made a great story rather
> uninteresting for me.  I read through Fellowship the first time 
about five
> years ago, and found that I had absolutely no reaction to Gandalf 
dying.
> Tolkien spent more time talking about Middle Earth than he did 
about the
> characters in it, and he didn't make me care what happened to them.
> Thankfully, Peter Jackson *did* make me care and I can see past the 
things
> in the book that obscured the story for me all those years.

Me:

Ahhh. Well, then it's just a matter of difference in taste. I didn't 
find Tolkien tedious at all. LOTR is a book that once I begin reading 
it, I can't put it down. I love Tolkien's writing style - the 
descriptions, the stories within stories, the little snatches you get 
of a complex and majestic history or myth (actually myths) that lies 
submerged within the (story's) current time. For me it's like a long, 
leisurely hike in a beautiful country - and as far as I'm concerned, 
the longer the better. 
> 
> >Naama, who also thinks that the HP movie was .. ummm .. 
<euphemism> 
> >ordinary </euphemism>
> 
> It was entertaining, and very true to the book.  It moved a bit too 
quickly
> though.  Which is odd because that's what some people complain of
> Fellowship, that the pace was too relentless.  The difference, to 
me, was
> that in HP, it wasn't that the pace was too fast, but that the 
scenes
> seemed to end about 10 seconds too soon.  Made it just a bit 
choppy. But I
> loved it all the same. :)
> 

Well, I suppose this is another instance of difference in taste. I 
didn't find the movie entertaining, I'm afraid. I suppose that if I 
didn't love the books so much, I wouldn't mind it being so mediocre. 
As it is, I'm positively furious at Columbus for "desecrating" my 
beloved book. :-)

Naama




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 12 20:10:45 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:10:45 -0000
Subject: Guy Lupin + Geoffrey Fudge
In-Reply-To: <a6k2hn+nacj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6lnc5+2u3v@eGroups.com>

"saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:

<snipperama>

> Oh, oh. I just thought of a British actor not in HP:
> Geoffrey Rush! I love Geoffrey Rush! He would make a
> terrific Fudge, ne?

errr... like Guy Pearce, Rush is an Aussie...

Which doesn't mean to say that I think either of them would be 
particularly unsuitable for the parts in question! Far more so Rush 
than Pearce though. I think Pearce is a little young. Don't forget 
that TPTB have changed the time line just a bit by casting a 50+ 
Rickman to play an apparently 40+ Snape, whose peers Lupin & Co are 
meant to be. There's no way Guy Pearce could say with a straight face 
that he was in school with Rickman...

However, I caught a bit of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" on TV last 
night and suddenly realised I know *exactly* whom I visualised when 
reading the books: David Haig ("Bernard Geoffrey St. John Delaney", 
the Groom from Wedding II). I can't find *any* pictures of him 
online, anywhere! His IMDB page might remind *someone* though 
(despite there being no biog): 

http://uk.imdb.com/Name?Haig,+David

(late 40s, seriously balding, moustache)

He's best known to us Brits for loads of TV work, probably most 
noticeably in "Thin Blue Line" as the over-bearing, pompous, 
incompetent, (do those adjectives remind you of anyone?) CID officer.






From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 12 20:42:03 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:42:03 -0000
Subject: Guy Lupin + Geoffrey Fudge
In-Reply-To: <a6lnc5+2u3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6lp6r+5pm8@eGroups.com>

GulPlum corrects:

<<errr... like Guy Pearce, Rush is an Aussie...>>

Yarrrh! I knew that, I did. It's just that...well,
this will sound stupid, but the role that made me a
believer in Rush was "House On Haunted Hill," where
he plays an American tycoon. His accent is impeccable
(if unplaceable), and I tend to think of him that way.
*cringes* Sorry!

Aha, and I've forgotten Chris Barrie. Love him to
death, too. He stands in the Pantheon of Bluster next
to Kelsey Grammar. ^_^ Unfortunately, he's entirely
the wrong age (or type) for any of the open parts,
which brings me to....


<<
I think Pearce is a little young. Don't forget that
TPTB have changed the time line just a bit by casting
a 50+ Rickman to play an apparently 40+ Snape, whose
peers Lupin & Co are meant to be. There's no way Guy
Pearce could say with a straight face that he was in
school with Rickman...
>>

Good point. Especially since Lupin is supposed to
look older. (Although Snape's age has, IIRC, never
been estimated in the books, Lupin has been described
as looking "old.")

Snape is supposed to be around 36, but I have no problem
with Rickman there. As I've stated elsewhere, I think
Snape should look older than he really is because of all
he's been through.

Although I would not have said no to Tim Curry in the
same role....

--Anna




From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 13 03:31:20 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:31:20 -0000
Subject: Tim Curry [WAS] Guy Lupin + Geoffrey Fudge
In-Reply-To: <a6lp6r+5pm8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6mh68+vsdu@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:

<snip>
 
> I think
> Snape should look older than he really is because of all
> he's been through.
> 
> Although I would not have said no to Tim Curry in the
> same role....

Funny you should say that:

In my mind, I "heard" Tim Curry "voicing" GILDEROY (a la 
Frankenfurter, no less) when I read CoS.

:) OTR  
 
 
    




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 13 05:35:53 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:35:53 -0000
Subject: HP vs. LotR round 3
In-Reply-To: <a6kr9u+tkvu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6mofp+f94a@eGroups.com>

Naama writes:

<<
Well, I suppose this is another instance of difference
in taste. I didn't find the movie entertaining, I'm
afraid. I suppose that if I  didn't love the books so
much, I wouldn't mind it being so mediocre. As it is,
I'm positively furious at Columbus for "desecrating"
my beloved book. :-)
>>

I suppose it's about time for me to add my blood to
the battlefield. I saw both HP and LotR without having
read the books. The reason I never read LotR is that I
found it overbearingly dull (although I loved The
Hobbit). I had simply not bothered to read HP, figuring
if the movie was interesting, I could read the books.

LotR was a fantastic movie, but I'm still afraid of the
reams of text that await me should I try to crack the
books again. HP was a mediocre movie (and I hate it for
that), but it did inspire me to read the books, which I
now love.

I will say that, despite the poor directing job by
Columbus, the acting was spectacular in HP. Well, that
and the casting was inspired. Anyway, the acting redeems
the cartoony feel and choppy editing to the point where
I'll be in line for the DVD on May 28th. I can't wait to
see the deleted scenes! *bounces*

--Anna




From fitzchivalryhk at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 13 07:12:02 2002
From: fitzchivalryhk at yahoo.com (fitzchivalryhk)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:12:02 -0000
Subject: HP vs. LotR round 3
In-Reply-To: <a6mofp+f94a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a6mu42+pk72@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:
> 
> I suppose it's about time for me to add my blood to
> the battlefield. I saw both HP and LotR without having
> read the books. The reason I never read LotR is that I
> found it overbearingly dull (although I loved The
> Hobbit). I had simply not bothered to read HP, figuring
> if the movie was interesting, I could read the books.
> 
> LotR was a fantastic movie, but I'm still afraid of the
> reams of text that await me should I try to crack the
> books again. HP was a mediocre movie (and I hate it for
> that), but it did inspire me to read the books, which I
> now love.
> 
> I will say that, despite the poor directing job by
> Columbus, the acting was spectacular in HP. Well, that
> and the casting was inspired. Anyway, the acting redeems
> the cartoony feel and choppy editing to the point where
> I'll be in line for the DVD on May 28th. I can't wait to
> see the deleted scenes! *bounces*
> 
> --Anna

Hello, I'm a newbie to the group, and it surely takes time for me to 
discover the world of HP (and this group). I read LotR before I watch 
the movie, and to me, the LotR movie was a bit of a disappointment. I 
find there are too many things lost from the book. Perhaps, my 
expectation was too high and I demanded too much from it :(

As for whether LotR is hard to tackle, I think it depends on your 
taste. English is my second language, and I don't live in a country 
where most people speaks English in daily life, yet I read LotR when 
I was 15, and found it very interesting. Whereas my father, who I am 
sure had a better grasp of English than me when I was 15, found it 
hard to tackle. It was not because of the language style, but that it 
was such a heavy read, because of the realities of the danger and the 
burden the fellowship faced. He found that it did not serve the 
purpose to allow him to escape from reality.

