From hp at plum.cream.org  Sun Feb  2 14:53:28 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum <hp@plum.cream.org>)
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:53:28 -0000
Subject: Films filter out less important scenes
In-Reply-To: <003601c2c878$4b5f6950$2101a8c0@ACTIONSTEEL.COM>
Message-ID: <b1jbd8+gke4@eGroups.com>

Steve Binch wrote:

> We all know that there are scenes in every book that seem
> irrelevant at first, but then becomes important in another book. 
> When the screenplay is written, they have to eliminate many of the 
> scenes in order to get the film with 2-3 hours. But they must be 
> careful not to eliminate scenes that will play a greater importance 
> later on.

<snip 2 examples, to which I suppose I can only add the importance of 
duelling and knowing Expelliarmus>

> Can you think of any more? And who wants to speculate on scenes
> that are setting up for books 5-7?

First, a couple of lost opportunities from PS/SS to CoS.

A prop of Tom Riddle's Special Award was made, and indeed glimpsed in 
PS/SS (to the right of the Gryffindor Quidditch plaque during 
the "your dad was a Seeker too" sequence; there's more of it in the 
full screen version)

As I've said before, I was baffled that the CoS movie didn't make use 
of this excellent bit of forethought; no mention was made of Ron's 
having served detention, nor what he did. This could have been done 
with no additional running time by moving the outdoors sequence when 
Ron says "I don't like the sound of this Tom Riddle..." to the trophy 
room and he could point to the trophy. This would have had the 
aadditional effect of making Riddle sound like even more of a good 
guy.

The second one is that in PS/SS Nearly Headless Nick gets a line not 
in the book when we first see him about having been refused entry to 
the Headless Ball. OF course, the Deadthday party wasn't filmed for 
CoS, but some reference could ahve been retained. John Cleese's role 
in CoS is another of those things which irritates me: it's cut down 
to several instances of people introducing him or his introducing 
other characters.

Things from the first two movies I think will return in books to 
come, though, in no particular order:

The Put-Outer 
Dumbledore's watch
Nearly Headless Nick 
The Centaurs (or rather, Firenze, as the other Centaurs were excised 
from the movie)
The Weasleys' clock
Knockturn Alley
The Hand of Glory
Filch's personal hatred of Harry
Skele-Gro
Aragog

I can't decide whether we've seen the last of Norbert, and I suspect 
the Chamber of Secrets will be revisited.







From idcre at imap2.asu.edu  Mon Feb  3 03:26:29 2003
From: idcre at imap2.asu.edu (backstagemystic <idcre@imap2.asu.edu>)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 03:26:29 -0000
Subject: Dan's showing
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030129041644.00a04520@pop.cox-internet.com>
Message-ID: <b1knh5+27mn@eGroups.com>

Nicholas:
>Towards the end of CoS, the confrontation with Lucius Malfoy in
Dumbledore's study. Lucius says "Let us hope that Mr Potter will 
always be around to save the day" and Harry replies; "Don't worry... 
I will be".  BookHarry would *never* say something so egotistical. I 
have heard that these lines were Jason Isaac's idea. He should stick 
to acting.<

I believe the idea came from director Chris Columbus, as I'm pretty 
sure I recall him talking about that line in both a print article, 
and in one of the ET features on television that were airing around 
the time of the film's release.

As for the idea that "BookHarry" would "*never*" say something so 
egotistical...perhaps "egotistical" is too strong of a word.  I agree 
with the term "defiant," as others in this discussion have pointed-
out...though sometimes Harry is un-necessarily defiant, which results 
in his baiting more trouble than it's worth (e.g. sassing back 
[or "giving cheek"] at Snape in Potions Class the first book, when he 
would have been better off keeping his mouth shut - but then he 
wouldn't be Harry, now would he?).

JK Rowling has specifically suggested that Harry gets bolder in COS 
about venturing about on his own (I think she used the term "looking 
for trouble," actually)...in short, she's made it clear that there 
are streaks of rebelliousness, recklessness and stubborn pride in 
Harry, and we see examples of these as the books progress (e.g. His 
carelessly sneaking-off to Hogsmeade in PoA - for which even Lupin 
scolds him - and, interestingly enough, Barty Crouch Jr in the guise 
of Moody probably made some of the best, poignant examples of Harry's 
stubborn pride).

But, by and large, Harry is usually a humble, decent and 
compassionate human being (now if we could just get him to try and 
look at things more deeply - but I suppose that's Herminone's job).

BM





From corgi at SFF.net  Mon Feb  3 05:47:24 2003
From: corgi at SFF.net (Corgi <corgi@SFF.net>)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 05:47:24 -0000
Subject: POA casting question
In-Reply-To: <a05200a02ba5f65ba6f9e@[10.0.1.11]>
Message-ID: <b1kvpc+m8ia@eGroups.com>

--- illyana delorean asked:
> There has been some discussion on a more "juvenile" Harry Potter
> list i am on about the casting of POA. Some of the fangirls are
> upset because Gary Oldman is reportedly cast as Sirius...
> Now my question: does anyone here know who is casting POA? Is it 
> Cuaron? Or is there a casting director?

<waves> Hi, illyana -- I hope I'm not one of the 'fangirls', even
though I'm pretty disappointed.  Not in Oldman himself, but in who the
production DID NOT consider.

Jina Jay is the casting director, and it's going through her first,
from minor speaking roles all the way up to the new principals.  It
was her assistant who as much as told me Jason Carter was never even
considered.  After all the work I and others put into asking PLEASE
that they take a look at him, I think my disappointment is pretty
justifiable. [sad :) ]

After she gets people narrowed down, the director -- and film is the
director's medium, as TV is the producer's -- will have a final
yea-or-nay on the casting decision.  It varies from production to
production (individual to individual) how soon the director would get
into this part of the decision-making.
Jina Jay is best known for her casting of 'Billy Elliot', although she
has a pretty long string of credits other than that film.

Corgi
sighing heavily still




From dozierwoman at hotmail.com  Tue Feb  4 03:50:15 2003
From: dozierwoman at hotmail.com (Lisa <dozierwoman@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 03:50:15 -0000
Subject: Dan's showing
In-Reply-To: <b1knh5+27mn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b1nd9n+j7ff@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "backstagemystic <idcre at i...>" 
<idcre at i...> wrote:
> Nicholas:
> >Towards the end of CoS, the confrontation with Lucius Malfoy in
> Dumbledore's study. Lucius says "Let us hope that Mr Potter will 
> always be around to save the day" and Harry replies; "Don't 
worry... 
> I will be".  BookHarry would *never* say something so egotistical. 
I 
> have heard that these lines were Jason Isaac's idea. He should 
stick 
> to acting.<
> 
> I believe the idea came from director Chris Columbus, as I'm pretty 
> sure I recall him talking about that line in both a print article, 
> and in one of the ET features on television that were airing around 
> the time of the film's release.
> 
> As for the idea that "BookHarry" would "*never*" say something so 
> egotistical...perhaps "egotistical" is too strong of a word.  I 
agree 
> with the term "defiant," as others in this discussion have pointed-
> out...though sometimes Harry is un-necessarily defiant, which 
results 
> in his baiting more trouble than it's worth (e.g. sassing back 
> [or "giving cheek"] at Snape in Potions Class the first book, when 
he 
> would have been better off keeping his mouth shut - but then he 
> wouldn't be Harry, now would he?).
> 
> JK Rowling has specifically suggested that Harry gets bolder in COS 
> about venturing about on his own (I think she used the 
term "looking 
> for trouble," actually)...in short, she's made it clear that there 
> are streaks of rebelliousness, recklessness and stubborn pride in 
> Harry, and we see examples of these as the books progress (e.g. His 
> carelessly sneaking-off to Hogsmeade in PoA - for which even Lupin 
> scolds him - and, interestingly enough, Barty Crouch Jr in the 
guise 
> of Moody probably made some of the best, poignant examples of 
Harry's 
> stubborn pride).
> 
> But, by and large, Harry is usually a humble, decent and 
> compassionate human being (now if we could just get him to try and 
> look at things more deeply - but I suppose that's Herminone's job).
> 
> BM

I think that some of Harry's recklessness stems from his upbringing. 
He never had much freedom while living with the Dursleys, and at 
Hogwarts, he is allowed more freedom than he has ever known. And what 
12 or 13 year old boy doesn't take advantage of that kind of freedom? 
My nephews certainly would.

Just my 2 cents worth, which, as we all know, doesn't buy much.

Lisa aka Lady Firenze 





From ABandt at aol.com  Tue Feb  4 14:44:01 2003
From: ABandt at aol.com (ABandt at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:44:01 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Casting choices for PoA
Message-ID: <6.908e12b.2b712bb1@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/24/2003 5:43:56 AM Central Standard Time, 
dianasdolls at yahoo.com writes:


> I'm 
> still a bit disappointed that Ian McKellan won't be Dumbledore 
> because I would have LOVED to have seen McKellan's interpretation of 
> the character!  :)

Well, I can see McKellan's reasoning if turned it down.  He's just gotten off 
a rather expansive project, where he played a wizard, and he's already in the 
middle of another project that may or may not have other parts attatched to 
it.  I can see how he wouldn't want to get involved in another series at this 
point would not be in his best interest or a desire of his.  Having to do a 
movie every year or so is a time consuming business that takes away from 
availablity to do other projects, especially if that other project were to be 
theater which McKellan likes to do and does not have the type of schedule 
that's easy to work around.  He may also have felt that playing another 
wizard so close to the heels Lord of the Rings was not a good thing because 
it's very easy to get type-cast in the movie business no matter how 
wonderfully talented the actor is.  

There probably was, more than likely, some sort of money issue.  While 
McKellan is probably not in the pay range of say a Tom Cruise or Harrison 
Ford he's probably up in a higher range than any of the actors currently 
signed to contracts.  Given the depth of the project I can see him having 
taken some sort of pay cut to do LotR, though I haven't heard anything to 
that affect or to do theater but as much as I love Harry Potter I doubt that 
it made the same sort of impact on McKellan that LotR did.  This money issue 
could even have come into play on the HP Powers that Be's side, if they 
really wanted Gary Oldman for Black I could see how it may have become a one 
or the other prospect.  Paying big salaries isn't as big a problem on a 
single flim but over the course of a series, especially one with as many 
important cast members and special effects and other production things as HP, 
paying a lot of money for the talent isn't going to work out.

So while I too would have l loved to see McKellan in the role, and he was the 
first person to come to mind after I heard that Harris had passed, I can 
understand why it didn't happen.

Wow -- this is my first post and a very long winded way of saying hi.

Hi :-)

~Amy


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





From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  5 11:43:16 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:43:16 -0000
Subject: Films filter out less important scenes
In-Reply-To: <003601c2c878$4b5f6950$2101a8c0@ACTIONSTEEL.COM>
Message-ID: <b1qtck+dc00@eGroups.com>

Steve wrote:

> We all know that there are scenes in every book that seem 
irrelevant at
> first, but then becomes important in another book. When the 
screenplay is
> written, they have to eliminate many of the scenes in order to get 
the film
> with 2-3 hours. But they must be careful not to eliminate scenes 
that will
> play a greater importance later on.
> 
> A couple examples of this are:
> 
> 1. When Harry goes to the zoo and speaks to the snake (we learn 
Harry is a
> Parselmouth).

Actually, I think this is dispensable.  I read CS before PS/SS and it 
gave me all the backstory I needed:  Harry saying "I set a boa 
constrictor on my cousin Dudley once."

I'm very glad they included it anyway, as I'm a big fan of that scene 
in the book.  I think they needed it for another reason:  we need to 
know that Harry does magic unintentionally, and it's either that or 
the things like growing his hair back that the book doesn't describe 
as vividly.

The problem with using the movies to guess at what subplots are and 
aren't important to future books is that the movies might not presume 
the same familiarity with previous installments as JKR is doing.  
They have to fill in the crucial backstory for the current 
installment, knowing that the viewers might not have seen the 
previous one(s), and that if they have, a year has probably elapsed.  
JKR does the same, of course:  Polyjuice gets mentioned as an aside 
to Myrtle's griping in "The Egg and the Eye"; we also get a reminder 
of the connection between Harry's and Voldemort's wands in "The 
Weighing of the Wands" (in fact, it seems that the sole reason for 
the "wand weighing" is to remind us of this crucial information . . . 
boy, she's sneaky).  That way if any readers don't recall PS/SS or CS 
very well, they'll still know the background for two essential plot 
twists.  I think the movies are more likely to rely on such things 
and not even put in the early clues.

Of course, only time will tell.

Amy Z




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Feb  5 19:16:57 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:16:57 -0500
Subject: Coddled Draco
Message-ID: <011201c2cd4b$27eb5290$0301a8c0@Frodo>

On the main list, R. Penar posted:
 
 

> When

> Malfoy fell off his broom and Daddy was at the Quidditch match, 

> nothing came of that. If Daddy hadn't been there, what would have 

> happened? Draco would send an owl "Daddy, daddy, that Harry Potter 

> knocked me off my broom and Madam Hooch didn't call the foul and we 

> lost the match!" Perhaps Lucius would have sent a nastygram to Madam 

> Hooch demanding a rematch or something. Would this have 

> been "coddling" Draco? Sure!

 

Since this was something that occured in the film but not in the books,
I thought I'd bring it over here for some movie-canon discussion. 

In the film, Lucius was at the QUidditch match, but when Draco was in
the hospital, Lucius did not show up to check on his son. Even if
medimagic is much easier and quicker-healing than muggle medicine, was
it cruel of Lucius not to at least come to check on him?

 

 

heidi



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




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  5 20:03:38 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 20:03:38 -0000
Subject: Coddled Draco
In-Reply-To: <011201c2cd4b$27eb5290$0301a8c0@Frodo>
Message-ID: <b1rqmq+tici@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:



> In the film, Lucius was at the QUidditch match, but when Draco was in
> the hospital, Lucius did not show up to check on his son. Even if
> medimagic is much easier and quicker-healing than muggle medicine, was
> it cruel of Lucius not to at least come to check on him?

> heidi

We don't know that he hasn't already been there. Besides, Malfoy was never 
really admitted, just checked over as far as I can tell. Right at the beginning 
Mdam Pomfrey indicates he does not need to be there, and that he's just 
putting on a show, moaning on the bed. She says something along the lines 
of (impatiently)"you can go, there's nothing wrong with you" (can't remeber 
exactly although I just saw it for the sixth time--yes, ONLY the sixth). It may 
also be as you say, that Lucius has not been there. His reaction to Malfoy's 
accident on the pitch seems to be one of disgust at his son doing something 
clumsy, rather than worry that he might have been hurt. We don't really know 
that much about their relationship. He buys Malfoy onto the slytherin team so 
he can be seeker, which was generous, and probably according to Malfoy's 
wishes, but we don't know whether he did this to please his son or just to try 
to give a boost to the family name.

Sophia




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  5 20:31:33 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:31:33 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Coddled Draco
In-Reply-To: <011201c2cd4b$27eb5290$0301a8c0@Frodo>
References: <011201c2cd4b$27eb5290$0301a8c0@Frodo>
Message-ID: <45352028430.20030205123133@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Wednesday, February 05, 2003, 11:16:57 AM, heidit at netbox.com wrote:

> In the film, Lucius was at the QUidditch match, but when Draco was in
> the hospital, Lucius did not show up to check on his son. Even if
> medimagic is much easier and quicker-healing than muggle medicine, was
> it cruel of Lucius not to at least come to check on him?

I'm having a hard time discussing this, since they changed
so many events and characters in the movies.

We know from interviews that the actor for Lucius (sorry,
forgot the name) interpreted the material a certain way, and
consequently acted accordingly.

In the book, Draco wasn't hurt at all, if I remember it
right, so even if Lucius had been there in the book, nothing
of the sort would have happened.

>From the books I do see Draco as more of a spoiled brat,
than an abused child.
He just doesn't act as if he is afraid of being beaten up by
his father when he's in his presence.

Of course, I don't like Lucius and his beliefs and parenting
methods, so in a way I do feel a bit sorry for Draco (but if
he doesn't show *some* sign of independent thought soon, I'm
going to write him off!).

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




From purple_801999 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  6 05:02:00 2003
From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999 <purple_801999@yahoo.com>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:02:00 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
Message-ID: <b1sq88+fgu7@eGroups.com>


Does Sirius actually have a beard? 

Many people have sited Gary Oldman's look in 'The Scarlet Letter' as 
a model for how he might look in 'Prisoner of Azkaban', but while I 
remember several references to Sirius having long unkempt hair I 
don't remember any mention of a beard. I've always pictured a 
beardless Sirius in my head! Am I wrong or is it just a matter of 
personal preference? 

Olivia




From southernscotland at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  6 05:30:04 2003
From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland <southernscotland@yahoo.com>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:30:04 -0000
Subject: Warner Brothers "Chamber of Secrets" DVD
Message-ID: <b1srss+984a@eGroups.com>

Hi, guys!

Anybody know how to reach a real, live human in the video/DVD 
marketing department at Warner Brothers? 

I've been in marketing/PR, and have a little free promotional idea 
for them, in regards to the upcoming "Chamber of Secrets" DVD. 

(I'll be glad to tell you, too, after I get it out of my head and 
sent, if that is indeed possible. If they won't accept suggestions 
from non-employees, then, oh, well, at least I tried...) 

I'm not trying to get a job or anything - already got one of those - 
it's just a bit of an idea. 

I thought if anyone knew any of the movie industry people, it would 
be one of you all! Thanks in advance for your help!


lilahp (who wonders if Lucius goes to bed with curlers in his hair)




From belleps at october.com  Thu Feb  6 08:41:59 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:41:59 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Films filter out less important scenes
In-Reply-To: <1044455732.255.21041.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030206023956.00a01be0@pop.cox-internet.com>

At 02:35 PM 2/5/03 +0000, Amy Z wrote:
>we also get a reminder
>of the connection between Harry's and Voldemort's wands in "The
>Weighing of the Wands" (in fact, it seems that the sole reason for
>the "wand weighing" is to remind us of this crucial information . . .
>boy, she's sneaky).

She is sneaky. I've wondered, though, if it wasn't just as important for us 
to make the veela connection to Fleur. I still expect her back, and that 
might be important for Harry to know. Just a guess. <grin>

bel 




From manda at qx.net  Thu Feb  6 17:19:11 2003
From: manda at qx.net (Amanda Pressnell)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:19:11 -0800
Subject: Dual layer DVDs/Drenched Dudley
Message-ID: <3E42288F.13458.17DE5D8@localhost>

Having been in the world of DVDs for two months now I have to say that the only downside about watching Sorcerer's Stone on DVD is the definite pause at the end of the 
troll scene (just before the troll growls and 'frightens' Quirrel). It's very noticeable since all of a sudden the constant thunder in the background stops. I've read on the back of 
other DVDs about how you may notice a pause during transition on dual layer discs (which HP is). I guess that's what is happening here, but it makes me wonder why they 
don't put the switch at the end of a scene instead in the middle. It's very annoying.

Another comment on something I just noticed.. When they arrive home from the zoo Petunia is mothering Dudley, saying how he should change out of those wet clothes as 
she hurries him off to.. the kitchen? The dining room? Wouldn't upstairs to his room or to a hot shower have been a better idea? I guess there's two ways of interpreting 
that: a) the filmmakers made a goof, or b) Dudley can't survive more than 20 minutes without a meal. I wouldn't count out the latter. ;-)

Manda
--
http://www.MandaMia.com



From itzregina at hanson.net  Thu Feb  6 15:36:30 2003
From: itzregina at hanson.net (Regina <itzregina@hanson.net>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:36:30 -0000
Subject: Dual layer DVDs/Drenched Dudley
In-Reply-To: <3E42288F.13458.17DE5D8@localhost>
Message-ID: <b1tvdu+dos7@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Pressnell" <manda at q...> 
wrote:
> 
> Another comment on something I just noticed.. When they arrive home 
from the zoo Petunia is mothering Dudley, saying how he should change 
out of those wet clothes as 
> she hurries him off to.. the kitchen? The dining room? Wouldn't 
upstairs to his room or to a hot shower have been a better idea? I 
guess there's two ways of interpreting 
> that: a) the filmmakers made a goof, or b) Dudley can't survive 
more than 20 minutes without a meal. I wouldn't count out the 
latter. ;-)
> 
> Manda
> --


When my kids come in wet from the sprinkler, beach etc. I have them 
strip in the laundry room and throw their clothes in the washer.  
It's easier to clean and there are no wet clothes on the rugs.  Since 
my laundry room is off of my kitchen maybe we can assume that is 
where Petunia is taking Dudley?

Gina




From margdean at erols.com  Thu Feb  6 15:52:19 2003
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:52:19 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Sirius's appearance.
References: <b1sq88+fgu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3E4284B3.529B715C@erols.com>

"purple_801999 " wrote:
> 
> Does Sirius actually have a beard?
> 
> Many people have sited Gary Oldman's look in 'The Scarlet Letter' as
> a model for how he might look in 'Prisoner of Azkaban', but while I
> remember several references to Sirius having long unkempt hair I
> don't remember any mention of a beard. I've always pictured a
> beardless Sirius in my head! Am I wrong or is it just a matter of
> personal preference?

Well, if he didn't have any way to trim or comb his hair, you
wouldn't think he'd have any way of shaving, either, but OTOH a
beard is never mentioned.  Maybe there's a quick and easy Shaving
Spell that any wizard can do, even without a wand!


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From draco382 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  6 17:15:37 2003
From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382 <draco382@yahoo.com>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:15:37 -0000
Subject: Steve Coogan for Lupin?
Message-ID: <b1u57p+9pfh@eGroups.com>

Hi everyone,

there's a new on post on the leaky Cauldron about a new candidate for 
Lupin.  here's the link they provided for an image:
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/awards2003/gallery/17.asp

what do you think?  

~draco382 (who wants to give three cheers to the Leaky Cauldron for 
their great work day in and day out :-)




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Thu Feb  6 17:57:08 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:57:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
Message-ID: <10371476.1044554228014.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

draco382 writes:

> there's a new on post on the leaky Cauldron about a new candidate for <BR>
> Lupin. here's the link they provided for an image:<BR>

No, no, no.  Absolutely not.  A) he's too young B) he doesn't look remotely 
like Lupin C) David Thewlis has been officially confirmed by WB.  And there's 
been no rumor of him backing out.

On another note, you'd have thought WB could've come up with a few different 
questions to ask the kids for the DVD interview.  It's the exact same thing 
they're asked every single time they are interviewed.  What was your favorite 
scene?  Do you get along?  Is making the movie fun? (No, of course not, we hate 
it.  Really, what a stupid question) What do your friends think?  Tell us about 
your character.

The only questions requiring the slighest bit of thought are How has your 
character evolved? and How have you changed as a character?  Though these two 
overlap, if you ask me.

Anyway, let's hope they ask the adults something a big more original.

Richelle

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




From dom-blokey at supanet.com  Thu Feb  6 18:07:15 2003
From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:07:15 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
References: <10371476.1044554228014.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>
Message-ID: <002201c2ce0a$950d3220$b1bf28d5@Blokey>

Richelle:
> No, no, no.  Absolutely not.  A) he's too young B) he doesn't look
remotely
> like Lupin C) David Thewlis has been officially confirmed by WB.  And
there's
> been no rumor of him backing out.
>

He *has* ??
When and where did you hear this? All I've heard so far is that Warner
*still* havent confirmed any of these castings rumours...
Have I missed the boat?

Thx, Dom





From dkewpie at pacbell.net  Thu Feb  6 19:34:01 2003
From: dkewpie at pacbell.net (Kewpie <dkewpie@pacbell.net>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:34:01 -0000
Subject: Steve Coogan for Lupin?
In-Reply-To: <b1u57p+9pfh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b1udb9+49jg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "draco382 <draco382 at y...>" 
<draco382 at y...> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> there's a new on post on the leaky Cauldron about a new candidate 
for 
> Lupin.  here's the link they provided for an image:
> http://www.empireonline.co.uk/awards2003/gallery/17.asp
> 
> what do you think?  


When I saw "24 hour party People" last year, I kept thinking how much 
he looks and sound like a younger Alan Rickman! (Moaning Mytle's 
actress Shirley Henderson played his first girlfriend in the film).

Since he reminds me too much of Alan Rickman in that film, I can't 
picture him as Lupin.  






From rvotaw at i-55.com  Thu Feb  6 19:29:16 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:29:16 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
Message-ID: <11686398.1044559756179.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

 
Dom wrote:

> He *has* ??<BR>
> When and where did you hear this? All I've heard so far is that Warner<BR>
> *still* havent confirmed any of these castings rumours...<BR>
> Have I missed the boat?<BR>

I *thought* he was confirmed, but rereading the article, it doesn't actually 
quote a WB rep.  But CBBC Newsround is rarely wrong.  Here's the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2685000/2685241.stm

Richelle

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




From itzregina at hanson.net  Thu Feb  6 21:53:15 2003
From: itzregina at hanson.net (Regina <itzregina@hanson.net>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:53:15 -0000
Subject: Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
In-Reply-To: <10371476.1044554228014.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>
Message-ID: <b1ulgb+ssgg@eGroups.com>

 rvotaw at i... wrote:
> On another note, you'd have thought WB could've come up with a few 
different 
> questions to ask the kids for the DVD interview.  It's the exact 
same thing 
> they're asked every single time they are interviewed.  What was 
your favorite 
> scene?  Do you get along?  Is making the movie fun? (No, of course 
not, we hate 
> it.  Really, what a stupid question) What do your friends think?  
Tell us about 
> your character.
> 
> The only questions requiring the slighest bit of thought are How 
has your 
> character evolved? and How have you changed as a character?  Though 
these two 
> overlap, if you ask me.
> 
> Anyway, let's hope they ask the adults something a big more 
original.
> 
> Richelle
> 



I wish they would have done a commentary on the film. They could have 
given us many insights, funny incidents and problems that may have 
happened on the set. I would also like to see some "mess-ups".  WE 
could answer most of the questions asked of the trio.   Maybe there 
will be interviews with Tom, Sean, Phelps twins, etc?  I AM looking 
forward to the adult interviews.  Besides Jason and Kenneth, I haven't
heard their take on the movies.

Gina




From divaclv at aol.com  Thu Feb  6 23:25:40 2003
From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 <divaclv@aol.com>)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:25:40 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <3E4284B3.529B715C@erols.com>
Message-ID: <b1uqtk+5cmb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Dean <margdean at e...> 
wrote:
> Well, if he didn't have any way to trim or comb his hair, you
> wouldn't think he'd have any way of shaving, either, but OTOH a
> beard is never mentioned.  Maybe there's a quick and easy Shaving
> Spell that any wizard can do, even without a wand!

Logic would indicate that he should have a beard--I don't think hair 
care is a service available in Azkaban :-)  But for some reason, I've 
always pictured him clean-shaven as well.  Maybe it has something to 
do with the Sirius-as-sex-symbol mindset--long, tangled facial hair 
doesn't seem to fit into that.  Unless the people who aren't 
attracted to Sirius don't envision him with a beard either...

~Christi




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb  7 02:45:12 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:45:12 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
References: <b1ulgb+ssgg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <021a01c2ce52$f0602c70$349fcdd1@RVotaw>

Gina wrote:

> I wish they would have done a commentary on the film. They could have 
> given us many insights, funny incidents and problems that may have 
> happened on the set. I would also like to see some "mess-ups".  

