"Aging" actors (I forgot the original thread title)

[Trisha Masen]

> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, CLShannon at a... wrote:
> > 
> > In a message dated 8/12/03 9:15:55 PM, swmil at m... writes:
> > 
> > << They ARE high. While many on this site thought the first
> > two movies were "so-so" or eye candy, I liked the trio very
> > much and the  movies. 
> > 
> > They're just fun!! >>
> > 
> > The actual paragraph says:
> > <<<A rep for Warners said the studio will likely bring back the
> > franchise's aging kid stars--Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and
> > Rupert Grint ...<<<<
> > ...edited...
> >
> > I know I would consider not even seeing GOF if they recast -
> > call me strange, but I can't accept new actors, especially if
> > any of the lines of the movie recall past events. It would be
> > too jarring,
> > Cindy
> 
> bboy_mn:
> 
> High? They are positively smoking crack.
> 
> And speaking of crack, what is this 'aging kid stars' crack.
> My mother at 75 is aging; Dan Radcliffe at 14 is not 'aging' in
> this context in any sense.
> ...edited...
> 
> The greatest threat to these movies is not the actors or the
> actors age, but the short sightedness of the studios. The attempt
> to make Goblet of Fire into a single 2.5 hour movie in
> unconscionable and irrational. 
> 
> The two existing movies by any standard were gutted to the limit.
> The movies, but more so CoS, jump from scene to scene with no
> explaination as to why things are happening, no plot development,
> no underlying character motivation. I have trouble believing that
> anyone who had never read the book could even make a coherent
> story out of what they were shown in CoS. Many of the scene that
> were filmed that developed the story line and explained people's
> action were found in the DVD extras. The movie would have been
> substantially improved if those scenes had been left in, and
> their total running time is not that much.
> 
> If they try to squeeze PoA, which I think is one of the most
> important movies in the franchise, into 2.5 hrs, they will gut it
> to the point where it is a pointless hollow shell. 
> 
> If they try to do that to GoF, there won't even be enough left to
> resemble a movie. Can they really squeeze a coherent trip to the
> World Cup, three Triwizards tasks, and the confrontation and
> resolution of an encounter with Voldemort in to 2.5 hrs? I don't
> think so. We are esentially talking about losing far far more
> than half the book, to make the movie. If they do that, I suspect
> this will be the last HP movie of any significants. I simple
> can't believe that any HP fan will be satisfied with the movie,
> and it will certainly not reach the near billion dollar mark that
> the other movies have. This will be the axe falling on the neck
> of the Golden Billion Dollar Goose.
> 
> What they realy need is a director and producer who have some
> independant artistic vision.
> ...edited...
>
> bboy_mn

Trisha:

I actually got into an argument - er, "dicussion" - with someone on an airplane recently about the "aging" problem.  There was a woman two rows back as we were exiting who had OotP and I asked her how she liked it.  She said she was enjoying it.  We got to talking about the movie and I imparted my knowledge about PoA.  The guy between us then made the inane comment that they should be replacing the actors soon.

I pointed out that "Harry Potter" in PoA is 13.  Dan Radcliffe just turned 14.  When they begin filming GoF, "Harry" will be 14 and Dan will most likely be 14 or 15.  Then I asked the guy "How is that outgrowing the role?"  He had no other comeback other than the actors would probably have to be replaced.

So, there are lots of people on crack.

As far as director, Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") seems to be the hired director from what I read.  In Four Weddings, he did an amazing job with eliciting happiness and sadness - and making a star of Hugh Grant.  The choice of director is okay.

But, if they really are going to try to make it one movie and *not* two, it's going to suck.  And, yes, that is the technical term.  As has been pointed out, the three books before GoF are half the size of GoF and are, presumably, all 2½ hours long.  Wouldn't it stand to reason that a book twice as long would have to be a movie twice as long?  I would watch a five-hour movie.  Geez, "Gone With the Wind" is one of my favorites (though that's only four hours).

Yes, I'm sure there are things that can be cut, but here is my list of things that cannot be cut from GoF:
1. First Task
2. Second Task
3. Third Task (scene I don't want to miss:  Voldemort's ressurection.  This should be **at least** 30 minutes.)
4. "Moody"'s unveiling
5. Hermione's kiss at King's Cross Station

I'm sure there are others, but I need coffee and can't think of them.

~Trisha