I read the HP books after I watched the movie. Although I find the 
second half of the movie boring (too much of the cliche Indiana Jones 
type of treasure seeking for me), I find the first half of the movie 
fascinating. HP books are great entertainment for me. I become more 
addicted to them as I read more. However, I did not have the same 
uplifting experience as I had when I first read LotR. 

Does it mean LotR is better than HP, or HP is better than LotR? There 
is no definite answer. It depends on what you define as "good", some 
put entertainment values on top, some put others. Hmmm.. and judging 
from that the other best-seller of all times, the Bible, I do not 
think "knowledge" or "entertainment values" are all the things people 
are after when reading a book.

Fitz 




From huushiita at fangirl.org  Wed Mar 13 14:53:00 2002
From: huushiita at fangirl.org (huushiita)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:53:00 -0000
Subject: Before the Sorting Hat
Message-ID: <a6np4c+mr44@eGroups.com>

I'm currently colouring a Snape picture, while watching the movie. 
I've noticed something, and I thought I'd give it a hoo yaa to all 
you 
guys and see what you think.
 
It's the scene before the Sorting Hat, where Draco Malfoy is 
introducing himself to Harry Potter, and insulting Ron Weasley in the 
process. Professor McGonagoll comes up behind Malfoy and taps him. 
Malfoy gives one last warning look to Harry, before going back to his 
place. The look on McGonagoll's face as she watches Malfoy is one of 
pure disgust. 
Maby it's becuase of how she knows his father, Lucius,  and what 
he's done, or maby it's because it's just "another Malfoy", but to me 
it's like, "Get away, you evil scum". 
Unless she knows already that Malfoy is a soon-to-be Death Eater, 
even though Voldemort has yet to really show himself, becuase of 
Lucius being in Voldemort's Inner Circle. I sure can't put it past 
the 
Malfoy family to pretend to be on the Good Side, while secretly doing 
the evil things they do: Just. In. Case.
Lucius strikes me as an utter coward, always going for the upper 
hand, no matter which side it's on. (A lot like the rat Pettigrew, 
although Lucius does show more bravery with the wit he has.)
 
Just an idle idea, that has rooted itself in my brain. Love to know 
all your thoughts on it, whether for and against my reasoning.
 
Also, I'm new to the list, and I've greatly enjoyed being a lurker 
here for the week or so. Keep the great discussions coming! Cheers!
 
Huushiita





From eleri at aracnet.com  Wed Mar 13 15:37:31 2002
From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:37:31 -0500
Subject: Tim Curry
In-Reply-To: <1016038472.1353.8207.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313103640.00b8b7c0@mail.aracnet.com>

At 04:54 PM 3/13/02 +0000, you wrote:
> > Although I would not have said no to Tim Curry in the
> > same role....
>
>Funny you should say that:
>
>In my mind, I "heard" Tim Curry "voicing" GILDEROY (a la
>Frankenfurter, no less) when I read CoS.

Nonononono...he should be Riddle! He does reasonable yet deeply nasty so *well*




From landers at email.unc.edu  Wed Mar 13 22:27:19 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty Landers)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:27:19 -0500
Subject: HP Vs. LotR round 3
Message-ID: <000901c1cade$3e5087a0$6e41323f@oemcomputer>

I personally found the LOTR movie more enjoyable than the HP movie.  This
could be for any or both of a couple reasons.   The HP book may have been
too fresh in my mind when I watched the movie, and I was doing too much
comparison.  Another possibility is that I just didn't like it.  I can find
evidence for both reasons when I remember my experience.  I remember about
20 minutes in, I looked at my dad and told him we were already in Ch. 7.  I
kept looking at him at points during the movie and telling him what they'd
skipped or changed or moved.  Some of the biggest editing/plot peeves I
remember were the lack of color in the Dursleys and switching Ron for
Neville into the Forbidden Forest scene.  These are just a couple; I could
probably find more. I also remember, on another note,  not being satisfied
with the actors for Hagrid and Snape especially.

In the movie for the Fellowship of the ring, however, the book was not fresh
in my mind and when I got a chance to re-read the book after watching the
movie, I was surprised at how well Jackson had done.  The only thing that
really peeved me about the movie was replacing Glorfindel with Arwen and
Arwen just popping up.  *Not *Cool!
OK, I'm done rambling (grin).  I think I'm still going to buy or at least
rent the HP movie when it comes out and give it another chance.
Betty, who realizes that she is covered in rotten tomatoes that the
Rickman/Snape fans threw at her while she was talking.




From degroote at altavista.com  Fri Mar 15 00:36:27 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 14 Mar 2002 16:36:27 -0800
Subject: Timm Curry as riddle?/casting issues
Message-ID: <20020315003627.24354.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-movie/attachments/20020314/4fbf4236/attachment.ksh>

From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 15 07:20:37 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:20:37 -0000
Subject: Timm Curry as riddle?/casting issues
In-Reply-To: <20020315003627.24354.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <a6s7c5+8rdm@eGroups.com>

Kitty writes:

<<
Which Riddle?  Tom Sr. really has no role & he's way
too old to be Tom Jr! I absoutely LOVE Tim Curry (can
anyone say "Time Warp"?) I think he would've been a
fabulous Fudge! Is he short enough or rodenty enough
to do Wormtail? Oh , heeeey! How about Bagman?! Oh
yeah! Big voice, strutting with big belly (gone to
seed). That's the ticket! 
>>

We haven't seen Fudge yet, Curry may well be just the
man! He would be an awesome Fudge, but I do think he
could pull off Wormtail as well. C'mon - Curry can do
smarmy and repugnant at the drop of a hat! Perfect
for politicians, traitors, and bitter chickens. (10
points to the house of whoever gets that reference.)


<<
Huh? Chocolate cookie dough ice cream out my nose!
That was my reaction to this. They are two of the ones
I was MOST pleased with!  The only casting I really
wasn't happy with was Peeves-because he wasn't in it!
Oh, and Aunt Petunia must be blonde, but the actress
was just right.
>>

I agree. Rewatching the early scenes of the movie, I'm
more and more impressed with Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid)
in particular. I love the way he says "Sorry abou'
that!" when he knocks the door to the island hut down.
I really think the script shortchanged Hagrid, but
Coltrane makes up the difference.

And I love all three Dursleys. Fiona Shaw was already
a favorite of mine though, because every time I see her
in a movie, she's playing a total weirdo. ^_^ I suppose,
looking at the line of period pieces in her filmography,
that she's played straight roles too, but I always
manage to catch her in things like Super Mario Brothers
and The Avengers. (Probably the only person on earth to
enjoy both of those movies, too.)

--Anna




From degroote at altavista.com  Fri Mar 15 20:50:22 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 15 Mar 2002 12:50:22 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Digest Number 173
Message-ID: <20020315205022.19108.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-movie/attachments/20020315/2745e927/attachment.ksh>

From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Fri Mar 15 21:18:40 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:18:40 -0000
Subject: Digest Number 173
In-Reply-To: <20020315205022.19108.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <a6tofg+m9rk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Vicky DeGroote <degroote at a...> wrote:

> Is Fudge in CoS?  If so, then he would already be cast.  If not, then there is still 
hope for Curry as Fudge. (Hey, two of my favorite "foods"!)
> 

Yes, his first appearnce is when he shows up at Hagrid's while Harry is there 
under his invisibility cloak.