My favorite thing on the SS/PS DVD was the interview with Chris Columbus etc.  Because they showed a couple of quick clips of "mess ups" and behind the scenes stuff.  Very short, but very funny none the less.  Like when Daniel, Emma and Rupert had run up the aisle in McGonagall's classroom and apparently banged into the desk.  Daniel says something like "I think we were a bit over eager that time." And Maggie Smith responds "Yes, I was terrified!"  It's hilarious.  See, it doesn't take much to make me happy. :)

> WE 
> could answer most of the questions asked of the trio.   Maybe there 

Tell me about it.  Let's see, Daniel's favorite scene was the Dueling club scene because of all the people in it, and the Chamber because of the set.  Rupert's favorite was spitting up slugs.  Emma's was . . . hmm, I forgot. Well, I was close anyway. :)

Richelle


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




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  7 11:58:41 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:58:41 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <b1uqtk+5cmb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2071h+4gjc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "c_voth312 <divaclv at a...>" 
<divaclv at a...> wrote:

> Logic would indicate that he should have a beard--I don't think hair 
> care is a service available in Azkaban :-)  But for some reason, I've 
> always pictured him clean-shaven as well.  Maybe it has something to 
> do with the Sirius-as-sex-symbol mindset--long, tangled facial hair 
> doesn't seem to fit into that.  Unless the people who aren't 
> attracted to Sirius don't envision him with a beard either...
> 
> ~Christi

I dont's know if he's a sex-symbol, but my Sirius has always had a beard. I 
can't imgine anyone bothering to shave in Azkaban. Besides, it connects 
nicely with his animagus-form, the shaggy black dog, that he should have a 
beard. (Sure he became the dog even as a clean-shaven Hogwarts student, 
but I would find it visually satisfying to see him with a beard at this point) 
Although, I don't see him with that unkempt kind of beard that covers half the 
face..Hm. Lacking in logic. My image must have been contaminated by those 
gorgeous shots of Jason Carter in a "Sirius" mode.

Sophia




From itzregina at hanson.net  Fri Feb  7 14:51:14 2003
From: itzregina at hanson.net (Regina <itzregina@hanson.net>)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:51:14 -0000
Subject: Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
In-Reply-To: <021a01c2ce52$f0602c70$349fcdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <b20h52+cct3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richelle Votaw" <rvotaw at i...> 
wrote:
> Gina wrote:
> 
> I would also like to see some "mess-ups". 


"Richelle Votaw" <rvotaw at i...> 
>  Very short, but very funny none the less.  Like when Daniel, Emma 
and Rupert had run up the aisle in McGonagall's classroom and 
apparently banged into the desk.  Daniel says something like "I think 
we were a bit over eager that time." And Maggie Smith responds "Yes, 
I was terrified!"  It's hilarious.  See, it doesn't take much to make 
me happy. :)

Me either!  There was another time (if I remember this correctly)when 
Emma was messing with some book.  Daniel quickly grabbbed it and put 
it down then looked around as if they had done something they wasn't 
supposed too :-)

> 
> > WE 
> > could answer most of the questions asked of the trio.   Maybe 
there 
> 
> Tell me about it.  Let's see, Daniel's favorite scene was the 
Dueling club scene because of all the people in it, and the Chamber 
because of the set.  Rupert's favorite was spitting up slugs.  Emma's 
was . . . hmm, I forgot. Well, I was close anyway. :)
> 
> Richelle

We DO know that the hugging scene was her LEAST favorite.
 
Gina




From divaclv at aol.com  Fri Feb  7 16:50:47 2003
From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 <divaclv@aol.com>)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:50:47 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <b2071h+4gjc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b20o57+453i@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl <sophiamcl at h...>" 
<sophiamcl at h...> wrote:
> I dont's know if he's a sex-symbol, but my Sirius has always had a 
beard. I 
> can't imgine anyone bothering to shave in Azkaban. Besides, it 
connects 
> nicely with his animagus-form, the shaggy black dog, that he should 
have a 
> beard. (Sure he became the dog even as a clean-shaven Hogwarts 
student, 
> but I would find it visually satisfying to see him with a beard at 
this point) 
> Although, I don't see him with that unkempt kind of beard that 
covers half the 
> face..Hm. Lacking in logic. My image must have been contaminated by 
those 
> gorgeous shots of Jason Carter in a "Sirius" mode.

How about this then: whether or not we see Sirius with facial hair 
depends on which actors we envision in the part.  The ones I've 
pictured have almost always been clean-shaven, while others (such as 
Carter or Oldman) often wear beards--and don't look half bad with 
them.

~Christi




From urbana at charter.net  Fri Feb  7 18:22:37 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:22:37 -0000
Subject: Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
In-Reply-To: <b20h52+cct3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b20thd+lvl5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Regina <itzregina at h...>" 
<itzregina at h...> wrote:
.Let's see, Daniel's favorite scene was the 
> Dueling club scene because of all the people in it, and the Chamber 
> because of the set.  Rupert's favorite was spitting up slugs.  
Emma's 
> was . . . hmm, I forgot. Well, I was close anyway. :)
> > 
> > Richelle
> 
> We DO know that the hugging scene was her LEAST favorite.
>  
> Gina

Didn't Emma say it was her least favorite because she had to hug 
Daniel in front of 300 other people? Must have been because of having 
to do it in front of the entire "Hogwarts student body" plus the 
entire technical crew... it couldn't have been because it was Daniel, 
could it? ;-)

Anne U
(who loved Daniel's reply..."Mind?? Why would I mind??:-)





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  7 19:02:06 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:02:06 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Steve Coogan for Lupin?/ DVD interviews
In-Reply-To: <b20thd+lvl5@eGroups.com>
References: <b20thd+lvl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2847371192.20030207110206@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Friday, February 07, 2003, 10:22:37 AM, urbana at charter.net wrote:

> (who loved Daniel's reply..."Mind?? Why would I mind??:-)

Well, even if he did, I think he chose the right answer <g>.

At that age, adults and older teens might find it cute and
endearing, but kids Daniel's age are usually really not much
into hugging girls.

He many not want to have to answer all those annoying
questions about why he minded (if he did) ;)

Just look at what Emma had to endure after coming right out
with it!

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




From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  8 02:47:16 2003
From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Grown-Up Dan Alert! (from OT list)
Message-ID: <20030208024716.2115.qmail@web40311.mail.yahoo.com>


--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> In other news, I saw Moonlight Mile this weekend, and I realize I 
> have a one-track mind, but Jake Gyllenhaal looks like what you'd 
get 
> if you ran Daniel Radcliffe's photo through one of those age--a-
face-
> up-10-years computer programs.  This is too OT even for -Movie, but 
> if you're a Dan fan, check it out. 
Incidentally, it was a *good* 
> movie, which seems to have been direct-to-airline as I don't recall 
> its release at all (Dustin Hoffman, and Susan Sarandon in the best 
> performance of hers I've seen--does this sound like a recipe for 
> obscurity?), and I can't wait 'til it comes out on video so I can 
see 
> it properly and hear the dialogue that was drowned out by the 
> turbines.
> 
> Amy

Anne said:

I haven't seen Midnight Mile yet (sounds like something I should 
rent), but it was indeed released in theaters - though it was kind of 
a "small" movie and maybe didn't do so well at the box office. Here's 
a link to Jake Gyllenhaal's website.
http://www.jakegyllenhaal.com

I agree that Daniel could "age up" into looking a bit like Jake. 
Which means, I guess, that Jake, in glasses, might make a decent 
James Potter, eh? :-)

Now Me:

Another Dan correlation...does anyone know who Jake is currently dating?  Anyone?

Kirsten Dunst.

Yes, one of Dan's two super-star crushes (the other being Cameron(sic?) Diaz).  

 

<<<Anne U
(who won't even try to catch up on the 400 new messages that appeared 
in the main list wjo;e I was gone for 5 days)>>>

Anne, I get the digest, and then I just skim.  The good part is that I'm totally caught up every day.  The bad part is that I mess up whose theories are whose, call Pip Pippin or Elkins, and I'm still not sure of the meaning of the word "Polemic".  But, hey...say la vee (I'm a phonetic Frech speller).

Lilac, who thinks it's *very interesting* that Kirsten Dunst currently has red hair.  (What's that you say?  My "SHIP" is showing?  Of *course* it is...)  




 

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?"

Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder.  "Just do what I did, Harry!"

"What, drop my wand?"

 --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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




From rose590 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  8 03:49:23 2003
From: rose590 at yahoo.com (rose590 <rose590@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 03:49:23 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <b20o57+453i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b21uo3+rcli@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "c_voth312 <divaclv at a...>" 
<divaclv at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl <sophiamcl at h...>" 
> <sophiamcl at h...> wrote:

> > I dont's know if he's a sex-symbol, but my Sirius has always had 
a beard. 

Be still my beating heart !!  (I can't resist a comment about my 
Sirius....I'm sorry did I say "my" Sirius?)  For me.....Sirius, sex-
symbol, and scruffy go hand in hand.


> > Although, I don't see him with that unkempt kind of beard that 
> covers half the 
> > face..Hm. Lacking in logic. My image must have been contaminated 
by those gorgeous shots of Jason Carter in a "Sirius" mode.
> 


No...definitely not unkempt, long and tangled....merely long-haired 
and scruffy.  And I think I'll just keep Jason Carter tatooed in my 
mind as the perfect Sirius.

RoBro (off to take a cold shower)




From belleps at october.com  Sat Feb  8 10:16:56 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 04:16:56 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Sirius' appearance
In-Reply-To: <1044642120.344.5355.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030208040903.00a018e0@pop.cox-internet.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Dean <margdean at e...>
wrote:
 > Well, if he didn't have any way to trim or comb his hair, you
 > wouldn't think he'd have any way of shaving, either, but OTOH a
 > beard is never mentioned.  Maybe there's a quick and easy Shaving
 > Spell that any wizard can do, even without a wand!

 >Logic would indicate that he should have a beard--I don't think hair
care is a service available in Azkaban :-)  But for some reason, I've
always pictured him clean-shaven as well.  Maybe it has something to
do with the Sirius-as-sex-symbol mindset--long, tangled facial hair
doesn't seem to fit into that.  Unless the people who aren't
attracted to Sirius don't envision him with a beard either...

~Christi

bel:
Hmm, maybe so. I cemented my vision of Sirius with his first appearance (on 
TV, yes?). When they described him, I pictured a shaggy, unshaven, 
wild-eyed serial killer look. And I can't help it -- I STILL see him that 
way throughout the books. It's wrenching for me to try to imagine him when 
he's "cleaned up". (Though I can imagine him as having the potential to 
clean up nicely, since he was described as handsome at James and Lily's 
wedding -- you know, nice bone structure, compelling eyes, and a graceful, 
lanky frame under all that grime and hair. <grin>) And maybe it's easier 
for me to continue to picture him scruffy and tangled because for me he's 
never been "Dead Sexy". That goes to James, and would go to Lupin if he'd 
just eat his way out of that bony, not-well stage. <g>)




From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Sat Feb  8 22:06:40 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 06:26:17 +0100
Subject: CoS still going strong
Message-ID: <v01540b0000019d3f2926@[217.35.212.198]>

I have just returned from a biz trip to the US; managed to see CoS twice,
once in North Carolina, once in Atlanta. Returned to the UK to find that
one of our local multiplexes still has it three times daily (at least until
next Thursday). Around here, the kids' half-term holiday starts on 17th, so
I'm assuming it's good for two more weeks...so I'm a happy chappie

Regards,
Nicholas





From twoplus3 at juno.com  Sun Feb  9 03:52:18 2003
From: twoplus3 at juno.com (pastafor5 <twoplus3@juno.com>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:52:18 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <b1sq88+fgu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b24j9i+5grd@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "purple_801999 
<purple_801999 at y...>" <purple_801999 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Does Sirius actually have a beard? 
> 
I think I've gotten an image of a beardless Sirius from the book 
jacket(American version).  You see a profile shadow image of a man 
with long, shaggy hair, sitting by a window, but he doesn't appear to 
have any facial hair.  Also, I figure Uncle Vernon would have 
mentioned a scruffy beard along with the "look at the state of his 
hair" comment when he saw the picture of Sirius on the news.

It is also possible that Sirius had a beard when he left Azkaban, but 
used his knife to shave at some point.  I would think it would be 
much more difficult for him to cut his hair with the knife, though, 
so it stays long and shaggy.

Any thoughts on this possibility?






From illyana at mindspring.com  Sun Feb  9 04:16:36 2003
From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:16:36 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <b24j9i+5grd@eGroups.com>
References: <b24j9i+5grd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a05200a01ba6b850df97a@[10.0.1.11]>

pastafor5 wrote:
>
>I think I've gotten an image of a beardless Sirius from the book
>jacket(American version).  You see a profile shadow image of a man
>with long, shaggy hair, sitting by a window, but he doesn't appear to
>have any facial hair.  Also, I figure Uncle Vernon would have
>mentioned a scruffy beard along with the "look at the state of his
>hair" comment when he saw the picture of Sirius on the news.
>
>It is also possible that Sirius had a beard when he left Azkaban, but
>used his knife to shave at some point.  I would think it would be
>much more difficult for him to cut his hair with the knife, though,
>so it stays long and shaggy.
>

But, if Sirius had shaved off his beard after leaving Azkaban, then 
the picture Uncle Vernon had seen on the news would have shown Sirius 
with a beard, right? I am, of course, assuming that the picture was 
taken while Sirius had been in Azkaban, since one taken before his 
imprisonment would have not included his hair being in any kind of 
"state" on which Vernon would comment. However, Vernon is a weird 
guy, so maybe longer sideburns or unkempt hair like Harry's would be 
considered inappropriate in his mind.

On the other hand, I also highly doubt that the picture was taken 
*after* his escape! So we all agree that it was taken in Azkaban? 
Good. ;)

illyana
-- 
HPGCv1
a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- 
GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD

visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc



From Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net  Sun Feb  9 04:52:06 2003
From: Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net (Patty)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:52:06 -0500
Subject: Your opinion about casting Voldemort
References: <v01540b0000019d3f2926@[217.35.212.198]>
Message-ID: <007c01c2cff7$002fce80$0101a8c0@pavilion>

Tonight I went to see Shanghai Knights and there was a character on there that caught my eye. The first thing that I thought is that he would make a perfect Lord Voldemort. Now the only trouble is that he is a bit young to play him, but as I watched him up there on the screen I just kept thinking how much he looked like Tom Riddle. The man who plays this character is named Aidan Gillen. I have tried to find a good picture to show you, but I just couldn't find one in which he still had the Tom Riddle look to him, but here is one just so you can see who I am referring to.

Do any of you have an opinion on who you think would make a good Lord Voldemort in upcoming Harry Potter movies? And what is your opinion about whether or not this guy (Aidan) would make a good Voldemort?


Patty


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




From purple_801999 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  9 06:14:31 2003
From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999 <purple_801999@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:14:31 -0000
Subject: Your opinion about casting Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <007c01c2cff7$002fce80$0101a8c0@pavilion>
Message-ID: <b24rk7+7a8v@eGroups.com>




Patty wrote- 
(snip)
 The man who plays this character is named Aidan Gillen. I have tried 
to find a good picture to show you, but I just couldn't find one in 
which he still had the Tom Riddle look to him, but here is one just 
so you can see who I am referring to.
> 
> Do any of you have an opinion on who you think would make a good 
Lord Voldemort in upcoming Harry Potter movies? And what is your 
opinion about whether or not this guy (Aidan) would make a good 
Voldemort?
> 


Well, you have to remember that by the time we the viewing public 
actually see LV he no longer resembles Tom Riddle. Who ever it is 
will be covered in layers of latex and make-up to give him the red 
eyed, slit nosed, bloodless appearance of a being not entirely human 
or sane. Someone better sign Michael Jackson up quick!

Just kidding, but since much of LV's appearance will be made up I 
don't think they will cast so much on looks as ability. But that 
doesn't but your guy out of the running. 

Olivia







From geri510 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  9 06:23:45 2003
From: geri510 at yahoo.com (geri510 <geri510@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:23:45 -0000
Subject: Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
Message-ID: <b24s5h+i76r@eGroups.com>

I know we haven't had any confirmation that Oldman has been 
officially signed, but while watching Braveheart this afternoon I 
thought of Angus McFayden (Robert Bruce) as playing him, especially 
with that look. I can't find any pictures of him in this part, but 
since we really don't know if Oldman is going to play Sirus I just 
thought I'd throw out another name! And he's even Scottish!




From rose590 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  9 13:29:55 2003
From: rose590 at yahoo.com (rose590 <rose590@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:29:55 -0000
Subject: Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
In-Reply-To: <b24s5h+i76r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b25l4j+4ikh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "geri510 <geri510 at y...>" 
<geri510 at y...> wrote:
> I know we haven't had any confirmation that Oldman has been 
> officially signed, but while watching Braveheart this afternoon I 
> thought of Angus McFayden (Robert Bruce) as playing him, 
especially 
> with that look. I can't find any pictures of him in this part, but 
> since we really don't know if Oldman is going to play Sirus I just 
> thought I'd throw out another name! And he's even Scottish!


Well, since Oldman hasn't officially signed yet.....there's still 
hope.  I had never thought of McFadyan!  Very nice.....

Here's a pic of him in the Robert the Bruce role.  Even though he 
has the headgear on, the face is definitely that of the Sirius I 
have in my mind.  (Beard and all.....he he he.... :)   )

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/legends/bruce1.htm

I hate to say this, but I am actually changing my vote from Jason 
Carter to McFadyan!!!

RoBro




From twoplus3 at juno.com  Sun Feb  9 14:53:51 2003
From: twoplus3 at juno.com (pastafor5 <twoplus3@juno.com>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:53:51 -0000
Subject: Sirius's appearance.
In-Reply-To: <a05200a01ba6b850df97a@[10.0.1.11]>
Message-ID: <b25q1v+10494@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, illyana delorean <illyana at m...> 
wrote:
> pastafor5 wrote:
Uncle Vernon would have
> >mentioned a scruffy beard along with the "look at the state of his
> >hair" comment when he saw the picture of Sirius on the news.
> >
> >It is also possible that Sirius had a beard when he left Azkaban, 
but
> >used his knife to shave at some point.  > >


> 
> But, if Sirius had shaved off his beard after leaving Azkaban, then 
> the picture Uncle Vernon had seen on the news would have shown 
Sirius 
> with a beard, right? I am, of course, assuming that the picture was 
> taken while Sirius had been in Azkaban, since one taken before his 
> imprisonment would have not included his hair being in any kind of 
> "state" on which Vernon would comment. However, Vernon is a weird 
> guy, so maybe longer sideburns or unkempt hair like Harry's would 
be 
> considered inappropriate in his mind.
> 
> On the other hand, I also highly doubt that the picture was taken 
> *after* his escape! So we all agree that it was taken in Azkaban? 
> Good. ;)
> 
> illyana


Oops, sorry.  I should have stated more clearly that these were two 
seperate theories.
1.  He didn't have a beard at all - hence Uncle Vernon not mentioning 
it; 
or
2. He shaved it off *after* his escape.
I'll try to be more specific next time.  Of course we agree that the 
picture on the news had to be prior to his escape.





From Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net  Sun Feb  9 20:12:46 2003
From: Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net (Patty)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:12:46 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Your opinion about casting Voldemort
References: <b24rk7+7a8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006c01c2d077$a9ef19a0$0101a8c0@pavilion>

Olivia wrote:
Just kidding, but since much of LV's appearance will be made up I 
don't think they will cast so much on looks as ability. But that 
doesn't but your guy out of the running. 

Me:
No, I don't suppose all that would put Aidan out of the running, however (and I'm a bit disappointed in this) he just doesn't have the strong accent like I had hoped. The movie that I watched was set in London, but he just didn't seem to have much of the accent at all. I love the accents and I love it that JKR has made sure that the casting of the characters (including accents) still stays true to the setting of the story.

And thanks so much for your opinion Olivia.

Patty


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




From suzloua at hotmail.com  Sun Feb  9 21:08:02 2003
From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:08:02 -0000
Subject: Your opinion about casting Voldemort
References: <1044795782.227.53354.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <DAV52sD9ynmYjUaMJl30000c485@hotmail.com>

Patty wrote:
Tonight I went to see Shanghai Knights and there was a character on there
that caught my eye. The first thing that I thought is that he would make a
perfect Lord Voldemort. Now the only trouble is that he is a bit young to
play him, but as I watched him up there on the screen I just kept thinking
how much he looked like Tom Riddle. The man who plays this character is
named Aidan Gillen. I have tried to find a good picture to show you, but I
just couldn't find one in which he still had the Tom Riddle look to him, but
here is one just so you can see who I am referring to.

Do any of you have an opinion on who you think would make a good Lord
Voldemort in upcoming Harry Potter movies? And what is your opinion about
whether or not this guy (Aidan) would make a good Voldemort?

Now me:
HA!!! I *love* Aidan Gillen, in the UK he played the main part of Stuart in
the original Queer As Folk (not the shoddy rip off you Yanks got ;) ). He is
EXACTLY what I imagine Tom Riddle to be like - annoying, cheeky, and
arrogant. Sadly, he has a very Irish accent - haven't heard him do anything
else, so I don't know if he can. But as someone else said, LV doesn't really
look like TMR anymore. But god, it'd be ace to see Aidan playing someone -
anyone! - in a HP movie...

Susan




From urbana at charter.net  Sun Feb  9 21:42:39 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 21:42:39 -0000
Subject: Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
In-Reply-To: <b25l4j+4ikh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b26i0f+5vrq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "rose590 <rose590 at y...>" 
<rose590 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "geri510 <geri510 at y...>" 
> <geri510 at y...> wrote:
> > I know we haven't had any confirmation that Oldman has been 
> > officially signed, but while watching Braveheart this afternoon I 
> > thought of Angus McFayden (Robert Bruce) as playing him, 
> especially 
> > with that look. I can't find any pictures of him in this part, 
but 
> > since we really don't know if Oldman is going to play Sirus I 
just 
> > thought I'd throw out another name! And he's even Scottish!
> 
> 
> Well, since Oldman hasn't officially signed yet.....there's still 
> hope.  I had never thought of McFadyan!  Very nice.....
> 
> Here's a pic of him in the Robert the Bruce role.  Even though he 
> has the headgear on, the face is definitely that of the Sirius I 
> have in my mind.  (Beard and all.....he he he.... :)   )
> 
> http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/legends/bruce1.htm
> 
> I hate to say this, but I am actually changing my vote from Jason 
> Carter to McFadyan!!!
> 
> RoBro

I think Angus MacFadyen would also make a good Sirius Black, at least 
on the basis of appearance:

http://us.imdb.com/PGallery?MacFadyen,%20Angus

yet another "dead-sexy" actor who probably wasn't even considered (or 
maybe wasn't available). He's certainly in the right age bracket. I 
had no problem finding this photo of him - I just searched for him on 
www.imdb.com.

Anne U
(so what's taking WB so long to announce the POA roles??!! GAAAH!!)








From Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net  Sun Feb  9 21:50:09 2003
From: Patty at backstreet-wallpaper.net (Patty)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 16:50:09 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Your opinion about casting Voldemort
References: <1044795782.227.53354.m12@yahoogroups.com> <DAV52sD9ynmYjUaMJl30000c485@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c101c2d085$8bcb9d00$0101a8c0@pavilion>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Atherton" <suzloua at hotmail.com>
To: <HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 4:08 PM
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Your opinion about casting Voldemort


> Patty wrote:
> Tonight I went to see Shanghai Knights and there was a character on there
> that caught my eye. The first thing that I thought is that he would make a
> perfect Lord Voldemort. Now the only trouble is that he is a bit young to
> play him, but as I watched him up there on the screen I just kept thinking
> how much he looked like Tom Riddle. The man who plays this character is
> named Aidan Gillen. I have tried to find a good picture to show you, but I
> just couldn't find one in which he still had the Tom Riddle look to him,
but
> here is one just so you can see who I am referring to.
>
> Do any of you have an opinion on who you think would make a good Lord
> Voldemort in upcoming Harry Potter movies? And what is your opinion about
> whether or not this guy (Aidan) would make a good Voldemort?
>
> Now Susan:
> HA!!! I *love* Aidan Gillen, in the UK he played the main part of Stuart
in
> the original Queer As Folk (not the shoddy rip off you Yanks got ;) ). He
is
> EXACTLY what I imagine Tom Riddle to be like - annoying, cheeky, and
> arrogant. Sadly, he has a very Irish accent - haven't heard him do
anything
> else, so I don't know if he can. But as someone else said, LV doesn't
really
> look like TMR anymore. But god, it'd be ace to see Aidan playing someone -
> anyone! - in a HP movie...
>
> Susan


Good! I'm glad it wasn't just my imagination, me thinking he looked like Tom
Riddle. :)

Susan, you mention that Aidan has an Irish accent, but in the movie Shanghai
Knights, I was disappointed that he didn't seem to have much of an accent at
all. I wonder if, for this particular role, he had to sound more American?

Anyways, to keep this from being totally OT. I'm really pleased that you
(someone who knows of him) also thinks that he would make a good Tom Riddle.
Oh! I just had a thought! As Olivia pointed out it may not make much
difference if Aidan did play Lord Voldemort because he is to look almost
unhuman like, but what if in future movies they do flashback scenes? These
scenes would show Voldemort before! his Avada Kedavra curse against
Baby!Harry backfired and consumed his life instead? If there were flashback
sequences such as this, they would need someone who (without the gruesome
unhumanlike make-up) would look somewhat similar to Tom Riddle.


Patty




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 10 00:21:29 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:21:29 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Sirius' appearance
Message-ID: <1d0.2260678.2b784a89@aol.com>

I pictured Sirius as having a very unshaven apperance, with the grubby edges 
to the beard men get when they truly don't shave, because he was in prison 
AND because he turns into a dog.  So when he was cleaned up, he'd still have 
a neatly trimmed beard, in my mind.  I've never pictured him as cleanshaven.  
JMHO.

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 10 11:29:36 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:29:36 -0000
Subject: When will WB give us the scoop?WAS:Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
In-Reply-To: <b26i0f+5vrq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b282f0+58ma@eGroups.com>

"Anne <urbana at c...>" <urbana at c...> wrote:
> so what's taking WB so long to announce the POA roles??!! GAAAH!!

Well put. I've been hoping all would be revealed in time for filming 
to start, which is on the 17th of this month, but with less than a 
week to go , I'm not so sure. Then I remebered Branagh and CoS. CoS 
started filming right after the PS premiere, but it wasn't until 
spring (though I can't remember when) that Branagh was official for 
the part of Lockhart. Wether that wsz a tidbit WB decided not to 
release until then or whether the part wasn't actually cast until 
long after filming began (there would have been plenty of other 
scenes to film) I couldn't say. In any case, this example makes me 
think that I might be hoping in vain for official confirmations to 
turn up anytime soon. On the other hand, rumours have been plentiful 
enough, some of which I have already accepted as wuite probable, at 
least things are happening, but...well...I don't know...

Sophia (who trying to be philosophical about it all and tell herself 
that too much certainty is boring...)




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Mon Feb 10 14:12:36 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:12:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] When will WB give us the scoop?WAS:Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???// Mess ups
Message-ID: <10490872.1044886357002.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

Sophia wrote:

> Well put. I've been hoping all would be revealed in time for filming 
> to start, which is on the 17th of this month, but with less than a
> week to go , I'm not so sure. Then I remebered Branagh and CoS. CoS
> started filming right after the PS premiere, but it wasn't until
> spring (though I can't remember when) that Branagh was official for
> the part of Lockhart. Wether that wsz a tidbit WB decided not to 
> release until then or whether the part wasn't actually cast until 
> long after filming began (there would have been plenty of other 
> scenes to film) I couldn't say. In any case, this example makes me 

I am almost certain that the Dueling scene (which of course Brannagh was in) 
was filmed fairly early on.  For one thing it had lots of special effects that 
needed working on.  Also if you look at Daniel and Tom particularly, they 
looked significantly younger than in other parts of the film.  Chubby cheeks 
and all.