From pennylin at swbell.net  Sat Mar 16 01:17:14 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:17:14 -0600
Subject: ADMIN: Reminder re: HP4GU Posting Rules
References: <20020315205022.19108.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <3C929D1A.9030001@swbell.net>

Hi everyone --

Okay, this is a *friendly* reminder:

PLEASE (please!) pleeeeeeeeeeeease change the subject heading to reflect 
the actual subject of your message.  An absolute positive "no-no" in 
HP4GU-land is to post a message with "Re: Digest No. 1479" as the 
subject.  This is unacceptable.  People often peruse the HP4GU lists to 
find which posts will interest them & which posts to skip; it's 
impossible to tell if all the subject says is "Re: Digest No. 1230."

I noticed an entire thread of messages last week with something about 
the Oscars in the subject line, but the messages all dealt with a 
comparison of the HP movie with LOTR.

Also, please also remember to be courteous to other members.  There is 
no need to resort to name-calling or questioning someone's intelligence 
to make your points.

Play nice!

Penny
Magical Moderator Team





From eleri at aracnet.com  Sun Mar 17 12:19:58 2002
From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:19:58 -0500
Subject: Timm Curry as riddle?/casting issues
In-Reply-To: <1016195606.148.76095.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020317071714.00b89e00@mail.aracnet.com>

At 12:33 PM 3/15/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Which Riddle?  Tom Sr. really has no role & he's way too old to be Tom Jr!

*nod* but, if they were to make the diary *talk* instead of the words just 
appear (a good idea, given it'll be hard to just read the words on the 
screen) his voice would be perfect! And then, they could pull some movie 
magic to use his voice for whoever plays Tom Jr. :)
I do like the Fudge idea, too :)

Charlene






From allyse1138 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 18 12:54:07 2002
From: allyse1138 at yahoo.com (allyse1138)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:54:07 -0000
Subject: OT: What happened to HPFGU?
Message-ID: <a74o1f+3d7k@eGroups.com>

Sorry for the off-topic subject, but does anyone know what happened 
to HP4GU? It doesn't seem to exist! It no longer appears on my list 
of Yahoo groups and when I try searching for it, or clicking on the 
link on this groups's homepage, I get an URL that tells me that there 
is no such group. Is anyone else having this trouble?

Allyse, who would hate to see over 35,000 posts disappear




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Mon Mar 18 13:22:10 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:22:10 -0000
Subject: OT: What happened to HPFGU?
In-Reply-To: <a74o1f+3d7k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a74pm2+pvfc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "allyse1138" <allyse1138 at y...> wrote:
> Sorry for the off-topic subject, but does anyone know what happened 
> to HP4GU? It doesn't seem to exist! It no longer appears on my list 
> of Yahoo groups and when I try searching for it, or clicking on the 
> link on this groups's homepage, I get an URL that tells me that there 
> is no such group. Is anyone else having this trouble?
> 
> Allyse, who would hate to see over 35,000 posts disappear

Me, too!  ;-)




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Mon Mar 18 13:25:26 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:25:26 -0000
Subject: OT: What happened to HPFGU?
In-Reply-To: <a74pm2+pvfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a74ps6+52np@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "allyse1138" <allyse1138 at y...> wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic subject, but does anyone know what happened 
> > to HP4GU? It doesn't seem to exist! It no longer appears on my list 
> > of Yahoo groups and when I try searching for it, or clicking on the 
> > link on this groups's homepage, I get an URL that tells me that there 
> > is no such group. Is anyone else having this trouble?
> > 
> > Allyse, who would hate to see over 35,000 posts disappear
> 
> Me, too!  ;-)

OK here's an even worse infration than posting "Me, too!" and that's not only 
replying to my own message, but saying "Nevermind."  

According to a mesasge on the HPfGU-OTChatter board, the posts that were 
down for maintenance this weekend are re-emerging piecemeal, and the basic 
HPFGU board should return some time today.  So sorry for adding to the 
(relatively) OT thread here.




From john at walton.vu  Mon Mar 18 14:20:04 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:20:04 +0000
Subject: ADMIN: OT: What happened to HPFGU?
In-Reply-To: <a74ps6+52np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B8BBA814.CC53%john@walton.vu>

Unfortunately, it appears that Penny's Yahoo account was hacked into and,
subsequently, HPforGrownups and several of the associated lists have been
deleted.

*However*, we do have copies of the membership lists and a full archive of
almost every post made. If people could please refrain from deleting any
HPFGU posts they might have, in digest form or individual emails, it would
be very helpful when trying to put our archives back together if they are
permanently gone. The Mods will put out a call for help here or via
individual email to all members.

The Mods apologise for the inconvenience. Yahoo are uncontactable until 8 am
US Pacific Time (4PM UK time), at which point we will be telephoning them as
a matter of urgency.

Please, remain calm, don't panic, and study your emergency cards carefully.
Lifejackets are underneath or beside your seats...

--John, for the Magical Moderator Team

__________________________________
John, Mod With Rock #47
For the HPforGrownups Moderator Team
HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com

Please read our Admin Files, particularly the VFAQ and Netiquette files!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin




From allyse1138 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 18 20:06:06 2002
From: allyse1138 at yahoo.com (allyse1138)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:06:06 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: OT: What happened to HPFGU?
In-Reply-To: <B8BBA814.CC53%john@walton.vu>
Message-ID: <a75hbe+k7hg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., John Walton <john at w...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it appears that Penny's Yahoo account was hacked 
into and,
> subsequently, HPforGrownups and several of the associated lists 
have been
> deleted.

Wow, how very frustrating! I hope the culprit gets a king-sized 
Howler for such anti-social behavior. :(

Thanks for the heads-up, and I'm sure we'll all try to behave and 
wait patiently. I tip my hat to you, Penny, and all the mods for your 
hard work and dedication on the behalf of us all.

Allyse




From john at walton.vu  Mon Mar 18 21:32:08 2002
From: john at walton.vu (johnwaltonvu)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:32:08 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: HPforGrownups status report
Message-ID: <a75mco+uh5@eGroups.com>



On Sunday, March 17, various HPforGrownups groups, including 
HPforGrownups itself, were hacked and deleted. 

HPforGrownups' Mods are working with Yahoo to have the groups restored, 
and expect everything to be up and running again by Wednesday. 

The Moderators, List Elves and members of HPforGrownups are shocked at 
the betrayal of trust by those responsible for the hacking. 

We're severely disappointed at how a very small group of people have 
managed to throw our friendly community into chaos. 

We, with help from Yahoo, are doing our utmost to track down those 
responsible and are working to get the lists back online. 

Until then, please use our OTChatter group at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter for both off topic and on 
topic discussions.

Regards, 

The Moderators of HPforGrownups




From heidi at blaydz.com  Mon Mar 18 23:05:56 2002
From: heidi at blaydz.com (heidi at blaydz.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: win a Harry Potter sweater!
Message-ID: <20020318150558.6002.c001-h017.c001.wm@mail.blaydz.com.criticalpath.net>


In the Spring 2002 edition of "Interweave Knits" 
(found obscurely in 
bookstores and knitting shops and at
http://interweave.com/knit/knits/  ),
there's an article on knitting the sweaters of the
movie. Supposedly,
the sweaters had to look as if made by a 'rather poor
knitter' because
Mrs. Weasley is described in the book as such (where is
this reference!?)
There is also a picture of Daniel Radcliffe wearing the
dark blue sweater
with the 'H' placed rather high on the chest. After all
of the work of the
knitters, most of the scenes with the sweaters ended up
on the cutting
room floor.
Anyway,  they also list a contest, of which I'm not
sure I can list the specifics,
on winning this sweater, in any size and probably still
poorly knitted, 
by sending in a postcard to the magazine.