Back on the topic of "mess ups" which we were discussing from PS/SS (the very 
few that were shown on the DVD during interviews), I just thought of one from 
CoS that's already been shown.  It was shown during one of the Jason Isaacs 
interviews, when he comes storming into Dumbledore's office, pushing Harry 
aside with his cane.  The mouth of the snake head on the cane gets caught in 
Daniel's collar.  So Isaacs stops, gets it out, says "Sorry about that, love." 
and pats him on the head.   I watched it over and over, I dissolve in giggles 
every time.  Like I said earlier, it doesn't take much to make me happy. :)

Richelle


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




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 10 19:32:19 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:32:19 -0000
Subject: When will WB give us the scoop?WAS:Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???// Mess u
In-Reply-To: <10490872.1044886357002.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>
Message-ID: <b28uo3+60q2@eGroups.com>


Previously, I (Sophia) wrote: 
but it wasn't until
 spring (though I can't remember when) that Branagh was official for
 the part of Lockhart. 

Richelle commented: I am almost certain that the Dueling scene (which of 
course Brannagh was in) was filmed fairly early on.  For one thing it had lots 
of special effects that  needed working on.  Also if you look at Daniel and Tom 
particularly, they  looked significantly younger than in other parts of the film.  
Chubby cheeks and all.

Now me: Excellent point. I believe you are right. Also, I need to apologize for 
musing when I should have done my research instead. A little search on the 
message index shows me that Lockhart casting was indeed known by nov. 
2001 on this list, so this information must have been released as CoS started 
fliming. Excellent. There goes my theory, which was based on a faulty 
deduction and non-existent facts,  that WB would sit on casting info until 
filming was well under way. I'm very glad I was wrong and have decided once 
again to start hoping for news on and around the 17th. By then everything 
should be finalized, right?

Sophia 




From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb 10 20:31:43 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 20:31:43 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044909103.406.16050.w58@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

Is Harry Potter not only the heir to 
gryffindor (thru James) but also heir 
to slytherin (thru Lily) and this is 
the reason voldemort want to kill Harry? 

  o yes 
  o no 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11043832  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb 10 20:38:49 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 20:38:49 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044909529.211.22293.w20@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

how will book 7 conclude? 

  o Harry kills Voldemort 
  o Dumbledore kills Voldemort 
  o Wormtail kills Voldemort (saving harry) 
  o Harry wakes up and all this has been a dream (harry's parents did die in a car crash and Harry's scar is from the accident)? 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11043840  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb 10 20:43:50 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 20:43:50 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044909830.125.98125.w13@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

Did Lily Potter use a switching spell 
and transfer Remus J(ames?) Lupin into 
James Potter Body and vica versa so 
that Harry's father James is still 
alive in Lupin's body? 

  o yes 
  o no 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11043843  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb 10 21:13:55 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 21:13:55 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044911635.306.96147.w16@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

snape assigned the class on 
identification of werewolves (to expose 
lupin)------lupin assigned the class on 
identification of vampires----does that 
mean snape is a vampire? 

  o yes 
  o no 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11043880  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 10 21:18:24 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum <hp@plum.cream.org>)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:18:24 -0000
Subject: New polls for HPFGU-Movie
In-Reply-To: <1044909103.406.16050.w58@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <b294v0+tkbs@eGroups.com>

Just out of curiosity...

Why aren't these polls on the main list? They're hardly directly 
relevant to the movie series (except inasmuch as the movies are 
sourced from the books).

-- 
GulPlum AKA Richard, showing surprise rather than his net-coppish 
tendencies... :-)






From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb 10 21:23:56 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 21:23:56 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044912236.308.18556.w58@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

the killing curse leaves no marks on 
the body yet harry has a scar----did 
voldemort cause the scar on harry's 
head? 

  o yes 
  o no 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11043891  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Tue Feb 11 17:13:13 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:13:13 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] silly question
Message-ID: <15.9c17558.2b7a8929@aol.com>

How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real life needs 
to wear glasses, did they put his prescription in Harry's glasses??  Those 
glasses don't look like they have any prescription in them, the few times 
they look like glass.  I just cleaned my glasses and that thought occurred to 
me -- why not put Dan's prescription in the glasses, since he needs them 
anyway?  He must not need them very badly to be able to make do without them.

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From draco382 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 11 17:23:59 2003
From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382 <draco382@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:23:59 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <15.9c17558.2b7a8929@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2bbjf+5m03@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real 
life needs 
> to wear glasses, did they put his prescription in Harry's 
glasses??  Those 
> glasses don't look like they have any prescription in them, the few 
times 
> they look like glass.  I just cleaned my glasses and that thought 
occurred to 
> me -- why not put Dan's prescription in the glasses, since he needs 
them 
> anyway?  He must not need them very badly to be able to make do 
without them.


I was wondering about this too and IIRC, i remember reading a long 
time back that Dan wore glasses that had a special coating so they 
wouldn't reflect too much in the camera lights.  I'm assuming that 
you can't have prescription + coating at the same time?  or....maybe 
they just didn't think of it!  

my two cents,
draco382




From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 11 17:49:22 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:49:22 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] silly question
In-Reply-To: <15.9c17558.2b7a8929@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030211173111.00968b40@plum.cream.org>

ArtsyLynda wrote:
>How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real life needs
>to wear glasses, did they put his prescription in Harry's glasses??  Those
>glasses don't look like they have any prescription in them, the few times
>they look like glass.  I just cleaned my glasses and that thought occurred to
>me -- why not put Dan's prescription in the glasses, since he needs them
>anyway?  He must not need them very badly to be able to make do without them.

D.R. said somewhere along the way that he no longer needs specs. His 
prescription must have been pretty weak for him to be able to say that 
truthfully.

As I understand it (I am a specs-wearer and count at least two optometrists 
among my friends), if a child (i.e. pre-puberty) requires corrective 
lenses, it is  usually a sign of a congenital defect somewhere along the 
line - such children are destined to require correction indefinitely (the 
most common defects usually get slightly worse during puberty but then get 
slightly better when one approaches 40). Furthermore, men with defective 
vision have a 90-something per cent chance of passing it on to their sons. 
Dan's dad wears glasses. Draw your own conclusions. :-)

All in all, I think Dan is telling porkies about not requiring specs any 
more. :-)

As for whether or not he was given corrective lenses in his prop 
spectacles, I recall reading somewhere that the ones he wore on screen are 
real spectacles created by Dollond & Aitchison (www.danda.co.uk; real 
opticians - as it happens, they provide mine as well) :-) who as part of 
the deal were licensed to produce and sell branded Harry Potter spectacles 
(http://www.danda.co.uk/html/kids_at_danda/harrypotter.asp) - certainly 
they would have examined Dan to create the right size, etc, so they could 
well have produced corrective lenses if he requires them. The fact that in 
both films, there are scenes during which it's obvious that there's no 
glass in the specs makes me wonder that they'd have him going from 
corrective lenses to none at all as his eyes would appear different. Plain 
glass would have meant his eyes would react the same way all the time.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who does *not* wear HP-branded specs! :-)




From sarah at mcfarland.co.uk  Tue Feb 11 18:23:05 2003
From: sarah at mcfarland.co.uk (S)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:23:05 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] silly question
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030211173111.00968b40@plum.cream.org>
References: <15.9c17558.2b7a8929@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030211182038.0323de48@pop.ntlworld.com>


> >How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real life needs
> >to wear glasses, did they put his prescription in Harry's glasses??  Those
> >glasses don't look like they have any prescription in them, the few times
> >they look like glass.  I just cleaned my glasses and that thought 
> occurred to
> >me -- why not put Dan's prescription in the glasses, since he needs them
> >anyway?  He must not need them very badly to be able to make do without 
> them.

I know a couple of people who are functionally blind without their glasses 
- but they can get by without them, so long as they don't have to read. 
Daniel could have very bad eyesight, but be able to act - so long as he 
rehearsed in glasses, so he knows what to do and where to go.

>D.R. said somewhere along the way that he no longer needs specs. His
>prescription must have been pretty weak for him to be able to say that
>truthfully.
>
>As I understand it (I am a specs-wearer and count at least two optometrists
>among my friends), if a child (i.e. pre-puberty) requires corrective
>lenses, it is  usually a sign of a congenital defect somewhere along the
>line - such children are destined to require correction indefinitely (the
>most common defects usually get slightly worse during puberty but then get
>slightly better when one approaches 40). Furthermore, men with defective
>vision have a 90-something per cent chance of passing it on to their sons.
>Dan's dad wears glasses. Draw your own conclusions. :-)

Two of my four brothers required corrective lenses before puberty (one was 
short sighted, I don't remember about the other) - both were able to see 
perfectly well without glasses by the time they were 12 or so. It might be 
the case that *usually* children who need glasses will need them when they 
are adults . . . but certainly not *always*.

~Say 




From HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com  Tue Feb 11 18:42:44 2003
From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 11 Feb 2003 18:42:44 -0000
Subject: New poll for HPFGU-Movie 
Message-ID: <1044988964.847.64050.w40@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HPFGU-Movie group:

Will the Harry Potter septology ever be 
viewed as a literary classic as The 
Lord of the Ring is?  

  o yes 
  o no 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/surveys?id=11044612  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From corgi at SFF.net  Tue Feb 11 19:10:05 2003
From: corgi at SFF.net (Corgi <corgi@SFF.net>)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:10:05 -0000
Subject: Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
In-Reply-To: <b25l4j+4ikh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2bhqd+5do4@eGroups.com>

--- RoBro wrote:

> Here's a pic of [Angus MacFayden] in the Robert the Bruce role. 
> Even though he has the headgear on, the face is definitely that of
> the Sirius I have in my mind.  (Beard and all.....he he
> he.... :)   )
> 
> http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/legends/bruce1.htm
> 
> I hate to say this, but I am actually changing my vote from Jason 
> Carter to McFadyan!!!

Rose!  I'm =stricken=!  (You know Angus is short and jowly, right?) ;)

Corgi




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 11 19:43:15 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:43:15 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <b2bjac+tk56@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2bjoj+loc3@eGroups.com>

Oh, Steve beat me to it by a couple of minutes.  He also said:

> A side note on glare coated lenses: If you are thinking about 
getting
> the non-reflective lense coating which work quite well, keep in mind
> that the coating is very fragile. If you use the wrong solution to
> clean the lenses, the coating starts to flake off whick leaves a 
very
> foggy spot on you lenses (it's actually made up of two separate
> coatings). The only way to fix it, is to pay $30 to $40 per lense to
> have the coating removed. That is, if you can even find someone
> willing to do it.

As long as we're being OT <g>, I got them once because I was drawing 
a lot at the time and they are a boon to anyone working on a self-
portrait.  I didn't have problems with them flaking off, but I did 
find that they scratched very easily.

Amy




From lilypotter at gosympatico.ca  Tue Feb 11 18:42:46 2003
From: lilypotter at gosympatico.ca (hedwigpotter2003 <lilypotter@gosympatico.ca>)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:42:46 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030211173111.00968b40@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2bg76+3gc8@eGroups.com>


GulPlum wrote:

there are scenes during which it's obvious that there's no 
> glass in the specs makes me wonder that they'd have him going from 
> corrective lenses to none at all as his eyes would appear 
different. Plain 
> glass would have meant his eyes would react the same way all the 
time.


Let's keep in mind thatDan wears green contact lenses when filming. 
That could be where a prescription resides if indeed he requires one.

Hedwig 
taking her first flight on this sister Group 





From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 00:18:51 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <ArtsyLynda@aol.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:18:51 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <b2bbjf+5m03@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2c3tc+5kog@eGroups.com>


> I was wondering about this too and IIRC, i remember reading a long 
> time back that Dan wore glasses that had a special coating so they 
> wouldn't reflect too much in the camera lights.  I'm assuming that 
> you can't have prescription + coating at the same time?  
or....maybe 
> they just didn't think of it!  
> 
> my two cents,
> draco382

Sure, you can have the coating on any prescription, as far as I 
know.  That's how TV newspeople and actors who wear glasses manage 
without having big glare spots on their glasses from the set's lights.

Lynda




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 00:23:57 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <ArtsyLynda@aol.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:23:57 -0000
Subject: Anything on Sirus Casting Yet???/
In-Reply-To: <b2bhqd+5do4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2c46t+4k1f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Corgi <corgi at S...>" <corgi at S...> 
wrote:
> --- RoBro wrote:
> 
> > Here's a pic of [Angus MacFayden] in the Robert the Bruce role. 
> > Even though he has the headgear on, the face is definitely that of
> > the Sirius I have in my mind.  (Beard and all.....he he
> > he.... :)   )
> > 
> > http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/legends/bruce1.htm
> > 
> > I hate to say this, but I am actually changing my vote from Jason 
> > Carter to McFadyan!!!
> 
> Rose!  I'm =stricken=!  (You know Angus is short and jowly, 
right?) ;)
> 
> Corgi

Last night on TV I saw a new show called "Miracles" -- and I believe 
the short jowly guy who is one of the stars is Angus MacFayden -- I 
thought I recognized his name when I saw it in the credits (I could 
be wrong, I wasn't paying LOTS of attention but his name did catch my 
eye).  He is a bit jowly, actually, and not very tall.  I picture 
Sirius as tall -- this guy doesn't have the look, to my eye.  JMHO.





From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 00:28:43 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <ArtsyLynda@aol.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:28:43 -0000
Subject: glasses (was silly question)
In-Reply-To: <b2bji8+l2gb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2c4fr+sm3s@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> > How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in real 
> life needs 
> > to wear glasses
> 
> Could you point us to an interview?  I thought he said he *doesn't* 
> wear them--I believe it was in reference to being recognized (or 
not, 
> which was the point, because he generally doesn't wear glasses).  

I've read so many articles, I can't say which ones (there were 
several) included the information.  He said in several places I've 
read, that he was supposed to wear glasses but kept breaking them -- 
he even broke off half a tooth from chewing on them, as well as 
breaking the ends of the temple pieces.  He had to be chewing pretty 
darned hard to break off half a tooth!  I didn't get to see the Katie 
Courick interview where he rubbed his eye THROUGH his Harry Potter 
glasses -- wish they had that one online, sounds like fun.  ;->




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 00:32:27 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <ArtsyLynda@aol.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:32:27 -0000
Subject: glasses (was silly question)
In-Reply-To: <31477422.1044993132322.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>
Message-ID: <b2c4mr+3edj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, rvotaw at i... wrote:
> 
> > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> > > How's this for a silly question -- since Daniel Radcliffe in 
real 
> > life needs to wear glasses
> 
> 
>Rickelle:  Newer intervews, when asked if he wears glasses, Daniel 
says no.  I suspect he 
> outgrew the need for them.

Okay, that's a valid thing.  IF a kid has slightly crossed eyes, or a 
lazy eye, or their eyes just don't align properly, or they have some 
trouble reading a blackboard during a growth spurt, they may wind up 
in glasses FOR A WHILE but not need them after that.  So it's 
possible he really doesn't need them anymore -- or it's possible he 
just refuses to wear them (by constantly destroying them) to the 
point his folks have given up on trying to make him!  My brother did 
that with his retainers once he got out of braces, broke them 
constantly because he didn't want to wear them.  Boys will be boys, I 
suppose. . .  ;->




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 00:33:42 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <ArtsyLynda@aol.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:33:42 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <b2bg76+3gc8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2c4p6+a99s@eGroups.com>

If he's wearing green contacts, why do his eyes look so blue the vast 
majority of the time?  Just curious.  I haven't read anywhere that he 
wore contacts.

Lynda 
> 
> Let's keep in mind thatDan wears green contact lenses when filming. 
> That could be where a prescription resides if indeed he requires 
one.
> 
> Hedwig 
> taking her first flight on this sister Group




From urbana at charter.net  Wed Feb 12 01:11:06 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:11:06 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030211173111.00968b40@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2c6va+a0dm@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
 
> As for whether or not [Dan] was given corrective lenses in his prop 
> spectacles, I recall reading somewhere that the ones he wore on 
screen are 
> real spectacles created by Dollond & Aitchison (www.danda.co.uk; 
real 
> opticians - as it happens, they provide mine as well) :-) who as 
part of 
> the deal were licensed to produce and sell branded Harry Potter 
spectacles 
> (http://www.danda.co.uk/html/kids_at_danda/harrypotter.asp)...

My 6 1/2 year old daughter (who is a HUGE HP fan) just got her first 
pair of eye glasses less than 2 weeks ago. Yes, she is extremely near-
sighted. No, she did NOT choose Harry Potter lenses, although they 
were available. She didn't like the round frames, so she picked a 
more oval "Wild Thornberrys by Nickelodeon" frame. 

Anne U
(if one merchandising scheme doesn't getcha, another one will)





From rvotaw at i-55.com  Wed Feb 12 02:12:27 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:12:27 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie]glasses (was Re: silly question)
References: <b2bg76+3gc8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c2d23c$315993a0$a69ccdd1@RVotaw>

I (Richelle) wrote:

> Okay, let's try to straighten this out.  :)  I have countless (literally, 
> countless!) interviews in my scrapbooks (which I have spent more money than is 
> at all practical on, but it's fun!).  I don't have them with me, but I'll try 
> to dig around and find some exact quotes.  But I'll sum it up here for good 
> measure.

Here are a couple of the interview quotes I was talking about.  First, from Teen Magazine, 2001:

What he [Daniel] and Harry have in common: "I'm supposed to wear glasses."
What they don't: "I keep losing them."

And from Nickelodeon Magazine, January 9, 2002:

Do you think you look like Harry Potter? "Without my glasses, I don't think so.  But with my glasses I suppose I do quite."
Do you wear glasses normally? "I'm supposed to, but I don't.  I break them.  I lost half a tooth on my first pair.  I chewed the end of my glasses so much that half of my tooth came off."

Hedwig writes:

> Let's keep in mind thatDan wears green contact lenses when filming. 
> That could be where a prescription resides if indeed he requires one.

Lynda replied:

> If he's wearing green contacts, why do his eyes look so blue the vast 
> majority of the time?  Just curious.  I haven't read anywhere that he 
> wore contacts.

Daniel does not wear contacts.  The contacts irritated his eyes, so they left them off.  His eyes are not green in the movie.  I kept hearing things like in SS/PS they were green in closeups.  I watched the DVD over and over, pausing at *every* closeup, zooming in, etc.  They are NOT green.  They are as blue as blue can get.  A beautiful blue, I don't have a problem with them being blue.  The only, I repeat, ONLY time I've seen them green is in the international trailer for CoS.  Once again, I've not seen CoS itself, so I can't speak for that.

Richelle


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 01:28:11 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:28:11 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: silly question
Message-ID: <196.15827cad.2b7afd2b@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/11/2003 5:19:16 PM Central Standard Time, 
lilypotter at gosympatico.ca writes:


> Let's keep in mind thatDan wears green contact lenses when filming. 
> That could be where a prescription resides if indeed he requires one.
> 
> Hedwig 
> taking her first flight on this sister Group 
> 
> 

Actually he doesn't wear contacts in either movie. All of the movie posters 
all have seen also show him with his natural (blue) eye color.

As I recall reading they were going to use contacts but they hurt his eyes. I 
also seem to recall CGI imaging being ruled out due to lack of time. For that 
I'm glad, messing with eye color in movies tends to distort the emotion in 
them.    

Besides if eye color does becomes important later in the books it would still 
fairly easy to change from the "emerald" green in the books to "sapphire" 
blue for the  movies.

Melissa (back to lurking)


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





From amani at charter.net  Wed Feb 12 02:23:18 2003
From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:23:18 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: silly question
References: <b2bg76+3gc8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c2d23d$b4c2d2a0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>

GulPlum wrote:
there are scenes during which it's obvious that there's no 
> glass in the specs makes me wonder that they'd have him going from 
> corrective lenses to none at all as his eyes would appear 
different. Plain 
> glass would have meant his eyes would react the same way all the 
time.

Hedwig:
Let's keep in mind thatDan wears green contact lenses when filming. 
That could be where a prescription resides if indeed he requires one.

Me:
Untrue. Contacts were attempted to change his eyecolor to green, but they irritated his eyes, and so were not used.

--Taryn

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





From julia at thequiltbug.com  Wed Feb 12 03:29:26 2003
From: julia at thequiltbug.com (Calliope)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dan's eyes and hair
Message-ID: <20030211192927.29552.h014.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net>

Richelle:

<big snip>
Daniel does not wear contacts.? The contacts irritated his eyes, so they left
them off.? His eyes are not green in the movie.?<snip>? They are as blue as blue
can get.? A beautiful blue, I don't have a problem with them being blue.? 
<more snip>

I say:

Hear hear!  Totally agree.  Dan Radcliffe has gorgeous blue eyes. Very
expressive.  I am so glad someone else thinks so.  

I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing "Harry's eyes should be green" and
"Harry's hair should be messier and/or blacker."  I would rather see Dan's
natural eyes than some fake CGI coloring.  (Contacts are totally out of the
question.  He can't wear them.)They would lose their beautiful expression.  And
as for the hair - the less messy it is, the better continuity they get.  It's
hard to make someone's hair messy exactly the same way in every take.  And if
they dyed it black it would look fake.  

Dan Radcliffe does a wonderful job as Harry Potter (no one would be 100% perfect
in anyone's mind, no matter what) and I think people who get so ridiculously
wrapped up in superficial things like eyes/hair lose the bigger picture.  I
think he has the mannerisms and personality of Harry down very well and that's
more important than his eye/hair color.  

JMHO.

Julia
(who sounds like a screaming teenage fangirl, but is almost 30.  *sigh*)



From lilypotter at gosympatico.ca  Wed Feb 12 03:41:34 2003
From: lilypotter at gosympatico.ca (hedwigpotter2003 <lilypotter@gosympatico.ca>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 03:41:34 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <002e01c2d23d$b4c2d2a0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>
Message-ID: <b2cfpe+34td@eGroups.com>

 
Taryn, Richelle and Melissa all clarified 
<Contacts were attempted to change his eyecolor to green, but they
irritated his eyes> 


Thank you for that clarification! Despite the fact that I had often 
read about the green contact lenses(early on mind you just after the 
release of PS/SS), I did not recall that the attempts to wear them 
had failed. This of course explains why indeed Dan's beautiful blue 
eyes charm the screen in both movies. I always wondered why they 
would bother with contacts with such little effect really. How the 
simple answers sometimes evade you...

Hedwig




From amani at charter.net  Wed Feb 12 03:43:58 2003
From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:43:58 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dan's eyes and hair
References: <20030211192927.29552.h014.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net>
Message-ID: <009f01c2d249$06154ce0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>


Richelle:
<big snip>
Daniel does not wear contacts. The contacts irritated his eyes, so they left
them off. His eyes are not green in the movie. <snip> They are as blue as blue
can get. A beautiful blue, I don't have a problem with them being blue. 
<more snip>

Julia:
Hear hear!  Totally agree.  Dan Radcliffe has gorgeous blue eyes. Very
expressive.  I am so glad someone else thinks so.  

I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing "Harry's eyes should be green" and
"Harry's hair should be messier and/or blacker."  I would rather see Dan's
natural eyes than some fake CGI coloring.  (Contacts are totally out of the
question.  He can't wear them.)They would lose their beautiful expression.

Me:
I think everyone gets the most hung up about his eyes because it seems to have been said that his eye color will become important later on. *shrugs*

--Taryn

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




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Wed Feb 12 03:54:34 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:54:34 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dan's eyes and hair
References: <20030211192927.29552.h014.c011.wm@mail.thequiltbug.com.criticalpath.net>
Message-ID: <00c501c2d24a$756855a0$a69ccdd1@RVotaw>

Julia writes:
<snip>

>Dan Radcliffe does a wonderful job as Harry Potter (no one would be 100% perfect
>in anyone's mind, no matter what) and I think people who get so ridiculously
>wrapped up in superficial things like eyes/hair lose the bigger picture.  I
>think he has the mannerisms and personality of Harry down very well and that's
>more important than his eye/hair color.  

Thank you.  Thank you, thank you. :)  Glad someone agrees with me.  Which reminds me, as I was looking for the Daniel quotes about his glasses, I stumbled across a couple comments JKR made regarding him playing Harry.  

One being when she saw Daniel's test screens, she released this statement: "I think Dan nailed it, and I am really pleased."

And in another article Daniel was asked if he'd met JKR.  He said "Yes, I have spoken to her and she is so nice.  She's fantastic!  Her daughter's great as well.  Joanne looked at me the first time and said she felt like she'd been reunited with her long-lost son.  Isn't that lovely?"

I think JKR's nod of approval is good enough for anyone. :)

Richelle


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Wed Feb 12 04:10:11 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:10:11 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dan's eyes and hair
Message-ID: <2b.388dba1f.2b7b2323@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/11/2003 9:46:53 PM Central Standard Time, 
amani at charter.net writes:


> Me:
> I think everyone gets the most hung up about his eyes because it seems to 
> have been said that his eye color will become important later on. *shrugs*
> 
> --Taryn
> 


And green eyes may very well be important in the books but in the movies they 
can make blue eyes just as important.  Its just a detail. 

In other words whatever latent "powers" he might have that are indicated by 
his brilliant green eyes can easily be changed to being attributed to his 
brilliant blue eyes.

Melissa


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




From dozierwoman at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 12 12:38:28 2003
From: dozierwoman at hotmail.com (Lisa <dozierwoman@hotmail.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:38:28 -0000
Subject: Dan's eyes and hair
In-Reply-To: <2b.388dba1f.2b7b2323@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2df84+89ec@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/11/2003 9:46:53 PM Central Standard Time, 
> amani at c... writes:
> 
> 
> > Me:
> > I think everyone gets the most hung up about his eyes because it 
seems to 
> > have been said that his eye color will become important later on. 
*shrugs*
> > 
> > --Taryn
> > 
> 
> 
> And green eyes may very well be important in the books but in the 
movies they 
> can make blue eyes just as important.  Its just a detail. 
> 
> In other words whatever latent "powers" he might have that are 
indicated by 
> his brilliant green eyes can easily be changed to being attributed 
to his 
> brilliant blue eyes.
> 
> Melissa

I agree! Lily has never been seen in close-up in the movies, so who's 
to say they can't change her eye color to blue? The actress who 
portrays her might be able to tolerate the contacts better than Dan 
is able to.

Lisa aka Lady Firenze (who is now returning to lurkdom)
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 12 18:20:24 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:20:24 -0000
Subject: silly question
In-Reply-To: <196.15827cad.2b7afd2b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2e398+3e14@eGroups.com>

Melissa wrote:
 
> Besides if eye color does becomes important later in the books it 
would still 
> fairly easy to change from the "emerald" green in the books 
to "sapphire" 
> blue for the  movies.

<g>  JKR checked over the scripts to make sure they didn't contradict 
any facts that are yet unrevealed to us mere mortals.  It seems safe 
to conclude that if there is significance to Harry's eyes, it doesn't 
lie in their green color.

As for why certain fans <blushes> obsess over seemingly irrelevant 
details such as the preternatural neatness of DR's hair or common 
color of his eyes, of course it is true that an actor's ACTING 
ability is far more important.  I can speak only for myself, but 
suspect that I am not the only one who finds Harry's hair and eyes 
symbolic of things that do matter:  he is flawed (messy hair), 
ordinary (ditto), and also, paradoxically, unusual (brilliant green 
eyes).

Or then again, it might be a simple matter of overidentification.  

Amy Z
messy hair, green(ish) eyes




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 12 18:47:24 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:47:24 -0000
Subject: Hair (was silly question)
In-Reply-To: <b2e398+3e14@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2e4rs+4rpq@eGroups.com>

I wrote:

>the preternatural neatness of DR's hair

and then saw this link from The Leaky Cauldron, featuring a shot from 
the set of PoA in which his hair is wonderfully mussed, albeit brown 
(another link with this photo makes it clear that this isn't just Dan 
when he's just gotten to the set, but from an actual shoot, 
apparently the scene in Magnolia Crescent).  

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003070408,00.html

Bravo!  Should we thank Cuaron?

Amy Z





From penumbra10 at ameritech.net  Wed Feb 12 19:47:10 2003
From: penumbra10 at ameritech.net (Nia <penumbra10@ameritech.net>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:47:10 -0000
Subject: Yaaay!  The first PoA pictures are up 
Message-ID: <b2e8bu+ctlp@eGroups.com>

The Sun online has pictues of the triple decker "knight bus" from the 
new PoA film as well as one of Dan on set here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003070408,00.html

The bus is a real hoot, isn't it? There is also an accompanying 
article that indicated the knight bus scene was too dangerous for Dan 
so they had to use a stunt double.  I guess it must be the part where 
the bus comes careening out of nowhere when Harry is holding his wand 
out. The bus must come awfully close and I imagine it's a bit tipsy 
and top-heavy being so tall and all. Looks like that will be quite 
exciting to watch.  :-)

Also, at "The Leaky Cauldron" there is a link to an article that 
indicated Cuaron was too busy on the PoA set to give an interview 
about his Academy Award nomination.  Sooooooo, it looks like filming 
has begun before the "announced" February 17th start date.  It would 
be rather nice, wouldn't it, if they managed to let everyone in on 
the big casting 'secrets' before they got too far underway.

Question:
Since it will only take about nine months or so to film PoA, and the 
release date isn't until June, 2004, does anyone know if they plan to 
start filming GoF in late 2003, early 2004 or wait until after PoA is 
released?  That will be about an 8-month hiatus--a bit long, don't 
you think?
--Nia




From tmtunstall at 37.com  Wed Feb 12 21:13:03 2003
From: tmtunstall at 37.com (moblib564 <tmtunstall@37.com>)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:13:03 -0000
Subject: The Knight Bus
Message-ID: <b2edcv+iag5@eGroups.com>


Hello people, this is my first post after a long time of lurking. I 
just wondered if any of you had seen this picture of the Knight Bus 
from British tabloid newspaper "The Sun." Apparently filming has 
already started so if cast decisions have been made, they're not 
being made public yet. For those interested the address is here:

www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003070408,,00.html

sorry, tried to copy and paste link but it didn't work!

Tracy T






From hp at plum.cream.org  Wed Feb 12 23:54:46 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:54:46 +0000
Subject: Scheduling GoF
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030212235327.00952510@plum.cream.org>

Nia wrote:

>Question:
>Since it will only take about nine months or so to film PoA, and the
>release date isn't until June, 2004, does anyone know if they plan to
>start filming GoF in late 2003, early 2004 or wait until after PoA is
>released?  That will be about an 8-month hiatus--a bit long, don't
>you think?

PoA might be able to be on a shorter shooting schedule: a big problem with 
making the first two movies (well documented and commented upon ad nauseam) 
is that the bulk of the filming was done during school term time, which 
meant that at least half of each day had to be devoted to school work, on 
top of limitations on how many hours per day the kids could be on set at all.

Come 23rd July, most legal limitations are off: Dan will be 14 and the 
school year will have ended. Under British law, kids aged 14 and over can 
spend their summer holidays working as many hours as they wish. This will 
presumably make life on set a lot easier for all involved, and if they can 
all get their act together, it's not impossible that they could finish 
principal photography by the beginning of the new school year in 
mid-September.

That would give the SFX teams about 9 months to do their stuff. Off the top 
of my head, that means 3 Quidditch matches (I sincerely hope they keep all 
3 in!); inflating Marge, the morphs for the Boggart, Lupin, Peter and 
Sirius are fairly easy nowadays, as are the (presumably) CGI Patronus and 
animated Marauder's Map. The biggie will be Buckbeak, which I would expect 
will be done the way the Basilisk was in CoS, with a combination of 
modelwork and CGI.

Re. scheduling GoF, though... I suspect that Columbus et al were being 
honest in everything they said when CoS came out: Kloves has probably just 
been signed to do the screenplay (well, 3 months ago, Columbus said that 
negotiations were underway so I assume they've been concluded) and the rest 
is in the air.

Furthermore, considering the rumours Columbus himself fuelled at PS/SS time 
that GoF could be done as two movies, and as it won't be possible to decide 
if they can condense the book into one movie until Kloves has done a first 
draft of the script, any kind of scheduling talk before he's done that is 
groundless speculation.

The doubts expressed about whether or not Dan wants to be involved probably 
won't be resolved until PoA is well underway (if not over), and that's 
going to be another lynch pin for scheduling. If he is involved, his 
parents will continue to want filming to have minimal impact on his 
schooling, and if not, there's obviously going to be a huge search for a 
replacement...

Although nothing's been announced, I would expect that WB will be aiming 
for a November 2005 release for GoF. November 2004 is completely out of the 
question for miriad reasons, and I expect they'll want to return to a 
pre-Christmas release to maximise merchandising, especially as there'll be 
no LOTR movie to compete for both cinema tickets and toys!

With 18 months between releases, there's no point in going into filming GoF 
straight away, although on the other hand, it might make sense to launch 
into it during the summer holidays.

If they launch into making GoF shortly after PoA comes out, and maximise 
use of next year's summer holidays, they could conceivably have principal 
photography done by Christmas (if GoF is done as one movie) or perhaps by 
Easter if it's done as two. But as I said at the top, most scheduling 
decisions depend on the script and Dan's intentions. Until these have been 
cleared up, any speculation is frankly pointless.




From belleps at october.com  Thu Feb 13 02:51:31 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:51:31 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dan's eyes and hair
In-Reply-To: <1045023023.1555.62650.m3@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030212204853.00a179e0@pop.cox-internet.com>

At 04:10 AM 2/12/03 +0000, you wrote:
>And green eyes may very well be important in the books but in the movies they
>can make blue eyes just as important.  Its just a detail.
>
>In other words whatever latent "powers" he might have that are indicated by
>his brilliant green eyes can easily be changed to being attributed to his
>brilliant blue eyes.
>
>Melissa

True, though some people have hypothesized that green is important because 
it relates to Slytherin. I'm inclined to wonder if that's true, since 
they've left Dan's eyes blue for the movies. In fact, IIRC, all of the 
lines about Harry having his mother's eyes have been deleted from the 
movies. Is that correct? If so, it makes me wonder if the eyes are 
important at all. Wouldn't THAT have been a successful red herring? <grin>

bel 




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 13 15:22:14 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:22:14 -0000
Subject: Who picked Cloves?
Message-ID: <b2gd76+jai1@eGroups.com>

Does anybody know who gets to pick the script-writer for a movie, and 
specifically, who made the decision for the HP franchise? Was Rowling 
involved? Is it the producers mainly, and what power does the 
director have in making changes? Do you think Cloves is with us for 
the long haul, or will we see someone else's screen adaptation in 
future installments? I'm not so happy with Steven, although I have no 
way of knowing just how bad it could have been. Don't get me wrong, I 
LOVE the movies, I only wish the dialog wasn't so clunky and that we 
got more of Rowling's humour and less of the instruction-type-humour 
(like "insert-laugh-here"-lines), and that the characters came across 
more clearly in what comes out of their mouths... 

Sophia




From stbinch at actionsd.com  Thu Feb 13 15:37:54 2003
From: stbinch at actionsd.com (Steve Binch)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:37:54 -0700
Subject: Scheduling GoF
References: <1045142744.1827.77070.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001901c2d375$e02f0f10$2101a8c0@ACTIONSTEEL.COM>

I was thinking about GoF and if they made it two movies. Wouldn't it be
great to have part 1 for summer 2005 and part 2 for Christmas 2005? That is
what they are doing this year with The Matrix sequels. I hope it is
successful for The Matrix, so that WB will have confidance in the 6 month
apart schedualing.

-Steve B.




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 13 18:46:56 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:46:56 -0000
Subject: Who picked KKKloves
In-Reply-To: <b2gd76+jai1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2gp70+uvlh@eGroups.com>


I'm replying to my own message here to apologize for misspelling Klove's last 
name (very red in the face), and I'm supposed to be an HP-movie fan. Shame 
on me. Detention.

Sophia




From hp at plum.cream.org  Thu Feb 13 19:06:58 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:06:58 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Scheduling GoF
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030213190640.00968e80@plum.cream.org>

This is also an attempt at commenting on Sohpia's post...

At 15:37 13/02/03 , Steve Binch wrote:
>I was thinking about GoF and if they made it two movies. Wouldn't it be
>great to have part 1 for summer 2005 and part 2 for Christmas 2005? That is
>what they are doing this year with The Matrix sequels. I hope it is
>successful for The Matrix, so that WB will have confidance in the 6 month
>apart schedualing.

Much as I'd like to see as much of the book filmed as possible, the concept 
of having it made as two separate movies released six months apart leaves 
me entirely unimpressed.

This is *not* the same situation as the Matrix sequels (each of which 
apparently is meant to work as a standalone movie) or the existing example 
of this scheme having been done (and worked) before, namely the two Back To 
The future sequels.

It's not even the same situation as the LOTR trilogy which is simply one 
single 9-hour movie in three parts (I disagree with the idea of releasing 
it over a period of three years, even though the box office for TTT seems 
to show that it's working).

GoF is a "sequel" of kinds in itself and doing it in two parts cheapens it 
somewhat. Furthermore, assuming that it's made as two movies and that "part 
one" ends at the logical and almost mathematical half-way point in the 
story, namely after the First Task, it would leave both movies completely 
unbalanced dramatically, not to mention that they would each have a very 
different tone.

I cannot express how disappointed I am at Columbus's announcement that 
Steve Kloves was being approached to write the script. There are lots of 
things about the book I dislike and the plotting could be tightened up 
tremendously if they could find a screenwriter with a little more 
self-confidence, who is less likely to stick slavishly to JKR's poor 
plotting but willing to keep her characterisation (on the basis of the 
first two movies, and especially CoS, Kloves appears to be doing exactly 
the opposite).

Ever since I read the books (which wasn't until after the first movie came 
out) I've maintained that the books would have transferred much better as a 
seven-season TV series (one season per book) than as stand-alone movies. 
This could have made a virtue of the books' episodic nature rather than 
showing it up as a recurring downside of the two movies to date. A better 
screenwriter than Kloves may have pulled off a cinematic transfer with some 
true *adaptation* rather than just condensing scenes or removing them 
altogether. He's done a poor job to date and as *at least half* of GoF will 
have to be excised to enable it to be made as a single movie, I simply 
don't trust him to do a good job.

Under the circumstances, I trust him even less to produce screenplays for 
two movies which look like anything more than a single movie split in half, 
or rather several episodes of a TV series strung together.

I'm not saying that I know the solutions or that I know how to pull it off, 
but then nobody's offering to pay me a small fortune to attempt it. 
Spending it on Kloves (with Columbus standing behind his back as producer) 
is IMO a huge waste.

I'm not entirely sure to what extent the poor adaptation of the first two 
books is down to Kloves's poor script or Columbus's poor direction (I 
suspect it's a mixture of the two). I'll wait to see what Cuaron makes 
based on Kloves's PoA script before I decide who is more to blame. 



From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Thu Feb 13 21:28:29 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:28:29 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Scheduling GoF
Message-ID: <121.1e648a17.2b7d67fd@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/13/2003 8:27:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com writes:

> The doubts expressed about whether or not Dan wants to be involved probably 
> won't be resolved until PoA is well underway 

What doubts about Dan wanting to be involved?  I thought the only doubts were 
from the producers side, if Dan got too mature looking in that amount of 
time??

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Thu Feb 13 22:47:03 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:47:03 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Scheduling GoF
In-Reply-To: <121.1e648a17.2b7d67fd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030213221448.00960e50@plum.cream.org>

At 21:28 13/02/03 , ArtsyLynda at aol.com wrote:

>What doubts about Dan wanting to be involved?  I thought the only doubts were
>from the producers side, if Dan got too mature looking in that amount of
>time??

No. Columbus implied during one of the CoS press conferences that Dan (and 
Rupert & Emma) might not be back for GoF. He later clarified that by saying 
that he thinks they'd prefer to give up the HP movies and get on with their 
lives, to "get back to being kids". Columbus further said that the kids 
were welcome to continue in the parts for as long as they had fun playing 
them.

There was ABSOLUTELY no implication that the production team wouldn't want 
them anymore - on the contrary, Columbus & co would love for them to stay on.
Frankly, they'd be crazy to WANT to replace any of the central characters 
regardless of how they were growing up - fan reaction is quite clear that 
Dan, Rupert and Emma *are* Harry, Ron and Hermione, and any change wouldn't 
necessarily be well accepted by the viewing public.

I can see the kids' (and their parents') POV, and they do indeed have 
serious decisions to make.

For example, it seems that Tom Felton no longer finds acting "fun" and has 
decided what he wants to do with his life (follow his brother into fishing) 
and regardless of what anyone thinks of his talents or his portrayal of 
Draco, it is his decision to take and we all have to live with it (although 
he's said that he's prepared to continue playing Draco for the time being). 
Remember that Tom is a couple of years older than Dan, and has reached that 
time in his schooling when he needs to be making these decisions. Also, 
he's not required on screen as much as the Trio, so he's in a much better 
position to get on with his life while spending only a few days a year on set.

I expect that Columbus has simply recognised that once PoA is done, Dan 
(and the others) will have similar decisions to make, and considering he's 
spent most of the last three years with these kids and has got to know them 
pretty well (a heck of a lot better than any of us lot, for starters!) I'm 
not quite as dismissive of his opinions as some people.

Note: For next school year (2003/4), Dan, Rupert & Emma are going to have 
to go through similar selection criteria their characters did in the books 
and will have to start thinking about which GCSEs they're going to be 
taking (i.e. what they're going to be doing with their lives). Their 
parents will be wary of surrendering huge chunks of the school year to 
on-set tuition (regardless of how good it is) and I fully expect the 
Radcliffes to devote some serious think-time to what's best for Dan (I 
don't know about the others, as the kids are on set a lot less).

That said, I suspect that Rupert & Emma certainly will want to continue 
with GoF at least, and Dan *seems* still to be enjoying the role and will 
do his utmost to continue, regardless of whom he has to convince...




From suzloua at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 13 22:46:22 2003
From: suzloua at hotmail.com (Susan Atherton)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:46:22 -0000
Subject: The Sun Article
Message-ID: <DAV63MqWiWqcL9d7tQ400011192@hotmail.com>

Oh my god!!

I just read the Sun article accompanying the pics from PoA. It mentions that 

"In the third film from JK Rowling's stories, Harry - played by Daniel Radcliffe - escapes in the Ministry of Magic bus after he is confronted in the street by baddie Sirius Black, in the form of a black dog."

Bit of a flippin spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the books!!! They might as well have said "Oh yeah, and Sirius is really Harry's godfather and he's innocent!" 

Honestly, I've read enough articles saying they are having trouble casting for Harry's godfather, Sirius Black, which annoyed me - they did NOT need to say he was Harry's godfather, the phrase "titular Prisoner" would have done. But Sirius being Harry's GF and James' best friend isn't really THAT much of spoiler, but the fact that S is an Animagus is key to the Shrieking Shack scene!!

Personally I think we all secretly think that any morons who are watching the films and haven't been moved to read the books deserve it (I sure do ;) ), but for Christ's sake, I'd be very annoyed if I was just a casual HP watcher. Some people don't really care about the story but see the films because they are pretty amazing as far as SFX go, (Quidditch, for example) and they're a bit sunk with all these spoilers floating around. Ah, for the days when it was not a case of barricading yourself in a bunker if you wanted to escape Star Wars and HP spoilers...

:)

Rant over.

Susan
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Help me Jebus!" --Homer Simpson
"Shame on you! Ugly baby judges you!" --Ross Geller
"Oh yeah, and did I mention I've got a baby?" --Stuart Alan Jones
"You know, I telephoned my grandparents the other day, and my grandfather said to me, 'We saw your movie.' 'Which one?' I said, and he shouted, 'Betty, what was the name of that movie I didn't like?'" --Brad Pitt


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




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb 14 00:51:07 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:51:07 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Hair (was silly question)/ First POA pictures
References: <b2e4rs+4rpq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006701c2d3c3$295ba2f0$88a3cdd1@RVotaw>

Amy Z wrote:

> and then saw this link from The Leaky Cauldron, featuring a shot from 
> the set of PoA in which his hair is wonderfully mussed, albeit brown 
> (another link with this photo makes it clear that this isn't just Dan 
> when he's just gotten to the set, but from an actual shoot, 
> apparently the scene in Magnolia Crescent).  

Yes, now *that* is messy hair. :)  I must say, I noticed in the Evening Standard pictures Dan's hair looked messier than usual.  I thought at the time that perhaps they should skip the hairdresser and leave it as it was, but I suppose he'd actually had his new "Harry Potter" haircut and was doing the best he could with it!  Now we'll see if it stays that way throughout the movie . . ..

Nia wrote:

> The bus is a real hoot, isn't it? There is also an accompanying 
> article that indicated the knight bus scene was too dangerous for Dan 
> so they had to use a stunt double.  I guess it must be the part where 
> the bus comes careening out of nowhere when Harry is holding his wand 
> out. The bus must come awfully close and I imagine it's a bit tipsy 
> and top-heavy being so tall and all. Looks like that will be quite 
> exciting to watch.  :-)

Love the bus.  But I'd hate to be the parent of the stunt double.  You know, "This stunt's too dangerous for our star, let's try your kid just in case anything goes wrong."  I know, I know, that's what stunt doubles do.  And they probably used the older one anyway, but still, I wouldn't make a good parent of a stunt double!

Richelle


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




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb 14 00:55:29 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:55:29 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Scheduling GoF
References: <4.2.0.58.20030213221448.00960e50@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <007701c2d3c3$c5408aa0$88a3cdd1@RVotaw>

Okay, question here.  GulPlum mentioned that they'll have more time over the summer to shoot PoA, especially with Daniel turning 14 in July.  When is school usually out in England?  In the U.S., school's out by the beginning of June, or middle at the latest.  Will they continue tutoring on the set?  Or not?  Would that mean they have three extra hours to film (minus breaks) due to no tutoring?  I know no one knows for certain, but anyone care to speculate how that'll be handled?

Richelle


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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 14 01:03:56 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:03:56 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] The Sun Article
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030214010352.0096c340@plum.cream.org>

At 22:46 13/02/03 , Susan Atherton wrote:

<snip>

>Personally I think we all secretly think that any morons who are watching the

Isn't calling them "morons" just a *little* rich? :-)

>films and haven't been moved to read the books deserve it (I sure do ;) ), 
>but for Christ's sake, I'd be very annoyed if I was just a casual HP 
>watcher. Some people don't really care about the story but see the films 
>because they are pretty amazing as far as SFX go, (Quidditch, for example) 
>and they're a bit sunk with all these spoilers floating around. Ah, for 
>the days when it was not a case of barricading yourself in a bunker if you 
>wanted to escape Star Wars and HP spoilers...

On the other hand, it's only us fanatics who read these articles so 
carefully... The average Sun reader is probably incapable of registering 
what the text means anyway. Besides, the film is so far away that by the 
time the WB publicity machine cranks up and all the papers start writing 
things, God only knows what spoilers will be let loose. Frankly, I'm 
astonished that so few media outlets let the Tom Riddle-Voldemort 
connection out of the bag (some did, of course).

I'm sure that by the time PoA is released, there'll be stuff about Lupin 
being a werewolf, Harry's Patronus being his father and lots of other 
things. I'm prepared to lay odds even now that a picture of a (were)wolf 
and of Harry's Patronus will be among the publicity shots made available.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who thinks the Knight Bus has been beautifully done 
and wishes that the old Routemasters made a return to British streets. :-)



From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 14 01:07:48 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:07:48 +0000
Subject: First POA pictures
In-Reply-To: <006701c2d3c3$295ba2f0$88a3cdd1@RVotaw>
References: <b2e4rs+4rpq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030214010437.00965520@plum.cream.org>

At 00:51 14/02/03 , Richelle Votaw wrote:

<snip>

>Love the bus.  But I'd hate to be the parent of the stunt double.  You 
>know, "This stunt's too dangerous for our star, let's try your kid just in 
>case anything goes wrong."  I know, I know, that's what stunt doubles 
>do.  And they probably used the older one anyway, but still, I wouldn't 
>make a good parent of a stunt double!

Errr... didn't Dan say somewhere along the line that his stunt double was 
19 or something ("although he's about my size")? The whole idea of using 
stunt doubles for kids is to have "small adults" rather than kids partially 
so that they *don't* have to deal with over-protective parents. :-)

(N.B. "Stunt double" as opposed to "stand-in", of course...)





From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 14 02:43:20 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 02:43:20 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Scheduling GoF
In-Reply-To: <007701c2d3c3$c5408aa0$88a3cdd1@RVotaw>
References: <4.2.0.58.20030213221448.00960e50@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030214010801.0097eba0@plum.cream.org>

At 00:55 14/02/03 , Richelle Votaw wrote:
>Okay, question here.  GulPlum mentioned that they'll have more time over 
>the summer to shoot PoA, especially with Daniel turning 14 in July.  When 
>is school usually out in England?  In the U.S., school's out by the 
>beginning of June, or middle at the latest.

UK school holidays usually start in mid-July (until mid-September). The 
exact dates are set by LEAs (local education authorities), or the schools 
themselves if they're not state-funded. However, most schools and LEAs 
agree dates with each other so that there's a degree of national 
coordination (though it's not necessarily complete). For instance, at Dan's 
current school (the one he joined in September; I have good reason to 
suspect which it is) the school year ends, totally coincidentally, on his 
birthday. :-)

His school terms aren't necessarily governed by his own school, though; for 
the purposes of education/employment legislation, I would expect that all 
the kids on the production are deemed to be based at Leavesden Studios 
(regardless of where they're filming), and thus would follow the Watford 
LEA diary. After a long search online, I've discovered that they end the 
school year on the 22nd July and start 2003/4 on 2nd September.

That said, from the on-set reports and interviews with various child actors 
involved (not just the Trio), I got the impression that the Trio (plus Tom 
Felton) were tutored individually, whilst extras were taken as whole 
classes who were taught as such. Which means that everyone could well have 
stuck to the school calendar of wherever they live.

 > Will they continue tutoring on the set?  Or not?  Would that mean they have
 > three extra hours to film (minus breaks) due to no tutoring?  I know no one
 > knows for certain, but anyone care to speculate how that'll be handled?

Well, although only those involved know *for certain*, speculation is 
fairly straightforward and the legislation (amongst others, the Children 
and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended in 1998) is pretty clear:

"Under-14s may not work for more than 5 hours on a Saturday or on any day 
during school holidays, and no more than 2 hours on a Sunday. Those aged 14 
and over may not work for more than 8 hours on a Saturday or during 
holidays - the 2 hour limit on a Sunday still applies. "

(NB there is no strict regulation of breaks during those 8 hours, although 
the spirit of the legislation allows for 8 hours *plus* breaks, rather than 
*including* breaks which is the deal they've had to date. There are 
separate regulations relating to children under 14 who are being employed 
during term time and are applied on an individual basis, which I've quoted 
before and can't be bothered to look up.)

If only because 14 year-olds are allowed to work for 8 hours a day during 
holidays, there is no time for school work. :-) There is no legal 
requirement to educate "working children" during school holidays, although 
if anyone is in need of extra work to catch up with their off-set 
classmates, I suppose provisions can be made. In other words, if Dan hasn't 
caught up with his schoolmates by his birthday (when they all technically 
break up for holidays), space will be made for some tuition.

Then again, please remember that this whole topic started with my 
assumption that they'll all take advantage of the change in Dan's legal 
status: perhaps his parents will insist that he continues to work shorter 
days (NB his dad will presumably continue as his official chaperone) and 
gets some tuition most days, or perhaps they'll let him work on set a 
certain number of days per week for the maximum hours, but then set aside 
time on other days for schoolwork. Or, as with the previous two 
movies,  they might take him abroad on holiday for a few weeks around his 
birthday (as I recall, Spain during PS/SS and Florida during CoS), which 
will eat into the schedule.

*That* is what is open to speculation.

However, I just noticed a small snail in the ointment: for the climax of 
PoA, Harry is with Hermione all the time (less with Ron); Emma is almost a 
year younger than Dan and thus the legal limitations on the hours *she* can 
work remain in force (she won't be 14 until next April). Some clever 
scheduling and use of body doubles could get over that, though...





From urbana at charter.net  Fri Feb 14 03:15:21 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:15:21 -0000
Subject: Who picked KKKloves
In-Reply-To: <b2gp70+uvlh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2hn09+6ij4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl <sophiamcl at h...>" 
<sophiamcl at h...> wrote:
> 
> I'm replying to my own message here to apologize for misspelling 
Klove's last 
> name (very red in the face), and I'm supposed to be an HP-movie 
fan. Shame 
> on me. Detention.
> 
> Sophia

I can just hear Gilderoy Lockhart saying, "Please follow me, Sophia. 
I've still got a lot of fan mail that needs answering..."

Anne U
(sorry, I had to)





From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb 14 03:17:02 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:17:02 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Stunt doubles (was Re:First POA pictures)
References: <b2e4rs+4rpq@eGroups.com> <4.2.0.58.20030214010437.00965520@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <002401c2d3d7$8b7909f0$4c9dcdd1@RVotaw>

I (Richelle) wrote:

>>case anything goes wrong."  I know, I know, that's what stunt doubles 
>>do.  And they probably used the older one anyway, but still, I wouldn't 
>>make a good parent of a stunt double!

GulPlum replied:

>Errr... didn't Dan say somewhere along the line that his stunt double was 
>19 or something ("although he's about my size")? The whole idea of using 
>stunt doubles for kids is to have "small adults" rather than kids partially 
>so that they *don't* have to deal with over-protective parents. :-)

I was under the impression Dan had two stunt doubles, one younger, one older.  I got that from this quote (a couple years old now) after SS/PS:

"Yeah, I do about 90 percent of my own stunts. But there's not that many. That's the reason I've been getting into gymnastics, because my stunt double, I have two, but one of them is called Tolga who's really nice, he's really cool, and the other one's David Holmes, he's 17, but he's very small. He's been Britain's No. 1 gymnast. He's been tutoring in gymnastics, preparing me for all the stunts." 

I suppose I was operating under the assumption that sense Dan pointed out that David Holmes was 17, but small, that the other one (Tolga) was closer to his own age.  That, and 19 year olds have parents too. :)

Richelle


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




From JuliusSalt at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 14 05:53:38 2003
From: JuliusSalt at hotmail.com (Sheena <JuliusSalt@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 05:53:38 -0000
Subject: OT:[My theory]
Message-ID: <b2i092+ac8l@eGroups.com>

I've got this theory...if you're interested than visit here to read 
it: http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5821

Thanks muchly!

~Sheena





From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 14 14:50:45 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:50:45 -0000
Subject: Scheduling GoF
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030214010801.0097eba0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2ivo5+dok4@eGroups.com>

> as with the previous two 
> movies,  they might take him abroad on holiday for a few weeks 
around his 
> birthday (as I recall, Spain during PS/SS and Florida during CoS)

Kind of ironic, since for 90% of the rest of the world, an ideal 
holiday would be to spend a few weeks playing Harry Potter on a movie 
shoot.

Amy Z




From dozierwoman at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 14 19:02:48 2003
From: dozierwoman at hotmail.com (Lisa <dozierwoman@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:02:48 -0000
Subject: Scheduling GoF
In-Reply-To: <b2ivo5+dok4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2jego+mdp0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> > as with the previous two 
> > movies,  they might take him abroad on holiday for a few weeks 
> around his 
> > birthday (as I recall, Spain during PS/SS and Florida during CoS)
> 
> Kind of ironic, since for 90% of the rest of the world, an ideal 
> holiday would be to spend a few weeks playing Harry Potter on a 
movie 
> shoot.
> 
> Amy Z

That is so true!!! I for one wouldn't mind it one bit. Can't imagine 
all the things I could learn.