Heidi





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Mon Mar 18 23:56:56 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:56:56 -0000
Subject: win a Harry Potter sweater!
In-Reply-To: <20020318150558.6002.c001-h017.c001.wm@mail.blaydz.com.criticalpath.net>
Message-ID: <a75us8+cgns@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., heidi at b... wrote:
> 
> Supposedly,
> the sweaters had to look as if made by a 'rather poor
> knitter' because
> Mrs. Weasley is described in the book as such (where is
> this reference!?)

I can't recall any, but Fred  comments on Harry's sweater: 

"Harry's is better than ours, though," said Fred, holding up Harry's sweater. "She 
obviously makes more of an effort if you're not family."

And then:

"Percy Weasley stuck his head through the door, looking
disapproving. He had clearly gotten halfway through unwrapping his
presents as he, too, carried a lumpy sweater over his arm,"

Lumpy is not good.  But By PoA, she seems to have improved enough to tackle a 
rather tricky project:
"Mrs. Weasley had sent him a scarlet sweater with the Gryffindor lion knitted on 
the front, "

And again in Gof:
"Mrs. Weasley's usual package, including a new sweater (green, with a picture of 
a dragon on it - Harry supposed Charlie had told her all about the Horntail)"

Knitting-in  pictures of lions and dragons is not for the poor, amateur knitter!

And since this is the therapy board for the HP-OCD-afflicted, let's not forget to 
note that Ron gives Dobby his Christmas sweater in GoF.  Also, one of Harry's 
pre-Hogwarts magic episodes was the case of the mysteriously shrinking ugly 
sweater.





From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Mar 19 02:48:01 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:48:01 -0000
Subject: discuss a Harry Potter sweater!
In-Reply-To: <a75us8+cgns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a768t1+j0uj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:

> Lumpy is not good.  But By PoA, she seems to have improved enough
> to tackle a rather tricky project:
> "Mrs. Weasley had sent him a scarlet sweater with the Gryffindor 
> lion knitted on the front, "
> 
> And again in Gof:
> "Mrs. Weasley's usual package, including a new sweater (green, with
> a picture of a dragon on it - Harry supposed Charlie had told her 
> all about the Horntail)"
> 
> Knitting-in  pictures of lions and dragons is not for the poor, 
> amateur knitter!

I agree that knitting-in pictures is hard. I can't change colors 
without leaving big holes. Maybe Molly embroidered the pictures and 
letters onto the fronts, rather than knitting them in. In the usual 
cop-out, this is all from Harry's POV and Harry wouldn't know 
whether it was knitted in or embroidered unless he made a point 
of looking inside the sweater.




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Tue Mar 19 04:03:57 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:03:57 -0000
Subject: The "Finding Flamel" scene
Message-ID: <a76dbd+4anv@eGroups.com>

Did anyone else take the bait and preorder the DVD of _Harry Potter 
and the Sorcerer's Stone_ from Amazon? If you do you get to view a 
deleted scene from the film that shows the Trio chatting in the Great 
Hall before they finally notice the mention of Flamel on Dumbledore's 
Chocolate Frog card. It's cute in that it revolves around Ron and 
Hermione squabbling with each other while Harry just sort of laughs 
at the two of them. 

But the weird thing about it is that Neville makes an appearance in 
the clip and it portrays him in a really OOC way. From what I recall 
of the movie, Neville's character wasn't developed a whole lot in the 
first place. In this clip he limps in suffering from a leg-locker 
curse. Instead of undoing the curse Hermione *totally ignores it* and 
the whole Trio lets him limp around and finally abandons him there, 
still locked, at the end of the scene. It's Seamus who tries to undo 
the curse for him but Neville angrily protests, citing, of all 
things, Seamus's lack-of-expertise with magic. Which struck me as 
really random; Neville never refuses any help in canon, much less 
gets rude and angry with someone for trying to help him.

Granted, the scene was deleted in the first place, and it's clear the 
whole thing was staged for comic effect, but still it makes me wonder 
where they thought they would've gone with Neville's character if 
they'd had more time. I was wondering what other people thought.

~~Porphyria





From degroote at altavista.com  Tue Mar 19 05:09:55 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (kitty_felini)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:09:55 -0000
Subject: discuss a Harry Potter sweater!
In-Reply-To: <a768t1+j0uj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a76h73+437b@eGroups.com>

> --- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
<SNIP> 
> I agree that knitting-in pictures is hard. I can't change colors 
> without leaving big holes. Maybe Molly embroidered the pictures 
and 
> letters onto the fronts, rather than knitting them in. In the 
usual 
> cop-out, this is all from Harry's POV and Harry wouldn't know 
> whether it was knitted in or embroidered unless he made a point 
> of looking inside the sweater.

Let's not forget, she IS a witch!  She may be trying out knitting as 
a fun muggle hobby (rubbing off from Arthur).  Then, she eventually 
decides "oh the hell with it" and magics them to look better and to 
have cool pictures on the front.  That's what I'd do!

Kitty  




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 19 05:15:12 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:15:12 -0000
Subject: Neville and characterization
In-Reply-To: <a76dbd+4anv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a76hh0+h2kf@eGroups.com>

Porphyria wonders:

<<
Granted, the scene was deleted in the first place, and
it's clear the whole thing was staged for comic effect,
but still it makes me wonder where they thought they
would've gone with Neville's character if they'd had
more time. I was wondering what other people thought.
>>

I agree; the scene has poor characterization all around,
and shouldn't have gone in the movie. There are two
other points where I think the screenwriter sacrificed
character for humor:

1. Hagrid's excessive stupidity: "Shouldn'ta said that!"
2. Seamus inexplicably taking over Neville's slapstick
schtick. What's the point?

As to what might have happened to Neville with more
time, I shudder to think. His major personality trait
(at least as far as the first book goes) has already
gone to Seamus; what's left? Lots more scenes of him
searching for Trevor or staring despondently at his red
Rememberall, I guess. There isn't much more for him to
do in book one, anyway. I'm hoping they won't confuse
him with Seamus for the next movies, though! He gets 
so interesting in GoF....

--Anna




From ITZregina at hanson.net  Tue Mar 19 15:12:12 2002
From: ITZregina at hanson.net (River3_98)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:12:12 -0000
Subject: ? about the sweater scene in the movie.
Message-ID: <a77kgc+hji8@eGroups.com>

WB has the "deleted" scenes for us to watch, as you all know, and 
that scene wasn't in the clip.  Neither was the tarantula or 
Gringotts ride.  These last two WERE made according to Cinefex 
magazine.  Do you think what they showed us on the clips will be all 
that we get on the DVD?

Gina




From catalyna_99 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 19 15:33:11 2002
From: catalyna_99 at yahoo.com (Cat)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:33:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: win a Harry Potter sweater!
In-Reply-To: <a75us8+cgns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020319153311.53273.qmail@web10705.mail.yahoo.com>


--- joanne0012 <Joanne0012 at aol.com> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., heidi at b... wrote:
> > 
> > Supposedly,
> > the sweaters had to look as if made by a 'rather
> poor
> > knitter' because
> > Mrs. Weasley is described in the book as such
> (where is
> > this reference!?)
> 
> I can't recall any, but Fred  comments on Harry's
> sweater: 
> 
> "Harry's is better than ours, though," said Fred,
> holding up Harry's sweater. "She 
> obviously makes more of an effort if you're not
> family."
> 
> And then:
> 
> "Percy Weasley stuck his head through the door,
> looking
> disapproving. He had clearly gotten halfway through
> unwrapping his
> presents as he, too, carried a lumpy sweater over
> his arm,"
> 
> Lumpy is not good.  But By PoA, she seems to have
> improved enough to tackle a 
> rather tricky project:
> "Mrs. Weasley had sent him a scarlet sweater with
> the Gryffindor lion knitted on 
> the front, "
> 

But lumpy doesn't mean anything of the knitter.  It
might mean the type of wool.  Or she can be the type
of knitter that tries really unusual patterns. 
Remember the description of the sweater that Harry
shrunk?  

Cat

=====
Cat

Life's like a movie. Write your own ending. Keep believing, keep pretending.--Kermit the Frog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/



From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Mar 19 15:48:06 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:48:06 -0000
Subject: win a Harry Potter sweater!
In-Reply-To: <20020319153311.53273.qmail@web10705.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a77mjm+54up@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Cat <catalyna_99 at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- joanne0012 <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> 
> > "Percy Weasley stuck his head through the door,
> > looking
> > disapproving. He had clearly gotten halfway through
> > unwrapping his
> > presents as he, too, carried a lumpy sweater over
> > his arm,"
> > 
> > Lumpy is not good.  But By PoA, she seems to have
> > improved enough to tackle a 
> > rather tricky project:
> 
> But lumpy doesn't mean anything of the knitter.  It
> might mean the type of wool.  Or she can be the type
> of knitter that tries really unusual patterns. 
> Remember the description of the sweater that Harry
> shrunk?  
> 

Hmmm, I guess it's just a matter of semantics.  I assumed that "lumpy" referred 
to the sweater's being misshapen.  It didn't occur to me that she'd use fancy 
textured wool (which is expensive) or 3-D patterns (the sweater via Mrs. Dursley 
had "puff balls", yikes) on sweaters that also had an initial knit in, but now that I 
think about it, our Molly might just try that!   Just another HP mystery, I 
suppose.




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 19 19:07:57 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:07:57 -0000
Subject: ? about the sweater scene in the movie.
In-Reply-To: <a77kgc+hji8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a782ad+vke1@eGroups.com>

Gina asks:

<<
WB has the "deleted" scenes for us to watch, as you
all know, and  that scene wasn't in the clip. Neither
was the tarantula or  Gringotts ride. These last two
WERE made according to Cinefex  magazine. Do you
think what they showed us on the clips will be all
that we get on the DVD?
>>

No - supposedly, there's going to be ten minutes of
deleted scenes. Unless the ones shown are really long,
there's got to be more footage. That clip's just a
teaser.

--Anna




From ITZregina at hanson.net  Tue Mar 26 21:48:52 2002
From: ITZregina at hanson.net (River3_98)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:48:52 -0000
Subject: Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
Message-ID: <a7qqc4+kfnp@eGroups.com>

  I think it might get one for POA.  POA has a complex plot compared 
to booka 1 and 2.  The children will have a lot more acting 
experience under their belts.  Also, the kinks should be work out of 
the CGI's.

Gina




From john at walton.vu  Tue Mar 26 21:55:57 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:55:57 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an
	Oscar?
In-Reply-To: <a7qqc4+kfnp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B8C69EEC.D83C%john@walton.vu>

River3_98 wrote:

> Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?

Not at this rate. If Columbus gets his act together and makes the kids less
wooden, the CGI halfway decent, someone else for Dumbledore, an adaptation
which is true not only to the letter but to the *spirit* of the books, then
it *might* be possible.

Of course, it could also run into the problem that the Academy are
disparaging towards any film which is popular.

At any rate, I certainly don't think it deserved to win anything for the
PS/SS effort, as much as I enjoyed the film while in the cinema.

--John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter Jackson from LOTR.
 
____________________________________________

"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
-'Mick Travers', Malcolm McDowell's character in "If..." (1968)

John Walton || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________




From Schlobin1 at aol.com  Wed Mar 27 02:43:26 2002
From: Schlobin1 at aol.com (Schlobin1 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:43:26 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
Message-ID: <b8.2501b803.29d28bce@aol.com>

In a message dated 3/26/2002 5:24:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, john at walton.vu 
writes:


> John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter Jackson from LOTR.
> 

Wouldn't that be nice...but Jackson sounds busy....still editing the Two 
Towers and Return of the King....





"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden 
resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents 
a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays 
Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied:

'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential 
about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew 
more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 27 04:17:24 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:17:24 -0000
Subject: Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
In-Reply-To: <B8C69EEC.D83C%john@walton.vu>
Message-ID: <a7rh4k+10ldt@eGroups.com>

John opines (and I hope that's a word):

<<
At any rate, I certainly don't think it deserved to
win anything for the PS/SS effort, as much as I
enjoyed the film while in the cinema.

--John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with
Peter Jackson from LOTR.
>>

I agree completely, although I would argue that the
biggest problem with Columbus' directing is in the
way he frames shots rather than in the way he directs
the actors. The scene where the kids meet Fluffy and
scream made me cringe, as did the constant floor-cam
shots of Snape. Columbus only has a career because
he had the good sense to do a John Hughes movie. =P

Oh, well. I still can't wait for the DVD. The extra
features are making me drool already...plus it'll
hopefully tide me over until OotP is released!

--Anna




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Wed Mar 27 04:19:04 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:19:04 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Do you think HP will ever have a shot at
  anOscar?
In-Reply-To: <B8C69EEC.D83C%john@walton.vu>
References: <a7qqc4+kfnp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020326231904.00a1adf0@pop.iglou.com>

At 09:55 PM 3/26/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>River3_98 wrote:
>
>> Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
>
>Not at this rate. If Columbus gets his act together and makes the kids less
>wooden, the CGI halfway decent, someone else for Dumbledore, an adaptation
>which is true not only to the letter but to the *spirit* of the books, then
>it *might* be possible.

I think the kids are fine.  They need to work on the CGI, though.  And a
little creative tinkering couldn't hurt.  I think Prisoner of Azkaban
definitely has the potential for an Oscar, if it is done correctly.

>Of course, it could also run into the problem that the Academy are
>disparaging towards any film which is popular.

I don't think it's popular films that get disparaged so much as *fantasy*
films.  There's no other explanation for why Peter Jackson didn't clean up
Sunday night, IMO.

>--John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter Jackson from LOTR.

Hey, leave him alone for at least two years...he's busy! ;)

Shannon
 >




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Wed Mar 27 04:40:19 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:40:19 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Do you think HP will ever have a shot at anOscar?
References: <a7qqc4+kfnp@eGroups.com> <3.0.1.32.20020326231904.00a1adf0@pop.iglou.com>
Message-ID: <3CA14D33.9D78FFD8@kingwoodcable.com>

Shannon wrote:
> 
> At 09:55 PM 3/26/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >River3_98 wrote:
> >
> >> Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
> >
> >Not at this rate. If Columbus gets his act together and makes the kids less
> >wooden, the CGI halfway decent, someone else for Dumbledore, an adaptation
> >which is true not only to the letter but to the *spirit* of the books, then
> >it *might* be possible.
> 
> I think the kids are fine.  They need to work on the CGI, though.  And a
> little creative tinkering couldn't hurt.  I think Prisoner of Azkaban
> definitely has the potential for an Oscar, if it is done correctly.

I completely agree that the children were fine. In two more movies they
will excellent! I also agree the PoA has the greatest potential. GoF is
complex, but I think it's going to be hard to make a cohesive movie with
the story. 

As for Dumbledore - I've seen Harris be the Dumbledore that I expected
when he was in Count of Monte Cristo. I don't think it's that Harris is
bad, I'm just not sure if he actually knows the character (he hasn't
read the books). There was a Dumbledore glimmer in the hospital scene
which gives me hope.

> 
> >Of course, it could also run into the problem that the Academy are
> >disparaging towards any film which is popular.
> 
> I don't think it's popular films that get disparaged so much as *fantasy*
> films.  There's no other explanation for why Peter Jackson didn't clean up
> Sunday night, IMO.
> 
> >--John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter Jackson from LOTR.
> 
> Hey, leave him alone for at least two years...he's busy! ;)

Columbus did fine, and I'd prefer Jackson work on LotR so the next two
movies will be top notch! After the next two movies with Columbus
directing, I'm not sure I'm going to want another director taking over. 