Lisa aka Lady Firenze




From geri510 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 15 01:15:58 2003
From: geri510 at yahoo.com (geri510 <geri510@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:15:58 -0000
Subject: DVD Peview....
Message-ID: <b2k4ce+lpqd@eGroups.com>

Go to the WB website for Harry Potter & watch 1:35 of the upcoming 
DVD - it looks better than the first.




From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 15 04:42:17 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:42:17 -0000
Subject: Scheduling GoF
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030213221448.00960e50@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2kgf9+d5hu@eGroups.com>

I can only hope that all three of the kids and their parents want to 
stay around for all the movies. I've grown so attatched to them 
being Harry, Ron, and Hermione that I couldn't imagine anyone else 
playing these roles.

Lorien_Eve


--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> At 21:28 13/02/03 , ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> 
> >What doubts about Dan wanting to be involved?  I thought the only 
doubts were
> >from the producers side, if Dan got too mature looking in that 
amount of
> >time??
> 
> No. Columbus implied during one of the CoS press conferences that 
Dan (and 
> Rupert & Emma) might not be back for GoF. He later clarified that 
by saying 
> that he thinks they'd prefer to give up the HP movies and get on 
with their 
> lives, to "get back to being kids". Columbus further said that the 
kids 
> were welcome to continue in the parts for as long as they had fun 
playing 
> them.
> 
> There was ABSOLUTELY no implication that the production team 
wouldn't want 
> them anymore - on the contrary, Columbus & co would love for them 
to stay on.
> Frankly, they'd be crazy to WANT to replace any of the central 
characters 
> regardless of how they were growing up - fan reaction is quite 
clear that 
> Dan, Rupert and Emma *are* Harry, Ron and Hermione, and any change 
wouldn't 
> necessarily be well accepted by the viewing public.
> 
> I can see the kids' (and their parents') POV, and they do indeed 
have 
> serious decisions to make.
> 
> For example, it seems that Tom Felton no longer finds acting "fun" 
and has 
> decided what he wants to do with his life (follow his brother into 
fishing) 
> and regardless of what anyone thinks of his talents or his 
portrayal of 
> Draco, it is his decision to take and we all have to live with it 
(although 
> he's said that he's prepared to continue playing Draco for the 
time being). 
> Remember that Tom is a couple of years older than Dan, and has 
reached that 
> time in his schooling when he needs to be making these decisions. 
Also, 
> he's not required on screen as much as the Trio, so he's in a much 
better 
> position to get on with his life while spending only a few days a 
year on set.
> 
> I expect that Columbus has simply recognised that once PoA is 
done, Dan 
> (and the others) will have similar decisions to make, and 
considering he's 
> spent most of the last three years with these kids and has got to 
know them 
> pretty well (a heck of a lot better than any of us lot, for 
starters!) I'm 
> not quite as dismissive of his opinions as some people.
> 
> Note: For next school year (2003/4), Dan, Rupert & Emma are going 
to have 
> to go through similar selection criteria their characters did in 
the books 
> and will have to start thinking about which GCSEs they're going to 
be 
> taking (i.e. what they're going to be doing with their lives). 
Their 
> parents will be wary of surrendering huge chunks of the school 
year to 
> on-set tuition (regardless of how good it is) and I fully expect 
the 
> Radcliffes to devote some serious think-time to what's best for 
Dan (I 
> don't know about the others, as the kids are on set a lot less).
> 
> That said, I suspect that Rupert & Emma certainly will want to 
continue 
> with GoF at least, and Dan *seems* still to be enjoying the role 
and will 
> do his utmost to continue, regardless of whom he has to convince...




From urbana at charter.net  Sat Feb 15 05:14:31 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 05:14:31 -0000
Subject: DVD Peview....
In-Reply-To: <b2k4ce+lpqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2kibn+qbn2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "geri510 <geri510 at y...>" 
<geri510 at y...> wrote:
> Go to the WB website for Harry Potter & watch 1:35 of the upcoming 
> DVD - it looks better than the first.

Thanks for the tip, Geri - I just looked at the DVD trailer and it 
looks *awesome*. Unfortunately I don't have the PS/SS DVD, only the 
VHS version, but I sure hope we manage to buy a DVD player sometime 
this year so I can actually use the DVD, should I buy it. Of course 
I'll buy a VHS copy of CoS to make sure we have it in the house. I've 
actually seen CoS only *once* (yes, hard to imagine) so unless we 
manage to buy a DVD player before April 11th, I'll be happy to buy 
even the VHS then.

Anne U
(just thinking about having my own copy of CoS is making me babble...)





From rvotaw at i-55.com  Sun Feb 16 03:55:41 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:55:41 -0600
Subject: CoS deleted scenes
Message-ID: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>

Mugglenet has a list of deleted scenes that will be on the CoS DVD, confirmed by the BBFC, with running time down to the hundreth of a second.  Somebody help me out here:

00:03:11:16 | 2 - LUCIUS LIQUIDATES --Gotta be in Borgin's, right?
00:00:22:19 | 3 - HARASSED HARRY --Something else in Knockturn Alley maybe?  
00:00:27:17 | 4 - JOYRIDE --Flying car, I assume
00:00:28:02 | 5 - QUICKSPELL --Filch's office?
00:00:24:10 | 6 - SHUTTERBUG --Something with Colin, I assume
00:01:15:05 | 7 - POP QUIZ --Lockhart's quiz on himself
00:00:18:19 | 8 - QUIDDITCH --obvious, must be that bit with Harry flying through a crowd of students
00:00:19:16 | 9 - DUEL --something in the dueling club, one would assume
00:00:48:22 | 10 - HARRY PONDERS --err, okay
00:01:04:13 | 11 - HARRY EAVESDROPS --library?
00:00:52:06 | 12 - IS THAT A ROOSTER IN YOUR HAND? --Hagrid in the hall
00:01:15:01 | 13 - IDENTITY CRISIS --Harry?
00:00:29:09 | 14 - POLLY JUICE --what did they cut out?
00:00:18:20 | 15 - DOUBLE TROUBLE --err?
00:01:44:20 | 16 - RIDDLE ME THIS --extension of talk with Riddle?
00:00:18:24 | 17 - RUDE AWAKENING --who?
00:00:17:10 | 18 - GOING UNDERCOVER --huh?
00:00:39:13 | 19 - WHEN GOOD CARS GO BAD--Flying car again (post Whomping Willow?) 

Since I haven't actually seen the movie to begin with, I don't know completely what's there and what's not.  Other than the three main things I noticed here that I know weren't in the movie: Borgin's with Lucius, Lockhart's quiz, and Harry meeting Hagrid with the roosters.

Help?!

Richelle


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Sun Feb 16 05:18:46 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:18:46 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] CoS deleted scenes
Message-ID: <79.a233bea.2b807936@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/15/2003 9:56:45 PM Central Standard Time, 
rvotaw at i-55.com writes:


> 00:00:18:20 | 15 - DOUBLE TROUBLE --err?
> 

hmm either something with the Polyuice potion or possibly something with the 
twins.  "Make way for the Heir of Slytherin. Seriously evil wizard coming 
thru"

Melissa



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




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 16 05:20:34 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:20:34 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] CoS deleted scenes
In-Reply-To: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>
References: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <124259633340.20030215212034@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Saturday, February 15, 2003, 7:55:41 PM, rvotaw at i-55.com wrote:

> 00:00:29:09 | 14 - POLLY JUICE --what did they cut out?

Maybe the scene with Harry and Ron dragging Crabbe and Goyle
into the broom closet?
It was included in one of the trailers, but not seen in the
movie itself.

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




From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Sun Feb 16 11:12:55 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:12:55 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Filming PoA
Message-ID: <v01540b00ba75220ea617@[217.35.213.26]>

Could someone please clarify? I thought that the kids were taking a year to
concentrate on schoolwork, and that they would start their parts in PoA in
the summer holiday.

Or has Dan been filming the Knight Bus stuff in his half-term?

Thanks and regards,
Nicholas





From hp at plum.cream.org  Sun Feb 16 13:23:08 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:23:08 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Filming PoA
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00ba75220ea617@[217.35.213.26]>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030216125919.00972c70@plum.cream.org>

At 11:12 16/02/03 , TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk wrote:
>Could someone please clarify? I thought that the kids were taking a year to
>concentrate on schoolwork, and that they would start their parts in PoA in
>the summer holiday.
>
>Or has Dan been filming the Knight Bus stuff in his half-term?

Not quite. It was said from the beginning (i.e. when CoS was in the can) 
that Dan's parents insisted that he get a complete *term* at his new school 
(i.e. September-Christmas), and that PoA would start filming in "the 
spring". Personally, I'd always taken that to mean that they'd start main 
unit filming during half term (i.e. week starting tomorrow) which was 
confirmed some time ago.

Considering next school year (2003/4) will be Year One of Dan's GCSEs, I 
suspected from the beginning that everyone involved would try to schedule 
filming to have as little impact as possible on that year (and the one 
after, as that'll be the single most important year of his school life), 
and thus (as I speculated a few days ago) they'll try to do as much as 
possible during the summer.

As this school year for Dan doesn't feature major exams at the end of it, I 
always felt that it was far more reasonable to "sacrifice" the third term 
of this year rather than any of next. It seems like his parents, his school 
and everyone else agrees with me, so unlike the previous two movies which 
started during autumn half-term and thus Dan lost 2/3 of normal school 
life, this way he loses a little under half.

The tricky one's going to be GoF, which one way or another will eat into 
Dan's GCSE exam year, a disruption which everyone's going to want to keep 
to a minimum, and perhaps one of the reasons why Columbus thinks Dan might 
not be around.

On a related subject - I feel a bit sorry for Dan and anyone else involved 
in filming the Knight Bus scenes this week - a lot of it is outdoors in the 
heart of summer, but it's bloody *freezing* out there - and it's set to 
continue for most of this week...





From constancevigilance at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 16 15:18:03 2003
From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (Susan Miller <constancevigilance@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:18:03 -0000
Subject: HP costumes on display
Message-ID: <b2oa3b+2mkf@eGroups.com>

(I posted this in the Madam Malkins group, but I thought you guys 
might be interested in the movie costumes, too)

In honor of the coming Oscars, The Fashion Institute of Design and 
Merchandising has some costumes from the HP films (and many other 
films of 2002) on display in their galleray. You can see Harry's 
uniform and Quidditch costume, plus there is a good look at Nearly 
Headless Nick's tattered robes. I think the bloody costume is the 
Bloody Baron's and there is another rather formal costume - maybe 
Fudge? Anyway, look quick, because they will likely take the exhibit 
down after the Oscars.

http://www.fidm.com/common/gallerymain.html

Then, click on Hollywood 2002 Exhibit.

Constance Vigilance





From penumbra10 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 16 16:16:36 2003
From: penumbra10 at yahoo.com (Nia <penumbra10@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:16:36 -0000
Subject: CoS deleted scenes
In-Reply-To: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <b2odh4+58ce@eGroups.com>

 "Richelle Votaw" wrote:
> Mugglenet has a list of deleted scenes that will be on the CoS 
DVD, confirmed by the BBFC, with running time down to the hundreth 
of a second.  <snip>:
> 
> 00:03:11:16 | 2 - LUCIUS LIQUIDATES --Gotta be in Borgin's, right?
> 00:00:22:19 | 3 - HARASSED HARRY --Something else in Knockturn 
Alley maybe?  
> 00:00:27:17 | 4 - JOYRIDE --Flying car, I assume
> 00:00:28:02 | 5 - QUICKSPELL --Filch's office?
> 00:00:24:10 | 6 - SHUTTERBUG --Something with Colin, I assume
> 00:01:15:05 | 7 - POP QUIZ --Lockhart's quiz on himself
> 00:00:18:19 | 8 - QUIDDITCH --obvious, must be that bit with Harry 
flying through a crowd of students
> 00:00:19:16 | 9 - DUEL --something in the dueling club, one would 
assume
> 00:00:48:22 | 10 - HARRY PONDERS --err, okay
> 00:01:04:13 | 11 - HARRY EAVESDROPS --library?
> 00:00:52:06 | 12 - IS THAT A ROOSTER IN YOUR HAND? --Hagrid in the 
hall
> 00:01:15:01 | 13 - IDENTITY CRISIS --Harry?
> 00:00:29:09 | 14 - POLLY JUICE --what did they cut out?
> 00:00:18:20 | 15 - DOUBLE TROUBLE --err?
> 00:01:44:20 | 16 - RIDDLE ME THIS --extension of talk with Riddle?
> 00:00:18:24 | 17 - RUDE AWAKENING --who?
> 00:00:17:10 | 18 - GOING UNDERCOVER --huh?
> 00:00:39:13 | 19 - WHEN GOOD CARS GO BAD--Flying car again (post 
Whomping Willow?) 

Me:
I have two questions:
  
1. As these scenes are just a few seconds each, what, can anyone 
imagine, was the reasoning behind not adding say, the Lockhart test 
scene or Hagrid rooster scene or any of the other scenes that would 
have helped develop the story a bit better?  I realize that time was 
a primary factor, but most of these are so incredibly short, and not 
all of them need have been used, only those that helped the 
exposition of the story.  (One of my big problems with CoS was the 
way the scenes were tacked onto each other with nearly no 
transistion or explaination between--just off we go, then, to the 
next and the next and the next.)  

2.  Forgive me if this question has already been asked but, are 
these scenes to be integrated into the film, as deleted scenes were 
in LOTR (and worked so very well,) or are we going to have to view 
them as a string of unrelated bits independent of the main film? 
Does anyone know?
--Nia 




From buffyslays_uk at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Feb 16 16:49:05 2003
From: buffyslays_uk at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Su?=)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: COS Deleted Scenes
In-Reply-To: <1045401253.391.27795.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030216164905.67989.qmail@web41502.mail.yahoo.com>



 

My guess that the Polly Juice - well on the DVD preview which you can see on the official site. Ron and Harry (still half Crabbe/Goyle') run into the real Crabbe and Goyle.

I remember seeing an image of Hermione sitting in bed reading a book with Ron and Harry looking at it as well... in hospital. Probably after being turned into a cat.. that's gotta be somewhere in the! 


Kibi






---------------------------------
With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs


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





From belleps at october.com  Sun Feb 16 18:27:21 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:27:21 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] CoS deleted scenes
In-Reply-To: <1045401253.391.27795.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030216122458.00a0c500@pop.cox-internet.com>

At 01:14 PM 2/16/03 +0000, Richelle wrote:
>00:00:29:09 | 14 - POLLY JUICE --what did they cut out?
>00:00:18:20 | 15 - DOUBLE TROUBLE --err?

I'm guessing that the first one is dragging Crabbe and Goyle into the 
closet (since it was in the trailer, but not in the movie). The second one 
-- isn't there a bit in the clip they've got up on the WB site now where 
there are 2 sets of C&G's facing each other? I'm guessing that they wrote 
something in where Ron & Harry, on their way out of the Slytherin common 
room, run into the real C&G. Just a guess, though.

bel 




From hp at plum.cream.org  Sun Feb 16 23:49:49 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:49:49 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: CoS deleted scenes
In-Reply-To: <b2odh4+58ce@eGroups.com>
References: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030216214826.00950cb0@plum.cream.org>

Nia wrote:

>1. As these scenes are just a few seconds each, what, can anyone
>imagine, was the reasoning behind not adding say, the Lockhart test
>scene or Hagrid rooster scene or any of the other scenes that would
>have helped develop the story a bit better?  I realize that time was
>a primary factor, but most of these are so incredibly short, and not
>all of them need have been used, only those that helped the
>exposition of the story.  (One of my big problems with CoS was the
>way the scenes were tacked onto each other with nearly no
>transistion or explaination between--just off we go, then, to the
>next and the next and the next.)

The scenes as listed (if they depict what we think they do) wouldn't really 
have helped much with transition. I suspect that duration was the primary 
cause (without the end credits, the version seen in the cinema comes in at 
just two and a half hours). As it happens, I think some of the scenes in 
the final version movie drag on for too long anyway and could have been 
further edited. The two main sequences with the car are the primary 
examples I can think of.

>2.  Forgive me if this question has already been asked but, are
>these scenes to be integrated into the film, as deleted scenes were
>in LOTR (and worked so very well,) or are we going to have to view
>them as a string of unrelated bits independent of the main film?

I suspect very, very strongly that they will not be. The option of 
re-inserting deleted scenes into DVD movies is *extremely* rare - in my 
collection of about 90 movie DVDs, I can think of only 3 or 4 where that is 
the case, plus a couple of re-cut films like LOTR, where the additional 
sequences are permanently edited in and it is impossible to view the 
"standard" film without them. Furthermore, deleted scenes on 2 disk 
releases are usually on the second disk (which of course makes integrating 
them impossible).

The clincher for me is that the details of the deleted scenes have come 
from the BBFC site. For those who don't know or haven't cottoned on, the 
BBFC is the British film certification authority (much like the MPAA in the 
USA, although it has a slightly wider remit, and its rulings have a 
slightly different legal impact).

DVD and video versions of movies have to be re-submitted for certification 
separately from the cinema ones - although it's fairly rare, there are 
several cases of movies whose cinema and video versions have different 
ratings. There are even a couple of DVDs which have a different rating 
again because of extras (one whose title I don't recall off the top of my 
head had its DVD release bumped up from a 12 to a 15 because the director's 
commentary included a couple of expletives!). Each separately accessed 
element is rated individually, and the certification for the whole package 
is based on the element with the greatest restriction.  So on the contents 
the BBFC has rated to date, CoS gets a "PG" rating, despite 4 out of 5 
elements being rated "U". Note that CoS on DVD or video hasn't been 
certificated yet (which I find strange), although the cinema version was of 
course  a PG.

The point of that whole explanation is that if the deleted scenes were to 
be integrated into the movie, there would be no separate certification for 
them: the movie would simply be rated with a longer running time.

QED.

BTW for those who have ventured to the BBFC web site, I found the new 
design of their front page (I've not been there for a while) quite amusing. 
:-) The main frame on their front page is the current design for the screen 
shown before all films in British cinemas, and instead of "The official 
BBFC website is fully available" you have the title of the film with "has 
been rated" underneath it - of course there is only one rating rather than 
a cycle through all the available ones. ;-)





From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 02:05:04 2003
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:05:04 -0000
Subject: OT:[My theory]
In-Reply-To: <b2i092+ac8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2pg0g+efvc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Sheena <JuliusSalt at h...>"
<JuliusSalt at h...> wrote:
> I've got this theory...if you're interested than visit here to read 
> it: http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5821
> 
> Thanks muchly!
> 
> ~Sheena

bboy_mn:

Sheena, you could have just as well cut and paste you Theory into your
message. Although, I consider that you may want to keep the discussion
of it in one forum.

The Question: We all know that Hagrid said the 'Flew' to the Hut on
the Rock when he first met Harry. But how could he fly? 

Known methods of flying-
-broomstick
-flying car
-flying motorbike
-(flying carpet - realized later)

He seems to have none of these with him.

Interestingly enough this just came up in the HP4GU group when we were
again discussing the 'Missing 24 Hours'.

Floo Poweder-
Sheena discounted the use of Floo powered, although when spoken there
is very little difference between 'floo' and 'flew'. Just one problem,
Hagrid didn't appear in the fireplace.
 
Now brooms-
What broom? As Sheena points out, we've never known Hagrid to have a
broom, and to my knowledge, he has never spoken of flying a broom.
Even if a giant guy could fly a teeny broom, where is the broom? If
Hagrid flew on a broom, did he just chuck it in the ocean or what? My
only speculation is that you can tell a broom to 'go home' and it
returns on it's own, but there is nothing to support this. I guess
it's possible to enchant a special broom to return home, that doesn't
sound impossible. 

So what are we left with? 

Well, Sheena speculates the Hagrid could be an unregistered animagus
with the capability of flight. Problem is, we have an awful lot of
unregistered animagus already. I mean, is ever third person in the
wizard world an unregisted animagus? 

But Hagrid COULD become an animal of flight without being an animagus.
How, you ask? Transfiguration, I say. Dumbledore (or Flintwick or
McGonagall) could have transfigured Hagrid into any fast animal with
flight capability (remember he has to go hundreds of miles). A
transfiguration that would last until Hagrid got there.

Problems with this theory. Hagrid said Harry birthday cake might be a
little squashed because he might have sat on it on the way. Birds and
Beasts of flight don't sit on birthday cakes as they fly.


So what can you sit on that flys but hasn't been mention and excluding
a flying carpet which is unlikely? How about a Hyppogriff? Well it's
possible but Hagrid is almost 10 feet tall and a rather large man even
when his height isn't taken into account. I estimate his weight
conservatively at nearly 1,000 pounds. Normal size (in a manner of
speaking) humans can reach 300 to 400 pounds and remain funcitonal, an
exceptionally tall human could probable reach 400 to 600 pounds and
remain semi-functional. So Hagrid at 1,000# is not that much of a
stretch. Can a hyppogriff carry a 1,000# into the air and across
hundreds of miles. Well, we don't know but we could ask ourselves
could a normal size work horse walk over land carrying 1,000# on it's
back. Don't know enough about horses to answer that, but I suspect not.


How about the Knight Bus? Well, the Stan Shunpike says the bus can't
do nothing on or under water, but that doesn't mean it can't cross
over water. Problem; no loud BANG when the bus arrived; just a creak,
the crunching of gravel, and the BOOM of Hagrid pounding on the door.
So the Knight Bus seems to be out.

Now portkey-
"Harry felt a jerk somewhere behind his navel. His feet left the
ground. ... pulling him onward in a howl of wind and swirling of
color. ... Harry felt his feet slam into the ground..." Gof HC Pg635-636

Feet left the ground, howl of wind, swirl of color, then feet hit the
ground. When explaining portkey to an 11 year old who has no concept
of or knowledge of magic or the wizard world. Having portkeyed could
easily be summurized as 'flew'.

One small problem, if portkeys were real easy to enchant, then
everyone would used them. Since everyone doesn't use them, I can only
conclude that it is a somewhat long and difficult process. Would they
have had time to enchant a key to this unusual and remote location?

See my theory on Portkeys-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52127

Well, it is conceivable. Of all the possibilities, portkey seems the
most likely. The theory has drawback, but less drawback than the others.

A last unconsidered possibility, Magical Transfer. During PoA,
Dumbledore makes hundreds of squashy purple sleeping bags appear with
a wave of his wand. People speculate that he did not conjure them
because conjured items aren't permanent. So we conclude that the bags
already existed, and he just /transferred/ them from storage to the
Great Hall. There are other examples. Dumbledore is in Hagrid's cabin
with H/R/H, twirls his wand and a plate of tea and cakes appears. We
assume he didn't create them, but transferred them from the kitchen to
Hagrid's hut. There are others, but I think you get the point.

Now the question becomes, what are the limits on Magical Transfer of
items from one location to another. We haven't seen any examples of
Magical Transfer over great distances. But we also haven't seen any
trucks or wagons delivering the tons of food it must take to feed
hundreds of ravenous student. Merchandise and cargo have to be moved
some how, yet we see no obvious mechanical means (trucks, wagons,
trains, etc). I guess I could speculate that the train runs frequently
with cargo, and the students just don't see it. So that could explain
that. 

None the less, there is obviously a method of the Magical Transfer of
items from location to location. Dumbledore could have magically
transferred Hagrid to the island. But we don't see transfer of large
items or over great distance. On top of that, it Magical Transfer of
this nature was possible, then why didn't Mr. and Mrs. Weasley
transfer everyone to Diagon Alley, and then apparate there themselves.
If it was possible and easy, everyone would be doing it, but they are
not. So, again, this theory is pretty weak.

So it appears that nothing works, but of all the things that don't
work, Portkey seems to work best. 

So, I guess I have to stick with Portkeys.

bboy_mn





From dan1575 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 07:23:48 2003
From: dan1575 at yahoo.com (dan1575 <dan1575@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:23:48 -0000
Subject: CoS deleted scenes
In-Reply-To: <000901c2d56f$4786d4e0$249ecdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <b2q2m4+m3ti@eGroups.com>

Ummm...I was hoping on of the the deleted scenes would be the "Valentine's Day" scene...I guess it wasn't even in the script. I don't understand why they didn't include it..it would be hillarious! *sigh

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richelle Votaw" <rvotaw at i...> wrote:
> Mugglenet has a list of deleted scenes that will be on the CoS DVD, confirmed by the BBFC, with running time down to the hundreth of a second.  Somebody help me out here:
> 
> 00:03:11:16 | 2 - LUCIUS LIQUIDATES --Gotta be in Borgin's, right?
> 00:00:22:19 | 3 - HARASSED HARRY --Something else in Knockturn Alley maybe?  
> 00:00:27:17 | 4 - JOYRIDE --Flying car, I assume
> 00:00:28:02 | 5 - QUICKSPELL --Filch's office?
> 00:00:24:10 | 6 - SHUTTERBUG --Something with Colin, I assume
> 00:01:15:05 | 7 - POP QUIZ --Lockhart's quiz on himself
> 00:00:18:19 | 8 - QUIDDITCH --obvious, must be that bit with Harry flying through a crowd of students
> 00:00:19:16 | 9 - DUEL --something in the dueling club, one would assume
> 00:00:48:22 | 10 - HARRY PONDERS --err, okay
> 00:01:04:13 | 11 - HARRY EAVESDROPS --library?
> 00:00:52:06 | 12 - IS THAT A ROOSTER IN YOUR HAND? --Hagrid in the hall
> 00:01:15:01 | 13 - IDENTITY CRISIS --Harry?
> 00:00:29:09 | 14 - POLLY JUICE --what did they cut out?
> 00:00:18:20 | 15 - DOUBLE TROUBLE --err?
> 00:01:44:20 | 16 - RIDDLE ME THIS --extension of talk with Riddle?
> 00:00:18:24 | 17 - RUDE AWAKENING --who?
> 00:00:17:10 | 18 - GOING UNDERCOVER --huh?
> 00:00:39:13 | 19 - WHEN GOOD CARS GO BAD--Flying car again (post Whomping Willow?) 
> 
> Since I haven't actually seen the movie to begin with, I don't know completely what's there and what's not.  Other than the three main things I noticed here that I know weren't in the movie: Borgin's with Lucius, Lockhart's quiz, and Harry meeting Hagrid with the roosters.
> 
> Help?!
> 
> Richelle
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dianasdolls at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 08:40:11 2003
From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana <dianasdolls@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:40:11 -0000
Subject: HP costumes on display
In-Reply-To: <b2oa3b+2mkf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2q75b+rltv@eGroups.com>

  Neat photos!  Thanks for the link! Well-made costumes can really 
enhance a movie.  I really like what they did in the movie with the 
school uniforms compared to the illustrated striped shirt and black 
cape-like cloak from the books.  And I think the Quidditch costumes 
are divine!  If I had the time I'd make a complete set for my son 
and husband for this coming Halloween!  :)
  I think the photos of the costumes were flipped in the gallery, 
though, as the Gryffindor crest is on the wrong side of the cloak.  
And I think the Quidditch costume might be Oliver Wood's as it looks 
too big to be Harry's?