-Katze (who fancies a Tim Burton version of HP (Johnny Depp as Snape?).
Burton and Depp make such a great pair!)



From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Wed Mar 27 12:12:20 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:12:20 EST
Subject: OT While awaiting the hpDVD...
Message-ID: <169.b084d56.29d31124@aol.com>

... watched The Magical Legends of the Leprechauns last night which I had 
ordered on DVD.  Its a wonderful movie, with added scenes from the original 
video.  Set in Ireland, its sort of two love stories in one, both in the 
human and fae/'chaun world, with humor and action.  Beautifully filmed, full 
of magic.  Almost 3 hours long! Highly recommended.  Anyone else have 
favourite magical movies, especially less known or newer releases?
~shahara


shahara lefay * pagan priestess 
^^serendipitously smitten with severus snape^^
**lurid lover to lucius** 
~hereditery helpmate for hagrid~ 
icq   # 152784873



From ITZregina at hanson.net  Wed Mar 27 17:09:30 2002
From: ITZregina at hanson.net (River3_98)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:09:30 -0000
Subject: Any pics floating around of Maggie and Daniel at the Oscars?
Message-ID: <a7suca+ng9c@eGroups.com>

All I can find are pics of those darn Oscar winners ;-)

Gina




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Mar 27 21:46:41 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:46:41 -0800
Subject: Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
In-Reply-To: <1017243167.276.49935.m12@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1017243167.276.49935.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <2270381855.20020327134641@mindspring.com>


>> Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?

HMyc> Not at this rate. If Columbus gets his act together and makes the kids less
HMyc> wooden...

I think they were fine.

HMyc> ... the CGI halfway decent...

It wasn't *that* bad, it's just that centaur...

HMyc> ... someone else for Dumbledore...

I nominate Sir John Mills!

HMyc> an adaptation
HMyc> which is true not only to the letter but to the *spirit* of
HMyc> the books...

I think "spirit" is more important than "letter".

HMyc> At any rate, I certainly don't think it deserved to win anything for the
HMyc> PS/SS effort, as much as I enjoyed the film while in the cinema.

It's wondeful to see the Potterverse "come to life" of course, but as
a movie in its own right, no, I don't think it's in any way outstanding.

HMyc> --John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter Jackson
HMyc> from LOTR.

And John Williams sacked and replaced with either John Barry or
Vangelis!

-- 
Dave




From saitaina at wizzards.net  Tue Mar 26 23:01:45 2002
From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:01:45 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] OT While awaiting the hpDVD...
References: <169.b084d56.29d31124@aol.com>
Message-ID: <01b501c1d51a$3489da00$814e28d1@oemcomputer>

Shahara wrote-

<Its a wonderful movie, with added scenes from the original 
video.  Set in Ireland, its sort of two love stories in one, both in the 
human and fae/'chaun world, with humor and action.  Beautifully filmed, full 
of magic.  Almost 3 hours long! Highly recommended.  Anyone else have 
favourite magical movies, especially less known or newer releases?>

I found this movie rather dull as you could predict the next line of action even without the glimpses NBC gave (I also own it on video because I'm a sucker for the story line.

A magickal movie that was also a television mini movie I adore is 10th Kingdom.  10 hours of fairytales brought alive and into the modern world.  

Blurb from the back: At the edge of the mortal world lies a mystical vortex which leads to the Nine Kingdoms, a fantastic land where fairy tales are reinvented...and not with happily-ever-after results!  An evil queen has just doomed Prince Wendell to life as a dog.  His quest to recapture the throne leads him through a portal into the mythical Tenth Kingdom...Central Park!  With the help of ordinary mortals Virginia and Tony, they battle evil in a parallel universe of vile trolls, goblins and every fairy tale character imaginable.  

The movie is better then it sounds and while some parts I just want to shake my head at I still enjoy putting this on for a full day of fairy tale fun.  The effects are stunning, the sets are beautiful and the actors have nothing wrong with them.  It's available on DVD, video and re airs in the summer on NBC when they can fit it in.

Saitaina


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 28 00:57:01 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:57:01 -0000
Subject: Any pics floating around of Maggie and Daniel at the Oscars?
In-Reply-To: <a7suca+ng9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a7tpot+8rst@eGroups.com>

"River3_98" <ITZregina at h...> wrote:
> All I can find are pics of those darn Oscar winners ;-)

The Snitch posted one each:

http://www.thesnitch.co.uk/news/files/pic02.jpg (Dan)
http://www.thesnitch.co.uk/news/files/pic04.jpg (Maggie)

Intro text and other pictures at:
http://www.thesnitch.co.uk/news/






From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 28 03:38:35 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:38:35 -0000
Subject: OT While awaiting the hpDVD...
In-Reply-To: <169.b084d56.29d31124@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a7u37r+oucf@eGroups.com>

Shahara shares, then asks:

<<
Anyone else have favourite magical movies, especially
less known or newer releases?
>>

You're trying to avoid getting 800 responses of "The
Princess Bride" aren't you? Well, my vote's for that
one. :)

Although I'm also very partial to "Deathstalker and
the Warriors From Hell" as shown on Mystery Science
Theater 3000. I wouldn't advise watching it in its
pure, unadulterated form, though.

I've heard that the BBC miniseries "Gormenghast" is
also really good, and it's got three HP actors in it:
Fiona Shaw, Richard Griffiths, and Zoe Wanamaker
(Petunia & Vernon Dursley and Madame Hooch). I
haven't been able to find it to rent, alas, but it
looks fantastic:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/gormenghast/

I'm reading the first of the books, and it's
wonderfully eccentric...and to think, I'd never
heard of Peake until I stumbled across that site and
started looking at the costume designs.

--Anna




From catmarky11 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 28 13:01:44 2002
From: catmarky11 at yahoo.com (catmarky11)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:01:44 -0000
Subject: Do you think HP will ever have a shot at anOscar?
In-Reply-To: <3CA14D33.9D78FFD8@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a7v47o+q2do@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:
> Shannon wrote:
> > 
> > At 09:55 PM 3/26/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > >River3_98 wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do you think HP will ever have a shot at an Oscar?
> > >
> > >Not at this rate. If Columbus gets his act together and makes 
the kids less
> > >wooden, the CGI halfway decent, someone else for Dumbledore, an 
adaptation
> > >which is true not only to the letter but to the *spirit* of the 
books, then
> > >it *might* be possible.
> > 
> > I think the kids are fine.  They need to work on the CGI, 
though.  And a
> > little creative tinkering couldn't hurt.  I think Prisoner of 
Azkaban
> > definitely has the potential for an Oscar, if it is done 
correctly.
> 
> I completely agree that the children were fine. In two more movies 
they
> will excellent! I also agree the PoA has the greatest potential. 
GoF is
> complex, but I think it's going to be hard to make a cohesive movie 
with
> the story. 
> 
> As for Dumbledore - I've seen Harris be the Dumbledore that I 
expected
> when he was in Count of Monte Cristo. I don't think it's that 
Harris is
> bad, I'm just not sure if he actually knows the character (he hasn't
> read the books). There was a Dumbledore glimmer in the hospital 
scene
> which gives me hope.
> 
> > 
> > >Of course, it could also run into the problem that the Academy 
are
> > >disparaging towards any film which is popular.
> > 
> > I don't think it's popular films that get disparaged so much as 
*fantasy*
> > films.  There's no other explanation for why Peter Jackson didn't 
clean up
> > Sunday night, IMO.
> > 
> > >--John, who wants Columbus sacked and replaced with Peter 
Jackson from LOTR.
> > 
> > Hey, leave him alone for at least two years...he's busy! ;)
> 
> Columbus did fine, and I'd prefer Jackson work on LotR so the next 
two
> movies will be top notch! After the next two movies with Columbus
> directing, I'm not sure I'm going to want another director taking 
over. 
> 
> -Katze (who fancies a Tim Burton version of HP (Johnny Depp as 
Snape?).
> Burton and Depp make such a great pair!)

its funny you should mention johnny depp, i picture him as the 
perfect sirius!!!  he's definitly got the scruffy thing down and he 
is soooo sexxxxy!!!!!