Diana
dianasdolls

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller 
<constancevigilance at y...>" <constancevigilance at y...> wrote:
> (I posted this in the Madam Malkins group, but I thought you guys 
> might be interested in the movie costumes, too)
> 
> In honor of the coming Oscars, The Fashion Institute of Design and 
> Merchandising has some costumes from the HP films (and many other 
> films of 2002) on display in their galleray. You can see Harry's 
> uniform and Quidditch costume, plus there is a good look at Nearly 
> Headless Nick's tattered robes. I think the bloody costume is the 
> Bloody Baron's and there is another rather formal costume - maybe 
> Fudge? Anyway, look quick, because they will likely take the 
exhibit 
> down after the Oscars.
> 
> http://www.fidm.com/common/gallerymain.html
> 
> Then, click on Hollywood 2002 Exhibit.
> 
> Constance Vigilance




From dianasdolls at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 09:00:05 2003
From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana <dianasdolls@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:00:05 -0000
Subject: Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
Message-ID: <b2q8al+omab@eGroups.com>

I've been thinking about it quite a bit and I wouldn't mind if GoF 
was broken down into two movies.  In fact, I'd prefer it.  Two 
movies would mean at least five and maybe closer to *six hours* of 
screen time to tell this Moby Dick-sized story.  There is so much of 
importance in the fourth book that cutting out a bunch just so 
what's left can be crammed into a two-hour, fifty-minute movie would 
mangle the story, IMHO.  

For me, the logical breaking point for the end of the first movie 
would be just after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire as 
the fourth champion.  They could cut to Harry's face expressing 
shock and disbelief...add a 'to be continued...'...and then seque 
into a great several minute "clip" showing scenes from the upcoming 
second movie.  "Back to the Future" did this with the end of the 
second movie to great effect.  

The entire first movie would cover Harry's stay at the Weasleys, the 
Quidditch World Cup and the subsequent riot, the trip to school and 
all that happens up to the naming of the champions.  There's a lot 
more there than it sounds like, especially when filmed.  

Then the second movie would begin with Harry going into the see the 
other champions in the room off the hall, etc. etc.  Granted, the 
second movie *should* be LOTR in length (3+ hours) to cover all the 
tasks and the graveyard battle with Voldemort, but...it's an idea 
anyway.  

If they chose to end the first movie after the first task instead, 
then Ron and Harry becoming friends again after their argument would 
be a good stopping point, I guess, but...Harry's name coming out of 
the Goblet would be a more dramatic ending point...  :)

I'm really interested to hear where others would end the first movie 
if GoF was broken into two movies.  

Diana




From geri510 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 12:34:09 2003
From: geri510 at yahoo.com (geri510 <geri510@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:34:09 -0000
Subject: Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
In-Reply-To: <b2q8al+omab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2qks1+5709@eGroups.com>

<dianasdolls at y...> wrote:

> If they chose to end the first movie after the first task instead, 
> then Ron and Harry becoming friends again after their argument 
would 
> be a good stopping point, I guess, but...Harry's name coming out 
of 
> the Goblet would be a more dramatic ending point...  :)

I totally agree, breaking up GoF into 2 movies makes perfect sense, 
that being said, I don't think TPTB will make 2 movies especially 
with trying to schedule OoTP for the following year. But of course 
that means that JKR will have to have written #6 relatively soon 
which I don't think will happen.  




From dozierwoman at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 17 13:05:26 2003
From: dozierwoman at hotmail.com (Lisa <dozierwoman@hotmail.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:05:26 -0000
Subject: Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
In-Reply-To: <b2q8al+omab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2qmmm+58jf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Diana <dianasdolls at y...>" 
<dianasdolls at y...> wrote:
> I've been thinking about it quite a bit and I wouldn't mind if GoF 
> was broken down into two movies.  In fact, I'd prefer it.  Two 
> movies would mean at least five and maybe closer to *six hours* of 
> screen time to tell this Moby Dick-sized story.  There is so much 
of 
> importance in the fourth book that cutting out a bunch just so 
> what's left can be crammed into a two-hour, fifty-minute movie 
would 
> mangle the story, IMHO.  
> 
> For me, the logical breaking point for the end of the first movie 
> would be just after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire as 
> the fourth champion.  They could cut to Harry's face expressing 
> shock and disbelief...add a 'to be continued...'...and then seque 
> into a great several minute "clip" showing scenes from the upcoming 
> second movie.  "Back to the Future" did this with the end of the 
> second movie to great effect.  
> 
> The entire first movie would cover Harry's stay at the Weasleys, 
the 
> Quidditch World Cup and the subsequent riot, the trip to school and 
> all that happens up to the naming of the champions.  There's a lot 
> more there than it sounds like, especially when filmed.  
> 
> Then the second movie would begin with Harry going into the see the 
> other champions in the room off the hall, etc. etc.  Granted, the 
> second movie *should* be LOTR in length (3+ hours) to cover all the 
> tasks and the graveyard battle with Voldemort, but...it's an idea 
> anyway.  
> 
> If they chose to end the first movie after the first task instead, 
> then Ron and Harry becoming friends again after their argument 
would 
> be a good stopping point, I guess, but...Harry's name coming out of 
> the Goblet would be a more dramatic ending point...  :)
> 
> I'm really interested to hear where others would end the first 
movie 
> if GoF was broken into two movies.  
> 
> Diana

I really like your idea, Diana. That would be a perfect break point, 
and it would really leave the audience frustrated that it has ended. 
LOTR did that and I felt that way, not wanting to wait another year 
to see the next installment!

Breaking GOF into two movies is the most logical way to film it. They 
will have to keep doing that with all the remaining books as well, as 
each of them will be getting longer and longer.

Lisa aka Lady Firenze




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 17 15:04:07 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:04:07 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] filming PoA
Message-ID: <28.33bbae2e.2b8253e7@aol.com>

GulPlum:

> - I feel a bit sorry for Dan and anyone else involved 
> in filming the Knight Bus scenes this week - a lot of it is outdoors in the 
> 
> heart of summer, but it's bloody *freezing* out there - and it's set to 
> continue for most of this week...
> 
Yes, I noticed in the Knight's Bus pictures that Dan had on a t-shirt and a 
flannel (?) shirt over that, but it was open, while all around him had on 
heavy coats.  Now I'm sure he must have had a long-johns top underneath -- 
surely they wouldn't TRY to make their star sick!! -- but still, he looked 
fairly cheerful for being the one who wasn't dressed warmly enough for the 
weather!  The things they put actors through. . .  ;->

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Mon Feb 17 15:07:51 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:07:51 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
Message-ID: <15.a5dd223.2b8254c7@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/17/2003 3:02:35 AM Central Standard Time, 
dianasdolls at yahoo.com writes:


> If they chose to end the first movie after the first task instead, 
> then Ron and Harry becoming friends again after their argument would 
> be a good stopping point, I guess, but...Harry's name coming out of 
> the Goblet would be a more dramatic ending point...  :)
> 
> I'm really interested to hear where others would end the first movie 
> if GoF was broken into two movies.  
> 
> Diana
> 

I'm leaning towards after the first task.  Granted there are a lot of things 
happening before his name comes out of the goblet, but not nearly so much as 
afterwards. And I think that it would feel like they had to cram everything 
into the second half.

Melissa  


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




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 17 15:12:52 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:12:52 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie]CoS Deleted scenes
Message-ID: <84.a5b6625.2b8255f4@aol.com>

GulPlum wrote:

> CoS gets a "PG" rating, despite 4 out of 5 
> elements being rated "U". 

Erm. . .what's a "U" rating?  I've never heard of that one.  Thanks for 
educating this Yank!  ;->

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 17 15:23:52 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:23:52 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] breaking GoF in half for two movies
Message-ID: <141.adfe6ae.2b825888@aol.com>

Diana wrote:

> For me, the logical breaking point for the end of the first movie 
> would be just after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire as 
> the fourth champion.  They could cut to Harry's face expressing 
> shock and disbelief...add a 'to be continued
> 
I think that would be the most logical place to break it, too.  When I read 
the book, it read almost like two books, with so much time devoted to the 
World Quiddich Championships and so forth, it and the Tri-Wizard Tournament 
each felt like an entire book in itself.  I would love to see GoF done as two 
movies so we don't lose too much of the story.  I sure hope some of the movie 
folks are listening to us about this!!  How do we give them our input?  
Anybody know?  I'm new to this fandom, but in other fandoms I've been 
involved in, we made our voices heard to the producers of the films or TV 
series and in many cases, they did listen to us.  Is that true in the 
Potterverse?  (Not that I want us to have a stronger voice than JKR, but I 
think they should know what we'd like. . . then again, maybe they know what 
we want most is MORE MORE MORE Harry Potter!!  And to be true to the books!  
;->)

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From jmd at jvf.co.uk  Mon Feb 17 15:28:33 2003
From: jmd at jvf.co.uk (Jeremy Davis)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:28:33 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] breaking GoF in half for two movies
References: <141.adfe6ae.2b825888@aol.com>
Message-ID: <007501c2d699$3b6c0330$0e010001@jmd2000>

I very rarely post, and will probably get flamed for this but.....

Couldn't the Quiddich Championships get greatly shorted to fit everything in
the one film? I found the first half of the book a bit boring to be honest.
:-) Controversial I know, so sorry, peace!

----- Original Message -----
From: <ArtsyLynda at aol.com>
To: <HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Movie] breaking GoF in half for two movies


> Diana wrote:
>
> > For me, the logical breaking point for the end of the first movie
> > would be just after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire as
> > the fourth champion.  They could cut to Harry's face expressing
> > shock and disbelief...add a 'to be continued
> >
> I think that would be the most logical place to break it, too.  When I
read
> the book, it read almost like two books, with so much time devoted to the
> World Quiddich Championships and so forth, it and the Tri-Wizard
Tournament
> each felt like an entire book in itself.  I would love to see GoF done as
two
> movies so we don't lose too much of the story.  I sure hope some of the
movie
> folks are listening to us about this!!  How do we give them our input?
> Anybody know?  I'm new to this fandom, but in other fandoms I've been
> involved in, we made our voices heard to the producers of the films or TV
> series and in many cases, they did listen to us.  Is that true in the
> Potterverse?  (Not that I want us to have a stronger voice than JKR, but I
> think they should know what we'd like. . . then again, maybe they know
what
> we want most is MORE MORE MORE Harry Potter!!  And to be true to the
books!
> ;->)
>
> Lynda
> * * *
> "Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ________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/
>
>




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Mon Feb 17 15:53:24 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:53:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] filming PoA
Message-ID: <24353066.1045497204537.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>

Lynda wrote:

> Yes, I noticed in the Knight's Bus pictures that Dan had on a t-shirt and a 
> flannel (?) shirt over that, but it was open, while all around him had on 
> heavy coats. Now I'm sure he must have had a long-johns top underneath 
> surely they wouldn't TRY to make their star sick!! -- but still, he looked 
> fairly cheerful for being the one who wasn't dressed warmly enough for the 
> weather! The things they put actors through. . .

If you look at The Leaky Cauldron, they've got pictures of filming up, and a 
couple of pictures are of Dan, one when he's waiting for filming to start.  In 
that one he also has a heavy coat on.  Which of course had to be taken off for 
the "summer scenes" as soon as they started filming. I'm assuming the logic 
behind this is that sunset is earlier now than it would be if they waited and 
actually filmed this when it was warmer?  Is that it?  Ah, the glamour of show 
business!

Richelle



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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 17 17:03:47 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:03:47 +0000
Subject: Movie rating (going OT)
In-Reply-To: <84.a5b6625.2b8255f4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030217163511.0095dc10@plum.cream.org>

At 15:12 17/02/03 , ArtsyLynda at aol.com wrote:
>GulPlum wrote:
>
> > CoS gets a "PG" rating, despite 4 out of 5
> > elements being rated "U".
>
>Erm. . .what's a "U" rating?  I've never heard of that one.  Thanks for
>educating this Yank!  ;->

It stands for "Universal audience" and is the equivalent of the US "G" (for 
"General audiences"). We also have a very rarely used "Uc" rating which is 
reserved for films appropriate for pre-schoolers (the "c" standing for 
"children"). I honestly can't remember when I last saw that rating on a 
movie, although it's frequently seen on commercial videos of TV shows made 
for that audience (Tellytubbies, etc).

To complete the picture, the US rating system has a "PG-13", which in the 
UK is split into "12" (nobody under 12 may be admitted; the first movie 
which had this rating was Batman - the rating was invented for that movie, 
but the video is a 15!) and "12A" ("A for "Advisory", which means that kids 
under 12  must be accompanied by an adult; it is always accompanied by an 
explanation of what caused the Board to issue the advisory: e.g. "The 
Hours" has "Contains single use of strong language and suicide theme"; all 
advertising of the film *must* include the advisory without changing the 
phrasing). The 12A was invented for Spider-Man, because there was a major 
noise from parents about kids not being able to see it - this way, the 
responsibility is placed completely on the parents. Since then, it's been 
used very frequently.

Our equivalent of "R" is "15", which is what it sounds like: nobody under 
15 may be admitted; and NC-17 which is a huge taboo in the US movie 
industry is a simple "18" (nobody under 18 admitted). UK cinemas and 
distributors don't really mind movies which get this rating - UK 
cinema-going demographics are a bit different to US ones, and the kind of 
films which get "18" ratings are unlikely to appeal to younger teenagers 
anyway.

TV stations don't mind either, as they are allowed to show such movies 
after 9pm. Generally speaking, British TV is a lot more grown up than the 
US networks about what can and can't be shown (or heard). TV chat shows are 
most amusing when American movie stars are on and look gobsmacked when 
somebody says "sh*t". Dustin Hoffman almost fell out of his chair during 
one last year when another guest used the f-word! (the chat show was aimed 
for transmission after 10pm - no kids should be watching TV at that time!). 
He then delighted in using the word in almost every sentence, and told some 
particularly risque anecdotes! :-)

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, aware that has gone way OT but is always happy to 
"educate the Yanks". :-)





From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 17:10:57 2003
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:10:57 -0000
Subject: Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
In-Reply-To: <15.a5dd223.2b8254c7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2r531+aea5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/17/2003 3:02:35 AM Central Standard Time, 
> dianasdolls at y... writes:
> 
> 
> > If they chose to end the first movie after the first task instead, 
> > then Ron and Harry becoming friends again after their argument
> > would  be a good stopping point, I guess, but...Harry's name 
> > coming out of the Goblet would be a more dramatic ending point... 
>  :)
> > 
> > I'm really interested to hear where others would end the first 
> > movie if GoF was broken into two movies.  
> > 
> > Diana
> > 


> 
> I'm leaning towards after the first task.  Granted there are a lot 
> of things happening before his name comes out of the goblet, but 
> not nearly so much as afterwards. And I think that it would feel 
> like they had to cram everything into the second half.
> 
> Melissa  
> 

bboy_mn:

I agree with Melissa, I just finished reading GoF and intentionally
paid attention to what event was near the middle of the book and the
first task takes place near the middle. I think breaking it at Harry's
name is a little too close to the front of the book.

Of course, all this depends on the screen play and what they cut out.
They could shrink the first or second half substantially. So what will
really make the difference is where the middle of the screen play is. 

I think people will feel a little cheated if they just take it up to
Harry's name coming out. The first Lord of the Rings movie was a
little disappointing because it just stopped in the middle of no
where. I understood why, so I accepted it, but it really doesn't stand
on it's own much as a movie.

One thing to note is that while the movies do give us Quidditch, they
don't give us much. It's almost like token Quidditch. They know the
fans want  to see it, so they show a few brooms flying and move on.
That could me that they cut the Quidditch World Cup very short. Not
that the game is very long, but I can really see them trimming this
part down. That would make it easy to concentrate on the Goblet of
Fire scenes at school. I'm not saying I like or prefer that, but based
on what they have done in the other movies, I can see the Quidditch
angle getting cut short.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn





From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 17 17:39:51 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:39:51 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] filming PoA
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030217173835.0095eb40@plum.cream.org>

Richelle wrote:

>If you look at The Leaky Cauldron, they've got pictures of filming up, and a
>couple of pictures are of Dan, one when he's waiting for filming to 
>start.  In
>that one he also has a heavy coat on.  Which of course had to be taken off 
>for
>the "summer scenes" as soon as they started filming. I'm assuming the logic
>behind this is that sunset is earlier now than it would be if they waited and
>actually filmed this when it was warmer?  Is that it?  Ah, the glamour of 
>show
>business!

Not necessarily. Dusk won't get *really* late (i.e. after about 8pm) until 
mid-May, so there's no real reason for them to film the outdoor summer 
scenes right now in the freezing cold - they could still get in some 
quality filming time in the dark when it's a bit warmer than it is right 
now. By comparison, it's just gone 4pm and I can see the sun setting 
outside the window next to me (the temperature is about 2 degrees C). It'll 
be fully dark in about an hour (I'm about 70 miles north-west of 
Leavesden), and it'll be even colder.

(I wrote the above about half an hour ago; due to a screw-up my end, the 
message wasn't posted. It is now almost totally dark).

Besides, "day for night" filming is as old as film-making itself, and there 
is no need to wait for total darkness to film night scenes.

The main reason for filming that scene now is probably because the HP films 
are filmed pretty much in chronological order (at least to much larger 
degree than most film), and this *is* almost the first scene in the story. :-)
  



From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 17 17:35:27 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:35:27 +0000
Subject: breaking GoF in half for two movies
In-Reply-To: <007501c2d699$3b6c0330$0e010001@jmd2000>
References: <141.adfe6ae.2b825888@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030217171639.0096b130@plum.cream.org>

At 15:28 17/02/03 , Jeremy Davis wrote:
>I very rarely post, and will probably get flamed for this but.....
>
>Couldn't the Quiddich Championships get greatly shorted to fit everything in
>the one film? I found the first half of the book a bit boring to be honest.
>:-) Controversial I know, so sorry, peace!

You certainly won't get flamed by me, Jeremy. :-) I wouldn't exactly say 
that the beginning is "boring", but there is an awful lot of sub-text 
rather than plot going on which can probably fall by the wayside. The HP 
movies to date aren't exactly high on subtlety and I doubt that'll change 
for GoF.

For the record, IMO ending a possible GoF Part I after Harry's name comes 
out of the Goblet is an awful idea. There is no dramatic character arc, 
absolutely nothing is resolved (in fact, very little has been set up to be 
resolved) and there's no impelling reason why anyone would want to come 
back for Part II. Apart from that, it's barely a third of the way into the 
book and as I said above, almost everything is sub-text and foreshadowing. 
Very little actually *happens*, and next to none of it to Harry. 
Furthermore, if, as I've suggested in the past, the whole Yule Ball and 
finding a date sub-plot went out of the window, this would leave even 
*less* for Part II and make both parts even more unbalanced.

As I see it, if GoF *must* be filmed in two parts, after the first task is 
the only possible place to end Part I. There's a happy ending (of sorts) 
because Harry and Ron are friends again, we've had some Harry-centric 
action, the main questions the book poses have been asked  and there's a 
reason to come back for Part II.

However, overall I'm with Jeremy: this is a single story and it makes zero 
sense to make it into two films (apart from the money the studio might 
make). What the production team needs more than anything is to sling Kloves 
out on his ear and get someone who can take a little distance from the 
text, not treat it as Holy Writ and actually *adapt* the plot instead of 
undermining all the characters the way he did in the first two movies. Gone 
With The Wind was more successful as a film than as a (very long) book, 
ditto The Godfather and countless other examples. What's so special about GoF?

Besides, this would set a dangerous precedent for the filming of the later 
books (well, we don't know how long 6 and 7 will be, but 5 looks like it's 
going to need *3* movies at this rate!) and if a two-part GoF were to do 
well, there'll be even less reason for the production team to do anything 
intelligent and cinematic with the rest of the series.






From buffyeton at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 19:27:24 2003
From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (Tamara <buffyeton@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:27:24 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
Message-ID: <b2rd2s+v2qb@eGroups.com>

I've been out of the loop for a while now, so sorry if this question 
is old, but has Lupin been cast yet??




From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 17 19:53:52 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:53:52 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2rd2s+v2qb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030217194348.0097fe60@plum.cream.org>

At 19:27 17/02/03 , Tamara <buffyeton at yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've been out of the loop for a while now, so sorry if this question
>is old, but has Lupin been cast yet??

WB announced some time ago that it's going to be David Thewlis. Not my 
first (or second, or third, or indeed anywhere close) choice but he just 
*might* pull it off.

See http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9633/ when it's back (right now, it's 
subject to Geocities' too-popular-for-its-own-good policies).

I've seen him in several TV productions and I'd never have considered him 
for the part, but I'm prepared to trust the production team. After all, I 
absolutely didn't see Ken Branagh as Lockhart but he pulled it off admirably.

Before you ask, Sirius hasn't been officially cast yet, although there are 
serious rumours that it's  going to be Gary Oldman (again, not someone at 
the top of my list, but I can live with it).





From dom-blokey at supanet.com  Mon Feb 17 20:25:56 2003
From: dom-blokey at supanet.com (Dom McDermott)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:25:56 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin Cast?
References: <4.2.0.58.20030217194348.0097fe60@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c2d6c2$c7b7b4a0$babf28d5@Blokey>

GulPlum
> WB announced some time ago that it's going to be David Thewlis. Not my
> first (or second, or third, or indeed anywhere close) choice but he just
> *might* pull it off.
>

I wasn't aware that they had announced him. AS far as I knew, no
announcements had been made, only those that people had said were official
but were later rebuked.
Did I miss this one?

Dom, who happens to think David Thewlis would be a great Lupin





From loverlylaurel at aol.com  Mon Feb 17 20:32:44 2003
From: loverlylaurel at aol.com (loverlylaurel at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:32:44 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin Cast?
Message-ID: <105.27ee0543.2b82a0ec@aol.com>

I hope it's true that it's David Thewlis.  I think he'd make a great Lupin.  
Take a look at this pic --

<A HREF="http://www.day-by-day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/captures/dj_02.jpg">http://www.day-by-day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/captures/dj_02.jpg</A>



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




From urbana at charter.net  Mon Feb 17 22:48:00 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:48:00 -0000
Subject: Movie rating (going OT)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030217163511.0095dc10@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2ror0+1a5q@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
>Generally speaking, British TV is a lot more grown up than the 
> US networks about what can and can't be shown (or heard). TV chat 
shows are 
> most amusing when American movie stars are on and look gobsmacked 
when 
> somebody says "sh*t". Dustin Hoffman almost fell out of his chair 
during 
> one last year when another guest used the f-word! (the chat show 
was aimed 
> for transmission after 10pm - no kids should be watching TV at that 
time!). 
> He then delighted in using the word in almost every sentence, and 
told some 
> particularly risque anecdotes! :-)
> 
The f-word is totally verboten on American broadcast and cable TV, 
but pay-per-view (like HBO and Showtime) apparently is different (I 
don't know for sure since we don't get pay-per-view at our house). 
Actually the "7 deadly words that can never be said on television" 
get *bleeped* out constantly on the late-night shows ... in fact 
Colin Farrell, co-star of Daredevil and The Recruit, was bleeped at 
least 20 times during his recent interview on The Tonight Show with 
Jay Leno. Jay was sitting there listening to Farrell swearing worse 
than a sailor and you could tell he was thinking "The censors will 
never let that pass"...

Anne U
(glad we don't have to worry about any of the HP trio getting bleeped 
in their TV appearances ... at least I hope not!)





From pattigray at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 01:28:13 2003
From: pattigray at yahoo.com (pattigray <pattigray@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:28:13 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <005d01c2d6c2$c7b7b4a0$babf28d5@Blokey>
Message-ID: <b2s27d+jvtc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Dom McDermott" <dom-blokey at s...> 
wrote:
> GulPlum
> > WB announced some time ago that it's going to be David Thewlis. 
Not my
> > first (or second, or third, or indeed anywhere close) choice but 
he just
> > *might* pull it off.
> >
> 
> I wasn't aware that they had announced him. AS far as I knew, no
> announcements had been made, only those that people had said were 
official
> but were later rebuked.
> Did I miss this one?
> 
> Dom, who happens to think David Thewlis would be a great Lupin

I hope you're right. I'm currently sitting through "The Big Lebowski" 
becuase he's in it, and I'd never heard of him before. I would love 
to have seen Ralph Fiennes in the part of Lupin, but no one asked me 
to cast the movie :(

P.J.G.





From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 02:43:48 2003
From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii <jmgarciaiii@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:43:48 -0000
Subject: New Guy and hi...and a few questions
Message-ID: <b2s6l4+rb05@eGroups.com>

Greetings all,

After rummaging through eBay, I saw that there are some (Canadian)
Region 1 DVDs of "Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone." What 
differences (if any) exist between the DVD releases of PS & SS? What 
differences exist (BESIDES aspect ratio) between the 4:3 & 
(nominally?) 16:9 PS/SS releases?

Lastly, I had read about the possibility (probability?) of a more 
thorough release of PS/SS on DVD, w. more deleted scenes, etc.

Discuss.

-Joe in SoFla

P.S. We have a widescreen TV in our home theater so 4:3 movies 
REALLY bug my kids. :-)






From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 18 03:17:55 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 03:17:55 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] New Guy and hi...and a few questions
In-Reply-To: <b2s6l4+rb05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030218025349.00954be0@plum.cream.org>

Welcome aboard, Joe!

jmgarciaiii <jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com> wrote:

>After rummaging through eBay, I saw that there are some (Canadian)
>Region 1 DVDs of "Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone." What
>differences (if any) exist between the DVD releases of PS & SS?

None, beyond all references to "Sorcerer's Stone" in dialogue and visuals, 
both in the film and throughout the DVD menu system appearing as 
"Philosopher's Stone" (each mention was filmed twice).

>What differences exist (BESIDES aspect ratio) between the 4:3 &
>(nominally?) 16:9 PS/SS releases?

None. To see a comparison of some sequences to see how they look visually, 
see a web page which has been mentioned several times on this group, and 
quite recently as well: http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm (as it happens, I 
am the author of that page, but that's irrelevant). :-)

>Lastly, I had read about the possibility (probability?) of a more
>thorough release of PS/SS on DVD, w. more deleted scenes, etc.

This has been rumoured ("hoped for" would probably be closer to the mark) 
ever since it was released, but to my knowledge, nobody involved in the 
production has ever expressed any intention of releasing a special edition. 
This means that it probably won't happen. My own view is that if the 
production team ever *do* decide to release any kind of expanded edition, 
it probably won't be until all seven movies have been released, as part of 
a boxed set.

In fact, I doubt that there's much material available that we've not seen 
yet in one form or another. I suspect that we've seen all the deleted 
scenes we're ever going to see, so the only biggie would be a blooper reel 
- however, as blooper reels are generally rarer than gold-dust as a DVD 
extra (actors VERY rarely give permission to be shown at anything but their 
best and I know of only a tiny number of DVDs which have ever offered 
out-takes), that's unlikely as well. A further extra might be some kind of 
featurette on the SFX, but again I suspect that we won't see anything like 
that for a long, long time. Columbus is on record as saying that he doesn't 
want to "dispel all the magic".

The only really plausible extra to come is a director's/actors' commentary. 
I'd certainly appreciate one. Actually, the one I'd really like is a 
scriptwriter's commentary as I'd like to hear Kloves justify some of his 
lame changes (anyone who's read my contributions on this list over the last 
year or so will know that overall, I DON'T LIKE WHAT KLOVES HAS DONE). :-)

In other words, my advice is don't hold your breath waiting for a special 
edition of PS/SS, or indeed CoS. :-)

 > P.S. We have a widescreen TV in our home theater so 4:3 movies
>REALLY bug my kids. :-)

 From what I understand, that's quite untypical. :-)




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 03:08:04 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 03:08:04 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2s27d+jvtc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2s82k+6nc8@eGroups.com>

> > GulPlum:
> > > WB announced some time ago that it's going to be David Thewlis. 
> Not my first (or second, or third, or indeed anywhere close) choice 
but he just *might* pull it off. > >
> > >
> > 
> > Dom:
> > I wasn't aware that they had announced him. AS far as I knew, no
> > announcements had been made, only those that people had said were 
> official but were later rebuked.
> > Did I miss this one?
> > 
> > Dom, who happens to think David Thewlis would be a great Lupin
> 
> P.J.G.:
> I hope you're right. I'm currently sitting through "The Big 
Lebowski" becuase he's in it, and I'd never heard of him before. I would love 
> to have seen Ralph Fiennes in the part of Lupin, but no one asked 
me to cast the movie :(  >>>>>>>>

I agree with not being thrilled about the choice for Lupin...And I am 
not happy at all with the rumors about Gary Oldman playing Sirius...I 
wihs someone could tell me what in the world the casting directors 
were thinking when they let him in on it. Urrgghhh...Oh I think Ralph 
Fiennes would have been a great Lupin..to me the actors they have 
presumably picked are not attractive enough..not that that is 
important to the story but I always pictured them to be 
so..especially Sirius as there are several mentions to him being a 
handsome man..something Gary Oldman is definately not..