From ITZregina at hanson.net  Thu Mar 28 17:39:23 2002
From: ITZregina at hanson.net (River3_98)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:39:23 -0000
Subject: Any pics floating around of Maggie and Daniel at the Oscars?
In-Reply-To: <a7tpot+8rst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a7vkgb+858j@eGroups.com>

  Thank you!

  I DID happen on a clip of Daniel, but the pic on the Snitch was 
much clearer.
   
  My daughters were like, "Who is that?" when I showed them the pic 
of Maggie Smith.  They didn't recognize her with her hair down.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 28 21:46:25 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:46:25 -0000
Subject: OT While awaiting the hpDVD...
In-Reply-To: <169.b084d56.29d31124@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a802vh+5edn@eGroups.com>

Shahara asked:

 Anyone else have  favourite magical movies, especially less 
known or newer releases?
> 
> 

Oldies but goodies:
The Secret of Roan Inish, about a little girl who just may have 
selkies in the family.

Dreamchild, a story about the real Alice of Alice in Wonderland, 
Alice Liddel, including a Muppet version of the mad tea party.

Pippin




From kechelsen at aol.com  Thu Mar 28 22:21:51 2002
From: kechelsen at aol.com (kathye_c)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:21:51 -0000
Subject: Question about the DVD
Message-ID: <a8051v+l49i@eGroups.com>

I was looking at the DVD page over at Amazon.com, and I noticed they 
had two versions -- wide screen and full screen.  Which would be 
better to get?

Kathy




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 29 01:00:14 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:00:14 -0000
Subject: Question about the DVD
In-Reply-To: <a8051v+l49i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a80eau+fsss@eGroups.com>

"kathye_c" <kechelsen at a...> wrote:
> I was looking at the DVD page over at Amazon.com, and I noticed 
they 
> had two versions -- wide screen and full screen.  Which would be 
> better to get?

Assuming you have a stabdard 4:3 TV (rather than widescreen), it 
depends on whether it's more important to you to see the whole 
picture as filmed, or to fill the whole of your TV screen with only 
2/3 of the original picture...

Personally, I'd not be seen dead with a "full screen" DVD given the 
choice. The proliferation of widescreen product on DVD is the main 
reason for my support of the format.







From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 29 04:17:29 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:17:29 -0000
Subject: Question about the DVD
In-Reply-To: <a8051v+l49i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a80psp+79em@eGroups.com>

Kathy writes:

<<
I was looking at the DVD page over at Amazon.com,
and I noticed they  had two versions -- wide screen
and full screen.  Which would be better to get?
>>

This site will answer all your questions about the
two formats:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/

My personal opinion is that widescreen is always
better, because you see the frame exactly how the
director intended you to see it. That site has all
kinds of pictures showing the differences between
the two - it made a believer out of me.

--Anna




From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 25 22:48:48 2002
From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:48:48 -0000
Subject: Casting 2 Tim's - Curry & Roth
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313103640.00b8b7c0@mail.aracnet.com>
Message-ID: <a7o9gg+vb1o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., CB <eleri at a...> wrote:
> At 04:54 PM 3/13/02 +0000, you wrote:
> > > Although I would not have said no to Tim Curry in the
> > > same role....
> >
> >Funny you should say that:
> >
> >In my mind, I "heard" Tim Curry "voicing" GILDEROY (a la
> >Frankenfurter, no less) when I read CoS.
> 
> Nonononono...he should be Riddle! He does reasonable yet deeply 
nasty so *well*

Not that Kenneth Branagh won't do a good Gilderoy but Tim Curry would 
leer ever so deliciously as the ever so smarmy & self-obsessed Prof. 
Lockhart.

Since Tim Roth didn't end up as Snape, I nominate him for Riddle.

:) OTR, sorry she took so long to answer...
 
 
       




From editor at texas.net  Fri Mar 29 16:45:19 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:45:19 -0600
Subject: OT but Important-->Check your yahoo profile to avoid spam
Message-ID: <007e01c1d741$1e63fd40$5a7c63d1@texas.net>

I apologize; I ordinarily neither forward things nor spread alarmist
messages. In this case I believe it is warranted. The following came from a
quite reliable listmember of another Yahoo group I'm on. He verified it, and
I just have.

I know not all the main list members are on the peripheral lists, hence my
post to everyone.

What I think must have happened is that when Yahoo did its "routine
maintenance" or whatever, when the groups were down for a weekend a little
bit ago, everyone's marketing preferences got reset.

Everyone's in for a World O'Spam, in virtual *and* actual modes (it re-set
the ways you get information delivered to include via U.S. mail and phone!)
unless they go change it back. I just had to re-set mine. Instructions on
how to fix this egregious invasion are in the forwarded message below.

--Amandageist

----- Original Message -----
From: "Blaise de Cormeilles"
Subject: check your yahoo profile to avoid spam


> ----- Forwarded message from a Yahoo group -----
>
> **If you're using Yahoogroups (and you probably are, since this list
> is run through Yahoogroups), make sure you go and change your profile.
> Yahoo has just made a sneaky change to everybody's 'Marketing
> Preferences', the result of which will be a load of spam. To change
> them back here's what you need to do to avoid all the ads:
>
> Go to My Groups and click on Account Info, verify your password if it
> asks you to, and your Yahoo ID card comes up. Click on 'Edit your
> Marketing Preferences' and change ALL the Yes buttons to NO.
> Click Save Changes.
>
> I've done mine already, and I was shocked to see what they'd signed me
> up to receive without telling me! If you actually gave them your
> address and phone # in your profile, they've signed you up for phone
> and postal spam as well as email.  Make sure they are marked NO as
> well.**
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> This applies to anyone who has *any* form of Yahoo ID -- groups,
> messenger, email...  I've confirmed that it's for real.
>
> Blaise
> --
> Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else  O-    /"\
> SKA Seigneur Blaise de Cormeilles           \ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
> Silver Nautilus Pursuivant, Atlantia         X    HELP CURE HTML MAIL
> Webmaster, Academy of S. Gabriel            / \
>




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Mon Mar 25 00:09:29 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (shahara9)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:09:29 -0000
Subject: Oscar Night!!!
Message-ID: <a7lprp+li6b@eGroups.com>

Harry Potter is up for various awards...I'm looking for the list.  I'd 
love it if at least one actor would win, as well as the music and set!  
Anyone have more information?
~shahara in 




From southernscotland at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 30 00:42:28 2002
From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:42:28 -0000
Subject: Question about the DVD
In-Reply-To: <a80eau+fsss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a831lk+m7hj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "GulPlum" <plumeski at y...> wrote:
> "kathye_c" <kechelsen at a...> wrote:
> > I was looking at the DVD page over at Amazon.com, and I noticed 
> they 
> > had two versions -- wide screen and full screen.  Which would be 
> > better to get?
> 
> Assuming you have a stabdard 4:3 TV (rather than widescreen), it 
> depends on whether it's more important to you to see the whole 
> picture as filmed, or to fill the whole of your TV screen with only 
> 2/3 of the original picture...
> 
> Personally, I'd not be seen dead with a "full screen" DVD given the 
> choice. The proliferation of widescreen product on DVD is the main 
> reason for my support of the format.

Okay, thanks for that post! I have a question, too!

I've heard that there is a DVD version which plays on a computer and 
is interactive, linking with a Web site and such. I'm sorry to be so 
ignorant, but is this the same one as the regular DVD format? 

I don't have a computer with DVD capabilities, but my daughter does. 
I have a DVD player, and I would just as soon only buy one copy of 
the DVD. 

Please let me know - and in layman's terms, please. I've asked folks 
at a movie rental place and my brother's computer tech. Neither knows.
Maybe it's all the same!

Thanks!


lilahp




From degroote at altavista.com  Sat Mar 30 02:15:31 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 29 Mar 2002 18:15:31 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Digest Number 177
Message-ID: <20020330021531.14955.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-movie/attachments/20020329/6fed2887/attachment.ksh>

From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 30 02:20:27 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:20:27 -0000
Subject: Question about the DVD
In-Reply-To: <a831lk+m7hj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a837db+t5po@eGroups.com>

Lilahp writes:

<<
I've heard that there is a DVD version which plays on
a computer and is interactive, linking with a Web site
and such. I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but is this
the same one as the regular DVD format? 
>>

I imagine the extra material is just on the disc
(separate from the movie) and a different menu that
allows you to access the interactive features will
come when up you stick the disc in the computer's DVD
drive. At least, that's how my House On Haunted Hill
DVD works, and as far as I know, there was only one
edition of that. Because nobody likes that movie but
me. ^_~

Basically, everything on the disc is data, including
the movie. The bonus interactive stuff is just in a
format that can be read by a computer and not a
regular DVD player.

Hope that helps!
--Anna




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 30 06:04:29 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:04:29 -0000
Subject: Oscar Night!!!
In-Reply-To: <a7lprp+li6b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a83khd+qre7@eGroups.com>

Shahara in WI writes:

<<
Harry Potter is up for various awards...I'm looking for
the list. I'd love it if at least one actor would win,
as well as the music and set! Anyone have more
information?
>>

Yup:
http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/winners_list.html

There were no acting nominations, just Art Direction/
Set Decoration, Costume Design, and Original Score. The
winners were Moulin Rouge, Moulin Rouge, and Lord of
the Rings, respectively.

I will not rant on the Oscars. I will not rant on the
Oscars. I will not rant on the Oscars. I see birds in
blue skies, I see green pastures, I see fluffy bunnies.
Mustn't hate, mustn't hate, mustn't rant....

--Anna




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Mar 30 14:05:36 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:05:36 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Oscar Night!!!
Message-ID: <11d.e9c4595.29d72030@aol.com>

Yes, Anna...I will not rant either...better luck next year.  Whats really 
weird is I sent that post out last Monday night and it shows up late Friday 
night.  Yahoo's belching slugs!
~shahara
(who found Princess Bride at Shopko yesterday for $6...thanks!)

<< There were no acting nominations, just Art Direction/
Set Decoration, Costume Design, and Original Score. The
winners were Moulin Rouge, Moulin Rouge, and Lord of
the Rings, respectively.

I will not rant on the Oscars >>




shahara lefay * pagan priestess 
^^serendipitously smitten with severus snape^^
**lurid lover to lucius** 
~hereditery helpmate for hagrid~ 
icq   # 152784873



From ComtessadeChats at cs.com  Wed Mar 27 17:52:22 2002
From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:52:22 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Any pics floating around of Maggie and Daniel at the Oscars?
Message-ID: <143.bd12f65.29d360d6@cs.com>

In a message dated 3/27/02 10:13:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
ITZregina at hanson.net writes:

> All I can find are pics of those darn Oscar winners ;-)
>  

  Was Daniel at the Oscars?  I really looked for him, but never saw him.

   ~~~LYSA~~~




From rosefee at citynet.net  Thu Mar 28 16:24:36 2002
From: rosefee at citynet.net (snapes_rose)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:24:36 -0000
Subject: Students Clothing
Message-ID: <a7vg44+f5el@eGroups.com>

HI Everybody,
I just got here because I have been wondering about something in the 
Movie:
Student Clothing

This is concerning the Students Clothing,if this had been disgustet 
already I apologize!!

In the movie, everyone(the Students) went shopping before they get to 
Hogwarts and get sortet, now after they got sortet had their Meal and 
went to bed we can see Harrys open Suitcase how can he have already 
Griffindor Clothes if he went shopping *before* the Sorting! 
Just like the other Student, all the 1st year Students had the 
Clothing Color of their Houses.

Anybody???

SnapesRose








From ITZregina at hanson.net  Sat Mar 30 20:49:37 2002
From: ITZregina at hanson.net (River3_98)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:49:37 -0000
Subject: Any pics floating around of Maggie and Daniel at the Oscars?
In-Reply-To: <143.bd12f65.29d360d6@cs.com>
Message-ID: <a858d2+4t5d@eGroups.com>

Maggie was there, but Daniel was on a short video clip talking about 
his favorite movie.

Gina




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 30 23:05:41 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:05:41 -0000
Subject: Students Clothing
In-Reply-To: <a7vg44+f5el@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a85gc5+8klg@eGroups.com>

"snapes_rose" <rosefee at c...> wrote:
> In the movie, everyone(the Students) went shopping before they get 
to 
> Hogwarts and get sortet, now after they got sortet had their Meal 
and 
> went to bed we can see Harrys open Suitcase how can he have already 
> Griffindor Clothes if he went shopping *before* the Sorting! 
> Just like the other Student, all the 1st year Students had the 
> Clothing Color of their Houses.

It's not a suitcase - the House uniform (sweater, tie, scarf, gloves 
& cloak) is laid out neatly on a chair. I certainly wouldn't expect 
any 11 year-old boy to be that neat (furthermore, there's nothing 
else on the chair), so I assume that the set is left there by the 
elves, one set per pupil.







From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 31 02:28:53 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:28:53 -0000
Subject: Students Clothing
In-Reply-To: <a85gc5+8klg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a85s95+h44n@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "GulPlum" <plumeski at y...> wrote:
> "snapes_rose" <rosefee at c...> wrote:
> > how can he have already Griffindor Clothes if he went shopping 
> > *before* the Sorting! 
> > Just like the other Student, all the 1st year Students had the 
> > Clothing Color of their Houses.
> It's not a suitcase - the House uniform (sweater, tie, scarf, 
> gloves & cloak) is laid out neatly on a chair. I certainly 
> wouldn't expect any 11 year-old boy to be that neat (furthermore, 
> there's nothing else on the chair), so I assume that the set is 
> left there by the elves, one set per pupil.

Someone told me that when the students buy the clothing and wear it 
to be Sorted, the tie is black and white, and the trim on the 
waistcoat is purple and they change to the House colors when the Hat 
cries out its verdict. I assume the badge on the blazer appears, or 
changes from the Hogwarts badge to the House badge, at the same time. 
I assume that the outside clothing changes at the same time in the 
suitcase. 

I only saw the movie twice and both times I was distracted by 
watching the actors, so I am eagerly awaiting frame-by-frame 
examination of the DVD to see if that is true. Along with a lot of 
other things, like the name of the shop that has a cat as its sign and 
whether Draco is momentarily visible being fitted for robes in Madam 
Malkin's (the shop with the scissors for sign).




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 31 05:16:36 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:16:36 -0000
Subject: Oscar Night!!!
In-Reply-To: <11d.e9c4595.29d72030@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a8663k+6n24@eGroups.com>

Shahara in WI informations me:

<<
Yes, Anna...I will not rant either...better luck
next year.  Whats really weird is I sent that post
out last Monday night and it shows up late Friday
night. Yahoo's belching slugs!
>>

No kidding. I haven't actually posted anything on
the Off-Topic list for a few days, but my old posts
keep resurfacing, like Night of the Living Dead. Sigh!

Sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner. Guess it just
seemed strange to me that there was no Oscar
discussion on THIS list, of all lists.

--Anna, also in Wisconsin