"acciopotter"




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 03:41:23 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 03:41:23 -0000
Subject: breaking GoF in half for two movies
In-Reply-To: <007501c2d699$3b6c0330$0e010001@jmd2000>
Message-ID: <b2sa13+9ert@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Davis" <jmd at j...> wrote:
> I very rarely post, and will probably get flamed for this but.....
> 
> Couldn't the Quiddich Championships get greatly shorted to fit 
everything in
> the one film? I found the first half of the book a bit boring to be 
honest.
> :-) Controversial I know, so sorry, peace!

I am not going to flame you for stating your opinion. Although I 
loved the World Cup scene in the movie I don't hink it should not be 
cut for that reason alone. So much is revealed at the World Cup that 
you would need a great deal of time to put it all in. All the things 
and people are very important to the story and I think it is 
necessary for the people who have never read the books to see the 
match and get to know all the new charactors and see all the events 
that unfold at the match. 

I must admit that I would like them to make two movies out of it, not 
just for the fact that there is too much to fit into one move, but 
for the fact that it would mean 2 HP's in one year!! by that time we 
will all be anctiously awaiting the 6th book and two movies will give 
us something to take our minds off of it.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ArtsyLynda at a...>
> To: <HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Movie] breaking GoF in half for two movies
> 
> 
> > Diana wrote:
> >
> > > For me, the logical breaking point for the end of the first 
movie
> > > would be just after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of 
Fire as
> > > the fourth champion.  They could cut to Harry's face expressing
> > > shock and disbelief...add a 'to be continued
> > >
> > I think that would be the most logical place to break it, too.  
When I
> read
> > the book, it read almost like two books, with so much time 
devoted to the
> > World Quiddich Championships and so forth, it and the Tri-Wizard
> Tournament
> > each felt like an entire book in itself.  I would love to see GoF 
done as
> two
> > movies so we don't lose too much of the story.  I sure hope some 
of the
> movie
> > folks are listening to us about this!!  How do we give them our 
input?
> > Anybody know?  I'm new to this fandom, but in other fandoms I've 
been
> > involved in, we made our voices heard to the producers of the 
films or TV
> > series and in many cases, they did listen to us.  Is that true in 
the
> > Potterverse?  (Not that I want us to have a stronger voice than 
JKR, but I
> > think they should know what we'd like. . . then again, maybe they 
know
> what
> > we want most is MORE MORE MORE Harry Potter!!  And to be true to 
the
> books!
> > ;->)
> >
> > Lynda
> > * * *
> > "Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > ________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/
> >
> >




From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 18 04:03:21 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:03:21 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2s82k+6nc8@eGroups.com>
References: <b2s27d+jvtc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030218032519.0095dc00@plum.cream.org>

  acciopotter wrote:

>I agree with not being thrilled about the choice for Lupin...And I am
>not happy at all with the rumors about Gary Oldman playing Sirius...I
>wihs someone could tell me what in the world the casting directors
>were thinking when they let him in on it. Urrgghhh...Oh I think Ralph
>Fiennes would have been a great Lupin..to me the actors they have
>presumably picked are not attractive enough..not that that is
>important to the story but I always pictured them to be
>so..especially Sirius as there are several mentions to him being a
>handsome man..something Gary Oldman is definately not..

To which the only possible response is "beauty is in the eye of the 
beholder". :-)

I'm not really qualified to express an opinion as to Thewlis's or Oldman's 
appearance being "attractive"; the only way one man can express an opinion 
about another's appearance is whether or not he'd want to look that way. I 
for one wouldn't want to look like OIdman (but then I'd not like to look 
like several blokes some women consider to be "sex magnets", 
*cough*alanrickman*cough*). :-) Generally speaking, though, neither Thewlis 
nor Oldman could possibly be considered "romantic lead material", which I 
think is what you're getting at.

Bear in mind that I come at this from the perspective of a guy of roughly 
the same generation as Oldman and Thewlis, and a big guy to boot (I am 
roughly the same size as Robbie Coltrane, although - thankfully - 
considerably less rotund; yes, I have met him in person). :-)

As I said fairly recently, for me, the most important attributes of the 
actors playing these characters is the "aura" they project, rather than 
their looks. I don't really care about what canon says about their physical 
appearance (although Black definitely must have black hair - he does become 
a black dog, after all!).

The way I see (or rather, feel) it, Lupin should be fairly average size 
(possibly a little below average) and quite emaciated. Despite this, he 
projects an air of quiet authority and immediately commands respect.

Black, on the other hand, should be on the big side, and as I once 
described it, have something of a boxer's feel around him: on first 
meeting, he doesn't automatically command respect, but physical fear.

The biggest problem I have with Oldman is that (according to IMDb) he's 
only 5'9" and I simply don't see his physical presence to be strong enough. 
Yes, on screen he frequently plays scary characters, but it's usually 
because the characters are mentally unhinged for one reason or another and 
it is the character's unpredictability rather than physical presence which 
scares people.

Black is *not* unpredictable. Sure, he's not thinking quite straight 
throughout PoA, but this is because he is single-minded rather than 
deranged. As good an actor as Oldman is, I don't really think he can pull 
it off. And I definitely don't think he can pull off the avuncular, caring, 
Sirius of the rescue scene, or GoF for that matter.

As for Thewlis, perhaps I'm short-changing him, but he's just a little 
too... genially buffoonish... to pull off the seriousness and quiet dignity 
which IMO are what Lupin is all about.

Again, as I said previously, I *hope* that both the actors and the director 
are able to show me a side to them I've not seen before, but right now, my 
hopes aren't very high.




From urbana at charter.net  Tue Feb 18 05:10:32 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 05:10:32 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218032519.0095dc00@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2sf88+ifk3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> Bear in mind that I come at this from the perspective of a guy of 
roughly 
> the same generation as Oldman and Thewlis, and a big guy to boot (I 
am 
> roughly the same size as Robbie Coltrane, although - thankfully - 
> considerably less rotund; yes, I have met him in person). :-)

You mean you're almost 10 feet tall?? Yiiiikes!! Oh wait, you said 
you're the same size as Robbie Coltrane, not the same size as 
Hagrid ... oops... never mind ;-)


> 
> The biggest problem I have with Oldman is that (according to IMDb) 
he's 
> only 5'9" and I simply don't see his physical presence to be strong 
enough. 

Not to mention that at the rate things are going, DANIEL will be as 
tall as Oldman by the time GoF starts shooting... and let's not go in 
the direction of "maybe Daniel won't play Harry in GoF"...

> 
> As for Thewlis, perhaps I'm short-changing him, but he's just a 
little 
> too... genially buffoonish... to pull off the seriousness and quiet 
dignity 
> which IMO are what Lupin is all about.

Actually I've only seen Thewlis once, and in that TV miniseries (one 
of the Prime Suspect series with Helen Mirren) I believe he played a 
serial killer. So I guess I haven't seen him play either buffoonish 
OR serious and quiet.
> 
> Again, as I said previously, I *hope* that both the actors and the 
director 
> are able to show me a side to them I've not seen before, but right 
now, my 
> hopes aren't very high.

But the really good news is that it won't be Columbus directing 
them... there's still hope...

Anne U
(night, all)





From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 05:33:52 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:33:52 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin Cast?
Message-ID: <1d7.2fe6a62.2b831fc0@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/17/2003 2:27:08 PM Central Standard Time, 
dom-blokey at supanet.com writes:

> I wasn't aware that they had announced him. AS far as I knew, no
> announcements had been made, only those that people had said were official
> but were later rebuked.
> Did I miss this one?
> 
> Dom, who happens to think David Thewlis would be a great Lupin
> 

Thereis an announcement at David Thewlis' official website.

Melissa 


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




From gliese229b at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 08:52:33 2003
From: gliese229b at aol.com (qaztroc <gliese229b@aol.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:52:33 -0000
Subject: Breaking GoF in half for 2 movies
In-Reply-To: <b2r531+aea5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2ss8h+lmse@eGroups.com>

Diana asked:

I'm really interested to hear where others would end the first 
movie if GoF was broken into two movies.  


Melissa answered:

I'm leaning towards after the first task.  Granted there are a lot 
of things happening before his name comes out of the goblet, but 
not nearly so much as afterwards. And I think that it would feel 
like they had to cram everything into the second half.

 
bboy_mn added:

I agree with Melissa, I just finished reading GoF and intentionally
paid attention to what event was near the middle of the book and the
first task takes place near the middle. I think breaking it at Harry's
name is a little too close to the front of the book.
...<snip>...
I think people will feel a little cheated if they just take it up 
to Harry's name coming out.


now ME:

I also read GoF after the rumor came out that they might
do 2 movies with it, and I paid attention to where the
best breaking point might be. Conventions of the action-movie
genre usually require that the movie ends with the most 
spectacular sequence possible. Obviously, the dragon scene 
would fit perfectly, as it could be a real eye-popper 
(IMO the dragon sequence can potentially be the most 
spectacular scene in the entire series, so far). Actually, 
if they do include the action-packed Quidditch world cup 
match in the script, there will be a need to balance the 
early action sequences with equally (or even more) spectacular
scenes near the end.

Another argument for cutting after the first task is that
the resolution of the H/R conflict actually provides, at some
level, a relative sense of closure. And of course, it would add
an emotional touch to the end of the movie -- as was done in the
first two pictures.

--
Qaztroc





From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 18 09:20:34 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:20:34 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2sf88+ifk3@eGroups.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20030218032519.0095dc00@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030218082457.00964250@plum.cream.org>

Anne replied to me with:

>You mean you're almost 10 feet tall?? Yiiiikes!! Oh wait, you said
>you're the same size as Robbie Coltrane, not the same size as
>Hagrid ... oops... never mind ;-)

Quite. :-) My nephews do, however, call me Hagrid (last summer, I gave up 
on shaving for a while). The Hagrid cookie jar I got my sister and her 
family for Christmas (http://store6.yimg.com/I/graveyard_1725_4474802) is 
referred to as Richard, though. :-)

>Not to mention that at the rate things are going, DANIEL will be as
>tall as Oldman by the time GoF starts shooting... and let's not go in
>the direction of "maybe Daniel won't play Harry in GoF"...

I didn't even consider his height relative to Dan to be an issue. Just 
never show them standing next to each other on screen. However, having 
Oldman stand in a group with Rickman and Thewlis (both of whom are quite 
tall) plus whoever gets to play Pettigrew, it's going to be difficult for 
him to remain the centre of attention - he has very little dialogue once 
the scene gets underway.

Talking of which, as it happens, I think he'd make a terrific Pettigrew!

>Actually I've only seen Thewlis once, and in that TV miniseries (one
>of the Prime Suspect series with Helen Mirren) I believe he played a
>serial killer. So I guess I haven't seen him play either buffoonish
>OR serious and quiet.

I forgot about that. It's been a while since I saw it, as it has been since 
I saw the other production which has been mentioned in this thread (Big 
Lebowski) - it's been on my DVD-to-buy list for a long time. Perhaps I'll 
get it today. :-)

I do take the "buffoonish" comment back, though - clearly there's more to 
him than that. But I do agree that "serious and quiet" is a side of him 
we've not seen yet. Besides, when (not if) Oldman and Rickman go into 
scenery-chewing mode (which they both do VERY, VERY well), he'll just get 
chewed up and spat out along with the furniture, unless he goes into manic 
overdrive himself, which will be totally against the character - I really 
don't think he can compete with them!

(I would really like to be a fly on the wall when they do those scenes - I 
expect the kids are going to have a whale of a time!)

>But the really good news is that it won't be Columbus directing
>them... there's still hope...

That goes completely and absolutely without saying. :-)
--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who doesn't really expect confirmation on Sirius 
casting for a while, and even longer for Pettigrew... (and how are the 
media going to announce Pettigrew's casting without giving the plot away?)




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 11:06:16 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:06:16 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin casting (Fwd from OTChatter)
Message-ID: <b2t438+p02m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "psychic_serpent 
<psychic_serpent at y...>" <psychic_serpent at y...> wrote:

I was 
curious to see who Timothy Spall is, as he's supposed to be playing 
Peter Pettigrew.  He looks about right for the part and has an 
impressive list of credits, including--the voice of Nick the Rat 
in "Chicken Run."  Hmm.  Does he have to worry about typecasting in 
the future? <eg>

--Barb
--- End forwarded message ---

OK.  I went over to IMDb with great excitement to see Pettigrew.  
Clicked on the name.  Saw a photo that I had previously seen over the 
caption "David Thewlis."  Huh?

Went looking for David Thewlis websites, found a couple of stills on 
Yahoo!Movies, with an actor who looks more like the Lupin I picture 
than the photo of Thewlis?Spall? (more professorial).

So I am happy but confused.  Also, the Leaky Cauldron hasn't 
mentioned Pettigrew casting at all.  Help?

Amy Z
considering braving a snowstorm to rent Prime Suspect 3 and clear up 
the mystery




From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 18 13:04:08 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:04:08 +0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin casting (Fwd from
  OTChatter)
In-Reply-To: <b2t438+p02m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030218120450.00966bd0@plum.cream.org>

Amy Z wrote in reply to Barb's comments on the rumours that Timothy Spall 
will be Pettigrew:

>OK.  I went over to IMDb with great excitement to see Pettigrew.
>Clicked on the name.  Saw a photo that I had previously seen over the
>caption "David Thewlis."  Huh?

The picture of Timothy Spall on his IMDb page is positively *ANCIENT*. I'd 
never have thought about it otherwise, but in the photo, he does indeed 
look a bit like Thewlis. :-)

A much better (and more recent) photo of Spall is in the IMDb gallery, 
taken at Cannes last year: 
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1428/TimothySpa_Vespa_467360_400.jpg

However, that is his true self, and I don't think he's ever been so clean 
for a part!  To the average Brit, his name conjures up an image much more 
like this (largely because the role for which he is most recognised is as a 
construction labourer in Auf Wiedersehn Pet):

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0286261/7M-19.jpg

I'm afraid he's nowhere close to my mental image of Pettigrew. Mainly 
because he's *huge* (largely as in err... "fat"...). That's one reason why 
he's basically built a career out of playing slobs (although I do admit he 
has played other parts). Another is that he speaks in an exceptionally 
broad Midlands accent (strange, IMDb lists him as born in London - he must 
have moved to this area when he was quite young). It is generally accepted 
that the Midlands accent is the stupidest-sounding of all British speech 
patterns (something I recently saw on a website about this area sums it up 
best: "even the most intelligent or well-educated Brummie sounds thick as 
sh*t"). One of the joys of his role in "Topsy Turvy" (an opera singer) was 
the sub-text that his middle-class accent was utterly phoney (Spall can do 
excellent "proper" English; in this case he made it sound phoney, which is 
very tricky).

Anyway, a small Sirius Black and a huge Peter Pettigrew is a perversion of 
the characters in my head and I would have a very difficult time accepting 
them. Pettigrew is small, and I picture him in constant movement, wringing 
his hands and with his eyes darting all over the place (he is a rat, after 
all!). Not to mention that when he appears, he's meant to look underfed and 
ill. Spall would need to lose about half of his body mass to look underfed. 
:-) In other words, I picture Pettigrew as someone like Gary Oldman, not 
someone like Tim Spall! :-)

>Went looking for David Thewlis websites, found a couple of stills on
>Yahoo!Movies, with an actor who looks more like the Lupin I picture
>than the photo of Thewlis?Spall? (more professorial).

Yes, there are some pictures of Thewlis looking brooding, but I personally 
don't think he can pull it off when playing a part. Not because he's a bad 
actor (he's not!), but there's just *something* about him I feel is wrong.

>So I am happy but confused.  Also, the Leaky Cauldron hasn't
>mentioned Pettigrew casting at all.  Help?

Indeed. I must admit that in my earlier post, I'd completely forgotten 
about the Spall rumours, and a search through Leaky didn't come to 
anything. It seems like there's a page missing in their archives - one page 
finishes on the 11th and the next starts on the 19th January. It seems from 
this list's archives that the Spall rumours surfaced around the 15th. This 
would explain searches coming up empty.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who is a Midlander born and bred but doesn't have the 
local accent. :-)




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 13:35:34 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:35:34 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin casting (Fwd from OTChatter)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218120450.00966bd0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2tcr6+fm8f@eGroups.com>

Thanks for the links, Richard!

> I'm afraid he's nowhere close to my mental image of Pettigrew. 
Mainly 
> because he's *huge* (largely as in err... "fat"...). 

Maybe he's going to go on a crash diet for the role, thus fulfilling 
the description of Pettigrew as a man who's recently and rapidly lost 
a lot of weight.  The ultimate diet:  if you can't manage to lose 
weight for the sake of your health, you give yourself the even bigger 
motivation of a plum role in multiple HP movies.

>Another is that he speaks in an exceptionally 
> broad Midlands accent (strange, IMDb lists him as born in London - 
he must 
> have moved to this area when he was quite young). It is generally 
accepted 
> that the Midlands accent is the stupidest-sounding of all British 
speech 
> patterns (something I recently saw on a website about this area 
sums it up 
> best: "even the most intelligent or well-educated Brummie sounds 
thick as 
> sh*t"). One of the joys of his role in "Topsy Turvy" (an opera 
singer) was 
> the sub-text that his middle-class accent was utterly phoney (Spall 
can do 
> excellent "proper" English; 

In that case maybe he'll give Pettigrew a more intelligent voice than 
his native accent suggests.  Or maybe he was chosen partly for that 
role, since Peter isn't supposed to be the sharpest knife in the 
drawer.

It's crazy, isn't it, the way we assign intelligence or lack thereof 
to an entire region?  In the US, we (=non-Southerners <g>) think 
Southern accents sound dumb, even when they emerge from patently 
intelligent people.  And we think upper-class English accents sound 
intelligent, even when they emerge from evident idiots.

Amy
still ISO of a head shot of Thewlis




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 13:51:22 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:51:22 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Digest Number 486
Message-ID: <171.1ad75744.2b83945a@aol.com>

GulPlum:
> if, as I've suggested in the past, the whole Yule Ball and 
> finding a date sub-plot went out of the window, this would leave even 
> *less* for Part II and make both parts even more unbalanced

Me:  Oh, I hope they keep the whole "getting a date" and Yule Ball section!  
There are a lot of good character and plot developments in that part (Rita 
Skeeter hiding in the bushes as a bug while Hagrid *sweet talks* the 
first-ever half-giant woman he's met; Krum's obvious devotion to Hermione and 
her ignoring it; Ron's shock that Hermione's a *girl*!!  Many other things, 
both funny and touching.)  The biggest thing that would be lost, though, is 
the so-true-to-life part where Harry and Ron can't figure out how to ask 
girls out.  Harry's showing his courage and generosity, yet again, by asking 
girls (Cho, and then Parvati) out, and getting Ron a date as well, is very 
special.  How rare a chance for him to be brave and generous that isn't 
life-threatening -- and how well I remember how life-threatening such things 
felt when I was a kid!  I want to see those scenes!  JMHO

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 14:01:01 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:01:01 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Movie rating (OT)
Message-ID: <13.1844b9b6.2b83969d@aol.com>

GulPlum:

> TV chat 
> shows are 
> >most amusing when American movie stars are on and look gobsmacked 
> when 
> >somebody says "sh*t".

On Good MOrning America yesterday, some young lady (from *American Idol*, I 
don't follow reality shows, so I don't know her name, just that she was a 
contestant) said she told that Brit on there who insults everybody that he 
*s*cked*.  The interviewer sat there a bit stunned and made some comment, and 
the girl said she thought he really did *s* and then she said, she guessed it 
got bleeped because you can't say *s**k* on TV, can you?  And the interviewer 
whose face was just priceless with shock, shook her head (hmm, probably Diane 
Sawyer) and said no, it wasn't allowed on TV.  But here it was on live TV and 
that girl said it 4 or 5 times without getting bleeped. Ah, the wonders of 
live TV!  LOL!  Yes, I hope our trio stays as charming as they are and don't 
fall into the "dark side" of show business personalities!
Lynda Sappington
 <A HREF="http://www.thesculptedhorse.com/">Equine Art by Lynda Sappington</A>  Elegant equine art in bronze, cold-cast 
porcelain, handcast paper and resin.  Also jewelry with an equine theme in 
14K gold and sterling silver.


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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 14:01:30 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:01:30 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218082457.00964250@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2tebq+i2er@eGroups.com>

> 
> (I would really like to be a fly on the wall when they do those 
scenes - I 
> expect the kids are going to have a whale of a time!)
> 
> >But the really good news is that it won't be Columbus directing
> >them... there's still hope...
> 
> That goes completely and absolutely without saying. :-)
> --
> GulPlum AKA Richard, who doesn't really expect confirmation on 
Sirius 
> casting for a while, and even longer for Pettigrew... (and how are 
the 
> media going to announce Pettigrew's casting without giving the plot 
away?)

I never thought about the Pettigrew casting announcement before..I 
imagine they will work around it somehow..I guess..

Anyhow I am really rsponding to the part about wanting to be a fly on 
the wall...what about the part where Harry beats the pants off of 
Sirius during the first confrontation...That shoulsd be interesting 
to watch...if indeed they put the scenen into the movie..which I hope 
they do..sad as it may seem, it is one of my favorite parts in the 
book, that whole confrontational scene is. 

On another note...I am not at all familiar with any of Timothy 
Spall's performances, however, I think he has the right look for 
Pettigrew. Although I don't know how tall he is and I believe Peter 
is supposed to be short...Am I right??

David Thewlis...well I have already stated my opinion on him and Mr. 
Oldman(cough,no way,cough). And as for Mr. Rickman being considered 
sexy...in response to your earlier comment Gul...I am with you 
100%...I don't find him attractive...although I love him as 
Snape..can't picture anyone else in that role...





From hp at plum.cream.org  Tue Feb 18 14:05:55 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:05:55 +0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin 
In-Reply-To: <b2tcr6+fm8f@eGroups.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20030218120450.00966bd0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030218135032.00953410@plum.cream.org>

At 13:35 18/02/03 , Amy Z <lupinesque at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the links, Richard!

You're welcome. (there's another one at the bottom of this message). ;-)

<Tim Spall>

>Maybe he's going to go on a crash diet for the role, thus fulfilling
>the description of Pettigrew as a man who's recently and rapidly lost
>a lot of weight.  The ultimate diet:  if you can't manage to lose
>weight for the sake of your health, you give yourself the even bigger
>motivation of a plum role in multiple HP movies.

Hmmm... But he'd lose his *entire* public persona and career as a slob! :-) 
(think Roseanne Barr and you get the idea...).

Even so, it's not just that he's overweight. He's also quite a large bloke 
even if he lost weight (I've never met him in person, but I get that 
impression).

> >Another is that he speaks in an exceptionally
> > broad Midlands accent

>In that case maybe he'll give Pettigrew a more intelligent voice than
>his native accent suggests.  Or maybe he was chosen partly for that
>role, since Peter isn't supposed to be the sharpest knife in the
>drawer.

Oh, I'm absolutely convinced that he was chosen for the role (if the 
rumours are true) because of his natural accent. Ditto Mark Williams (also 
a Brummie). :-) Whilst, say, Gary Oldman, could do a perfectly plausible 
Brummie (or any other typically uneducated or *seen* as uneducated) accent 
- indeed he has done in the past! - any (Brit) viewer would immediately 
know it's fake, because we know what he sounds like (rough London, 
actually, although it's been trained up to sound "proper" and that's how he 
usually speaks). With Spall, we know we're getting the genuine article.

>It's crazy, isn't it, the way we assign intelligence or lack thereof
>to an entire region?  In the US, we (=non-Southerners <g>) think
>Southern accents sound dumb, even when they emerge from patently
>intelligent people.  And we think upper-class English accents sound
>intelligent, even when they emerge from evident idiots.

There's a reason both Southern USians and British Midlanders sound 
"stupid": it's the nasal, drawn out vowels, which make the speaker sound 
lazy (hence stupid). The laziness/stupidity isn't so obvious to non-native 
speakers, because they don't pick up on the nuances; they don't have a 
"standard" to which to compare them. (To draw in another language I speak, 
the same is true of French speakers from around Marseilles: they are 
considered to sound "stupid", again because of the long drawn-out vowels.) 
Conversely, "proper" British English sounds intelligent because the vowels 
are clipped and less nasal.

>Amy
>still ISO of a head shot of Thewlis

There are several on this page on his fan site: 
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9633/picsMisc.html

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who thinks a full body shot of Tim Spall would 
*really* show the difference between him and David Thewlis. :-)




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 14:07:49 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:07:49 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin cast?
Message-ID: <54.a75abb5.2b839835@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/18/2003 4:18:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com writes:

> ...Oh I think Ralph 
> Fiennes would have been a great Lupin..to me the actors they have 
> presumably picked are not attractive enough..not that that is 
> important to the story but I always pictured them to be 
> so..especially Sirius as there are several mentions to him being a 
> handsome man..something Gary Oldman is definately not..
> 
> 
> "acciopotter"
> 

I agree, Gary Oldman doesn't fit with my image of Sirius at all.  Fiennes 
would have been my choice for Lupin too -- I don't know this other actor's 
work at all.  From the pictures posted, he has the look I was thinking of for 
Lupin, but I know Fiennes would totally NAIL that part!  Maybe he costs too 
much for them to use him?  They do try to keep the majority of the budget for 
SFX, don't they?  And they did (and it's a good thing!!!!) give Dan a hefty 
raise after the union got after them, from what I read.  Gary Oldman is kind 
of creepy in anything he does and doesn't have a "big strong" look to him, 
more of a weasly look, from the movies I've seen him in.  I pictured Sirius 
as a big, strong man.  Oldman just doesn't fit the part IMHO, although I'm 
sure he'll do a good job IF he got the part.  JMHO.

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 14:14:09 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:14:09 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218135032.00953410@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2tf3i+7eg0@eGroups.com>


> 
> >It's crazy, isn't it, the way we assign intelligence or lack 
thereof
> >to an entire region?  In the US, we (=non-Southerners <g>) think
> >Southern accents sound dumb, even when they emerge from patently
> >intelligent people.  And we think upper-class English accents sound
> >intelligent, even when they emerge from evident idiots.
> 
> There's a reason both Southern USians and British Midlanders sound 
> "stupid": it's the nasal, drawn out vowels, which make the speaker 
sound 
> lazy (hence stupid). The laziness/stupidity isn't so obvious to non-
native 
> speakers, because they don't pick up on the nuances; they don't 
have a 
> "standard" to which to compare them. (To draw in another language I 
speak, 
> the same is true of French speakers from around Marseilles: they 
are 
> considered to sound "stupid", again because of the long drawn-out 
vowels.) 
> Conversely, "proper" British English sounds intelligent because the 
vowels 
> are clipped and less nasal.
> 
> >Amy
> >still ISO of a head shot of Thewlis
> 
> There are several on this page on his fan site: 
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9633/picsMisc.html
> 
> --
> GulPlum AKA Richard, who thinks a full body shot of Tim Spall would 
> *really* show the difference between him and David Thewlis. :-)

As someone from the southern US...Texas to be exact...I definately 
know what you mean about accents leding themselves to the way your 
intelligence is perceived. Even here in Texas, which IMO has the 
worst reputation for accent inflicted thoughts of stupidity, there is 
the same steroetype of intelligence. For example, someone living 
in,say Dallas, would talk to someone from the country and assume they 
were of little intelligence just from the way they pronounce their 
words.  If I were to talk to any of you in person, you would 
automatically assume that I am stupid....lol harsh but true. My 
accent is a product of my environment and I try to overcome it the 
best I can when traveling...although it is hard...frustrating 
actually..Anyhow I will end this because it really isn't on topic, I 
just thought I would add my two cents about this.

Amanda
AccioPotter




From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Tue Feb 18 14:18:49 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:18:49 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin casting?
Message-ID: <1ce.3070fd1.2b839ac9@aol.com>

GulPlum:
> when (not if) Oldman and Rickman go into 
> scenery-chewing mode (which they both do VERY, VERY well), he'll just get 
> chewed up and spat out along with the furniture, unless he goes into manic 
> overdrive himself, which will be totally against the character - I really 
> don't think he can compete with them!
> 
> (I would really like to be a fly on the wall when they do those scenes - I 
> expect the kids are going to have a whale of a time!)
> 
I, too, would LOVE to be a fly on the wall for those scenes!  One of the 
reasons I like Alan Rickman is that he's SO good at "scenery-chewing," LOL!  
He, Kenneth Branaugh, and the guy who played Lucius Malfoy (name escapes me 
at present, sorry), all are like that -- I'm sure it was a lot of fun to 
watch them before the director got them to tone it down!  And Oldman's size 
really is a problem to me, as well as his appearance -- a boxer or wrestler 
type would be a lot more like Sirius in his well-fed days, but he's been 
starved, so it needs to be a man with at least a large frame (big boned, 
tall, wide-shouldered), not well-muscled and filled out.  How could Oldman 
possibly turn into a BIG dog?!  Especially a black dog.  I just don't see it. 
 

On where to break the two movies of GoF -- there are a lot of good arguments 
being presented here, and I think, upon further reflection, that breaking it 
when Ron and Harry have made up IS the best choice (haven't read GoF in a few 
weeks -- working my way through the books start to finish again, just started 
PoA again).  There needs to be that kind of reconciliation at the end, IMHO.  
But having two movies does give us more Potter to hold us up until the next 
book arrives!  ;->  So I'm hoping for two movies.  We'll just build more DVD 
storage if they do two or three movies of all the rest of the books, LOL!

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From urbana at charter.net  Tue Feb 18 15:33:54 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:33:54 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218135032.00953410@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2tjp2+39ju@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
. Ditto Mark Williams (also 
> a Brummie). :-) 

Brummie means "someone from the English Midlands"? Is it an 
abbreviation of something? I know Oxonians are from Oxford, and 
Mancunians are from Manchester, and Liverpudlians are from Liverpool, 
but I have no idea about Brummies.

Whilst, say, Gary Oldman, could do a perfectly plausible 
> Brummie (or any other typically uneducated or *seen* as uneducated) 
accent 
> - indeed he has done in the past! - any (Brit) viewer would 
immediately 
> know it's fake, because we know what he sounds like (rough London, 
> actually, although it's been trained up to sound "proper" and 
that's how he 
> usually speaks).

OMIGOD. I just had a flash of who I could see Gary Oldman as ... but 
this is wildly OT ... If anyone ever made a movie of Lori Summers' HP 
fan fic (POU, STNE, HWTF etc.), I could see Oldman as (ta da) 
Napoleon Jones (how about *that* for going OT??)

Anne U
(Must. Get. Back. To. Work.)





From jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 16:33:18 2003
From: jmgarciaiii at yahoo.com (jmgarciaiii <jmgarciaiii@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:33:18 -0000
Subject: New Guy and hi...and a few questions
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030218025349.00954be0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b2tn8e+52ra@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> Welcome aboard, Joe!

Why, TY.

> None, beyond all references to "Sorcerer's Stone" in dialogue and 
visuals, 
> both in the film and throughout the DVD menu system appearing as 
> "Philosopher's Stone" (each mention was filmed twice).

That's what I thought. It seemed very, very odd the Canadian version 
would have a SPANISH language track. (Quebecois Spanish must be a, 
er, sight to behold.)
 
> >What differences exist (BESIDES aspect ratio) between the 4:3 &
> >(nominally?) 16:9 PS/SS releases?
> 
> None. To see a comparison of some sequences to see how they look 
visually, 
> see a web page which has been mentioned several times on this 
group, and 
> quite recently as well: http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm (as it 
happens, I 
> am the author of that page, but that's irrelevant). :-)

Hmm. Neat how you did that. :-) I might just get the cheap-o eBay 
version of the 4:3 Canadian film to satisfy my own curiosity, but I 
generally like viewing films as the director intended. Even in the 
event a 4:3 image has more visual information and the "letterbox" is 
achieved via masking, sometimes the UNmasking can have dire 
consequences (anybody who has seen the "bicycle chain gag" ruined in 
_PeeWee's Big Adventure_ will know what I mean).
 
> This has been rumoured ("hoped for" would probably be closer to 
the mark) 
> ever since it was released, but to my knowledge, nobody involved 
in the 
> production has ever expressed any intention of releasing a special 
edition. 
> This means that it probably won't happen. My own view is that if 
the 
> production team ever *do* decide to release any kind of expanded 
edition, 
> it probably won't be until all seven movies have been released, as 
part of 
> a boxed set.

Ah excellent, something to eagerly await in...say...2011.
 
> In fact, I doubt that there's much material available that we've 
not seen 
> yet in one form or another. I suspect that we've seen all the 
deleted 
> scenes we're ever going to see, so the only biggie would be a 
blooper reel 
> - however, as blooper reels are generally rarer than gold-dust as 
a DVD 
> extra (actors VERY rarely give permission to be shown at anything 
but their 
> best and I know of only a tiny number of DVDs which have ever 
offered 
> out-takes), that's unlikely as well. A further extra might be some 
kind of 
> featurette on the SFX, but again I suspect that we won't see 
anything like 
> that for a long, long time. Columbus is on record as saying that 
he doesn't 
> want to "dispel all the magic".
 
> The only really plausible extra to come is a director's/actors' 
commentary. 
> I'd certainly appreciate one. Actually, the one I'd really like is 
a 
> scriptwriter's commentary as I'd like to hear Kloves justify some 
of his 
> lame changes (anyone who's read my contributions on this list over 
the last 
> year or so will know that overall, I DON'T LIKE WHAT KLOVES HAS 
DONE). :-)
> 
> In other words, my advice is don't hold your breath waiting for a 
special 
> edition of PS/SS, or indeed CoS. :-)

I'd like to see a commentary track as well, in addition to the 
Peeves sequences (assuming these were actually shot and are not 
merely apocryphal lore) and the 7 deleted scenes edited IN, not 
standing alone...forlorn and out of context.

> P.S. We have a widescreen TV in our home theater so 4:3 movies
> >REALLY bug my kids. :-)
> 
>  From what I understand, that's quite untypical. :-)

Well, they are silly that way, complaining of grey bars at the sides 
and whining and moaning about not seeing "all" there is to see. Why 
they don't understand that Daddy is a Home Theatre geek (as well as 
a cinematic geek) is beyond me. FWIW, SS/PS looks absolutely 
brilliant in progressive scan on a suitable TV. 

-Joe in SoFla




From dkewpie at pacbell.net  Tue Feb 18 17:39:22 2003
From: dkewpie at pacbell.net (Kewpie <dkewpie@pacbell.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:39:22 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin casting (Fwd from OTChatter)
In-Reply-To: <b2t438+p02m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2tr4a+8470@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> OK.  I went over to IMDb with great excitement to see Pettigrew.  
> Clicked on the name.  Saw a photo that I had previously seen over 
> the caption "David Thewlis."  Huh?
> 
> Went looking for David Thewlis websites, found a couple of stills 
> on  Yahoo!Movies, with an actor who looks more like the Lupin I
>  picture than the photo of Thewlis?Spall? (more professorial).
> 
> So I am happy but confused.  Also, the Leaky Cauldron hasn't 
> mentioned Pettigrew casting at all.  Help?


Here's a new and very nice David Thewlis fansite that has many screen 
captures of his movies:
http://www.day-by-day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/

I personally think this picture look very Lupin-ish:
http://www.day-by-day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/captures/dj_02.jpg

Also I think Thewlis has this wolf-ish look in him.

Joan




From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 18 18:22:07 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:22:07 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <105.27ee0543.2b82a0ec@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2ttkf+rm6r@eGroups.com>

That picture is a lot better than other ones I've seen of him, so 
I'll try to be open-minded about it if in fact he has been cast.

Lorien_Eve


--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, loverlylaurel at a... wrote:
> I hope it's true that it's David Thewlis.  I think he'd make a 
great Lupin.  
> Take a look at this pic --
> 
> <A HREF="http://www.day-by-
day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/captures/dj_02.jpg">http://www.day-by-
day.freeserve.co.uk/thewlis/captures/dj_02.jpg</A>
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 18 18:36:25 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:36:25 -0000
Subject: Digest Number 486
In-Reply-To: <171.1ad75744.2b83945a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b2tuf9+aaq1@eGroups.com>

Oh, I agree! I would be *so* disappointed if they left out the Yule 
Ball. Harry and Ron are so cute looking for dates!

Lorien_Eve

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> 
> Me:  Oh, I hope they keep the whole "getting a date" and Yule Ball 
section!  
> There are a lot of good character and plot developments in that 
part (Rita 
> Skeeter hiding in the bushes as a bug while Hagrid *sweet talks* 
the 
> first-ever half-giant woman he's met; Krum's obvious devotion to 
Hermione and 
> her ignoring it; Ron's shock that Hermione's a *girl*!!  Many 
other things, 
> both funny and touching.)  The biggest thing that would be lost, 
though, is 
> the so-true-to-life part where Harry and Ron can't figure out how 
to ask 
> girls out.  Harry's showing his courage and generosity, yet again, 
by asking 
> girls (Cho, and then Parvati) out, and getting Ron a date as well, 
is very 
> special.  How rare a chance for him to be brave and generous that 
isn't 
> life-threatening -- and how well I remember how life-threatening 
such things 
> felt when I was a kid!  I want to see those scenes!  JMHO
> 
> Lynda 
> * * *
> "Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 18 18:49:17 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:49:17 -0000
Subject: Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin
In-Reply-To: <b2tf3i+7eg0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2tv7d+6fks@eGroups.com>

I feel your pain! I'm from Alabama, and sometimes I feel like 
*everyone* thinks Alabamians are stupid. Not that there aren't some 
here who are, but that's another topic. I always use correct grammar 
(English was my favorite subject in school), but I'm sure just be 
hearing me speak, a lot of you would assume I'm stupid. I don't hold 
it against any of you, though, as I'm sure I'd think the same thing 
if I wasn't born in the South. It's a shame, though, because not 
*all* Southerners are uneducated.

Lorien_Eve


--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "acciopotter 
<crookshanks731 at s...>" <crookshanks731 at s...> wrote:
> 
> As someone from the southern US...Texas to be exact...I definately 
> know what you mean about accents leding themselves to the way your 
> intelligence is perceived. Even here in Texas, which IMO has the 
> worst reputation for accent inflicted thoughts of stupidity, there 
is 
> the same steroetype of intelligence. For example, someone living 
> in,say Dallas, would talk to someone from the country and assume 
they 
> were of little intelligence just from the way they pronounce their 
> words.  If I were to talk to any of you in person, you would 
> automatically assume that I am stupid....lol harsh but true. My 
> accent is a product of my environment and I try to overcome it the 
> best I can when traveling...although it is hard...frustrating 
> actually..Anyhow I will end this because it really isn't on topic, 
I 
> just thought I would add my two cents about this.
> 
> Amanda
> AccioPotter




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 20:43:45 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:43:45 -0000
Subject: Digest Number 486
In-Reply-To: <b2tuf9+aaq1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2u5u1+9vm0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "lorien_eve <natmichaels at h...>" 
<natmichaels at h...> wrote:
> Oh, I agree! I would be *so* disappointed if they left out the Yule 
> Ball. Harry and Ron are so cute looking for dates!
> 
> Lorien_Eve
> 


Not to mention how hillarious it will be to see Rons dress 
robes...oooh I had a very vivid mental image while reading it and i 
hope they do the robes justice...lmao



Amanda
AccioPotter

> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> > 
> > Me:  Oh, I hope they keep the whole "getting a date" and Yule 
Ball 
> section!  
> > There are a lot of good character and plot developments in that 
> part (Rita 
> > Skeeter hiding in the bushes as a bug while Hagrid *sweet talks* 
> the 
> > first-ever half-giant woman he's met; Krum's obvious devotion to 
> Hermione and 
> > her ignoring it; Ron's shock that Hermione's a *girl*!!  Many 
> other things, 
> > both funny and touching.)  The biggest thing that would be lost, 
> though, is 
> > the so-true-to-life part where Harry and Ron can't figure out how 
> to ask 
> > girls out.  Harry's showing his courage and generosity, yet 
again, 
> by asking 
> > girls (Cho, and then Parvati) out, and getting Ron a date as 
well, 
> is very 
> > special.  How rare a chance for him to be brave and generous that 
> isn't 
> > life-threatening -- and how well I remember how life-threatening 
> such things 
> > felt when I was a kid!  I want to see those scenes!  JMHO
> > 
> > Lynda 
> > * * *
> > "Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Tue Feb 18 21:38:31 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda <editor@texas.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:38:31 -0000
Subject: Violently purple!
Message-ID: <b2u94n+ueu7@eGroups.com>

*ahem*

I wish to state for the record that thirty-two or so years ago when my 
father was on an extended sales trip, my mother caused our 1965 Chevy 
Impala to be painted, without my father's knowledge, the *precise* 
shade of purple that I see on the Knight Bus in the first PoA 
pictures. How delightful to see that familiar and reassuring color 
after all these years (the Purple Bomb went on to her greater reward 
about 8 years ago, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth on my 
part).

Wonder if this means anything....?

~Amanda, purple lady, daughter of the original Purple Lady




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Feb 18 23:04:15 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:04:15 -0000
Subject: Violently purple!
In-Reply-To: <b2u94n+ueu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2ue5f+6hvs@eGroups.com>

Amanda...such a lovely name...he he I am Amanda too..anyhowI think 
this is your Harry Potter claim to fame..or at least a way for you to 
fit in the six degrees of Harry Potter somewhere...I on the other 
hand have yet to find my link.....

Amanda
Acciopotter



--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda <editor at t...>" 
<editor at t...> wrote:
> *ahem*
> 
> I wish to state for the record that thirty-two or so years ago when 
my 
> father was on an extended sales trip, my mother caused our 1965 
Chevy 
> Impala to be painted, without my father's knowledge, the *precise* 
> shade of purple that I see on the Knight Bus in the first PoA 
> pictures. How delightful to see that familiar and reassuring color 
> after all these years (the Purple Bomb went on to her greater 
reward 
> about 8 years ago, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth on my 
> part).
> 
> Wonder if this means anything....?
> 
> ~Amanda, purple lady, daughter of the original Purple Lady




From potterfan23 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 19 00:56:24 2003
From: potterfan23 at hotmail.com (Emily F)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:56:24 -0600
Subject: Lupin Cast?
Message-ID: <F143nZS08i7M4BAyxJM0003bf5c@hotmail.com>

acciopotter wrote:
>I agree with not being thrilled about the choice for Lupin...And I am
>not happy at all with the rumors about Gary Oldman playing Sirius...I
>wihs someone could tell me what in the world the casting directors
>were thinking when they let him in on it.

I'll tell you what they were thinking.  They watched several actors actually 
take on these roles, and Thewlis and Oldman played their respective parts 
the best.  What else matters?

Someone else brought up the subject of the two men as romantic leads (this 
is a general comment, I'm not suggesting that this is what acciopotter was 
thinking).  This is one of my HP pet peeves, so I feel the need to chime in. 
  That idea seems to be unfortunately prevalent in fandom.  Since when are 
they romantic leads?  What evidence do we have that either will be "hooked 
up" with another character by the end of the series?  None whatsoever.  
Rowling has said that Sirius is meant to be "dead sexy" (I'll get to that in 
a moment), but there's no mention that Rowling even intended for Remus to be 
attractive.  Down, girls.  Thewlis will do a great job.  He already put on 
an excellent performance for the casting directors.

As for this Sirius being dead sexy thing...  Who's definition of "dead 
sexy"?  That's right: Joanne Rowling's.  Not yours, not mine.  Do I think 
Gary Oldman is attractive?  Yes, if you look at normal photos of him.  (It 
seems that any role he in which he is cast is made to look as unattractive 
as humanly/inhumanly possible.)  Does Rowling?  Maybe, but no one seems to 
care about her opinion.  Do I think men on motorcycles are sexy?  No, yuck.  
I guess I disagree with her.  :-)  I'm not sure if I'm making my point or 
not, so let me try again.  Rowling said that Sirius was dead sexy.  Fans say 
that the most attractive actor (in each person's opinion!) must be cast.  
Who ought to be "right" in this case?

Emily, who thinks Gary Oldman is an outstanding actor, and looks forward to 
meeting godfather!Gary.  ;-)

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




From illyana at mindspring.com  Wed Feb 19 00:20:40 2003
From: illyana at mindspring.com (illyana delorean)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:20:40 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Violently purple!
In-Reply-To: <b2u94n+ueu7@eGroups.com>
References: <b2u94n+ueu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a05200a00ba787dcf738e@[10.0.1.11]>

Amanda wrote:
>*ahem*
>
>I wish to state for the record that thirty-two or so years ago when my
>father was on an extended sales trip, my mother caused our 1965 Chevy
>Impala to be painted, without my father's knowledge, the *precise*
>shade of purple that I see on the Knight Bus in the first PoA
>pictures. How delightful to see that familiar and reassuring color
>after all these years (the Purple Bomb went on to her greater reward
>about 8 years ago, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth on my
>part).
>
>Wonder if this means anything....?
>


I used to own a Chevy Camaro that's about the same color as the 
Knight Bus. If you want to see it (it's really pretty), go here: 
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/illyanadmc/lst?.dir=/1969+Chevy+Camaro+SS&.src=ph&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/

illyana

p.s. Sorry about that long link! just copy/paste if it doesn't work.


-- 
HPGCv1
a22 e+ x+* Rm Ri HP4 S+++ Mo++ HG+/VK++ HaP+/SS+++& FGW++ DM++& VC-- 
GG-- CD+ VK++ SS+++& PT--- AF-- MM++ RL++ O+m FAo F- Sl FHo SfD

visit my livejournal! http://www.livejournal.com/users/illyanadmc



From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Feb 19 02:37:11 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:37:11 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <F143nZS08i7M4BAyxJM0003bf5c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <b2uqkn+aned@eGroups.com>

Ok I get your point...lol  
I didn't mean they should be attractive for romatinc roles..I have 
never thought this..I knowHP isnt about romance..however just by the 
description in the books I get the picture of a rather attractive 
man...does this make me a bad person???

LOL

And as for Lupin...I guess Thewlis will do..lol I will admit to never 
have seen him in a movie so I might be surprised with him..

Amanda
AccioPotter--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Emily F" 
<potterfan23 at h...> wrote:
> acciopotter wrote:
> >I agree with not being thrilled about the choice for Lupin...And I 
am
> >not happy at all with the rumors about Gary Oldman playing 
Sirius...I
> >wihs someone could tell me what in the world the casting directors
> >were thinking when they let him in on it.
> 
> I'll tell you what they were thinking.  They watched several actors 
actually 
> take on these roles, and Thewlis and Oldman played their respective 
parts 
> the best.  What else matters?
> 
> Someone else brought up the subject of the two men as romantic 
leads (this 
> is a general comment, I'm not suggesting that this is what 
acciopotter was 
> thinking).  This is one of my HP pet peeves, so I feel the need to 
chime in. 
>   That idea seems to be unfortunately prevalent in fandom.  Since 
when are 
> they romantic leads?  What evidence do we have that either will 
be "hooked 
> up" with another character by the end of the series?  None 
whatsoever.  
> Rowling has said that Sirius is meant to be "dead sexy" (I'll get 
to that in 
> a moment), but there's no mention that Rowling even intended for 
Remus to be 
> attractive.  Down, girls.  Thewlis will do a great job.  He already 
put on 
> an excellent performance for the casting directors.
> 
> As for this Sirius being dead sexy thing...  Who's definition 
of "dead 
> sexy"?  That's right: Joanne Rowling's.  Not yours, not mine.  Do I 
think 
> Gary Oldman is attractive?  Yes, if you look at normal photos of 
him.  (It 
> seems that any role he in which he is cast is made to look as 
unattractive 
> as humanly/inhumanly possible.)  Does Rowling?  Maybe, but no one 
seems to 
> care about her opinion.  Do I think men on motorcycles are sexy?  
No, yuck.  
> I guess I disagree with her.  :-)  I'm not sure if I'm making my 
point or 
> not, so let me try again.  Rowling said that Sirius was dead sexy.  
Fans say 
> that the most attractive actor (in each person's opinion!) must be 
cast.  
> Who ought to be "right" in this case?
> 
> Emily, who thinks Gary Oldman is an outstanding actor, and looks 
forward to 
> meeting godfather!Gary.  ;-)
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Feb 19 02:38:49 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:38:49 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2uqkn+aned@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b2uqnp+hd2e@eGroups.com>

just had to fix a spelling error...lol romantic*
--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "crookshanks731 at s... 
<crookshanks731 at s...>" <crookshanks731 at s...> wrote:
> Ok I get your point...lol  
> I didn't mean they should be attractive for romantic roles..I have 
> never thought this..I knowHP isnt about romance..however just by 
the 
> description in the books I get the picture of a rather attractive 
> man...does this make me a bad person???
> 
> LOL
> 
> And as for Lupin...I guess Thewlis will do..lol I will admit to 
never 
> have seen him in a movie so I might be surprised with him..
> 
> Amanda
> AccioPotter--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Emily F" 
> <potterfan23 at h...> wrote:
> > acciopotter wrote:
> > >I agree with not being thrilled about the choice for Lupin...And 
I 
> am
> > >not happy at all with the rumors about Gary Oldman playing 
> Sirius...I
> > >wihs someone could tell me what in the world the casting 
directors
> > >were thinking when they let him in on it.
> > 
> > I'll tell you what they were thinking.  They watched several 
actors 
> actually 
> > take on these roles, and Thewlis and Oldman played their 
respective 
> parts 
> > the best.  What else matters?
> > 
> > Someone else brought up the subject of the two men as romantic 
> leads (this 
> > is a general comment, I'm not suggesting that this is what 
> acciopotter was 
> > thinking).  This is one of my HP pet peeves, so I feel the need 
to 
> chime in. 
> >   That idea seems to be unfortunately prevalent in fandom.  Since 
> when are 
> > they romantic leads?  What evidence do we have that either will 
> be "hooked 
> > up" with another character by the end of the series?  None 
> whatsoever.  
> > Rowling has said that Sirius is meant to be "dead sexy" (I'll get 
> to that in 
> > a moment), but there's no mention that Rowling even intended for 
> Remus to be 
> > attractive.  Down, girls.  Thewlis will do a great job.  He 
already 
> put on 
> > an excellent performance for the casting directors.
> > 
> > As for this Sirius being dead sexy thing...  Who's definition 
> of "dead 
> > sexy"?  That's right: Joanne Rowling's.  Not yours, not mine.  Do 
I 
> think 
> > Gary Oldman is attractive?  Yes, if you look at normal photos of 
> him.  (It 
> > seems that any role he in which he is cast is made to look as 
> unattractive 
> > as humanly/inhumanly possible.)  Does Rowling?  Maybe, but no one 
> seems to 
> > care about her opinion.  Do I think men on motorcycles are sexy?  
> No, yuck.  
> > I guess I disagree with her.  :-)  I'm not sure if I'm making my 
> point or 
> > not, so let me try again.  Rowling said that Sirius was dead 
sexy.  
> Fans say 
> > that the most attractive actor (in each person's opinion!) must 
be 
> cast.  
> > Who ought to be "right" in this case?
> > 
> > Emily, who thinks Gary Oldman is an outstanding actor, and looks 
> forward to 
> > meeting godfather!Gary.  ;-)
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




From monica.coyne at tesco.net  Wed Feb 19 14:17:27 2003
From: monica.coyne at tesco.net (Monica Coyne)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:17:27 -0000
Subject: Timothy Spall
In-Reply-To: <1045662734.611.17769.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c2d821$a18fee40$0a00a8c0@XPWORKSTATION>

Not sure if this has been posted before but the BBC has a bit of
information about Timothy Spall on their web site.  There are a couple
clips from interviews he did about the BBC drama Auf Weidersehen Pet and
a link to their information about him.  Might be worth a look if you
want to hear his real voice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/pet/barry.shtml





From ArtsyLynda at aol.com  Wed Feb 19 14:21:55 2003
From: ArtsyLynda at aol.com (ArtsyLynda at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:21:55 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] regional accents (was Confusion reigns re: Pettigrew and Lupin
Message-ID: <1e9.244b640.2b84ed03@aol.com>


> In the US, we (=non-Southerners <g>) think 
> Southern accents sound dumb, even when they emerge from patently 
> intelligent people.  And we think upper-class English accents sound 
> intelligent, even when they emerge from evident idiots.
> 
Whereas we Southerners may hear the clipped accents of Bostonians, for 
instance, and think "snob" or a Queens, Brooklyn or Bronx (parts of New York 
City) accent and think "brusk and annoying" (and various other things), LOL!  
I think it's probably the same with some British accents, although I'm no 
expert on them and can't say where many of them are from.  Some sound snobby, 
some sound corny ("country"), some sound ignorant -- amazing how those sounds 
can influence people's perception of us.  I know better than to believe 
someone from Boston is a snob, someone from Queens is necessarily obnoxious, 
or someone from Alabama or Texas is "slow" -- and I truly love to hear a wide 
variety of accents.  I think the Scots accent is my favorite - I could listen 
to "Oliver Wood" talk all day!  (His accent IS Scots, isn't it??)  I'm very 
appreciative of actors who can keep their accents (or use the right one at 
the right time) and still be *understandable*!  Some actors have such thick 
accents that it's hard to understand the dialog.  I'm glad all those in the 
Potter films so far have all had quite understandable accents -- and I 
delight in the diversity of the accents, whereever they're from.

As for the Pettigrew casting -- eek!  That guy really doesn't look like a 
scrawny rat!  What was the casting director thinking?  Thanks, all, for the 
links to the pictures!  I wouldn't know a lot of these character actors 
without them.

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From urbana at charter.net  Wed Feb 19 15:03:28 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:03:28 -0000
Subject: Violently purple!
In-Reply-To: <b2u94n+ueu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b306c0+fbsi@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda <editor at t...>" 
<editor at t...> wrote:
> *ahem*
> 
> I wish to state for the record that thirty-two or so years ago when 
my 
> father was on an extended sales trip, my mother caused our 1965 
Chevy 
> Impala to be painted, without my father's knowledge, the *precise* 
> shade of purple that I see on the Knight Bus in the first PoA 
> pictures. How delightful to see that familiar and reassuring color 
> after all these years ...
> ~Amanda, purple lady, daughter of the original Purple Lady

Amanda, a woman who lives across the street from us has a little 
purple pickup truck, with the words "Wild Violet" painted on the 
side... maybe I should ask her if she knows Stan Shunpike?? :-)

Anne U
(home sick, and hoping that reading HP boards makes me feel better)




From hp at plum.cream.org  Wed Feb 19 15:11:36 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:11:36 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Timothy Spall
In-Reply-To: <000e01c2d821$a18fee40$0a00a8c0@XPWORKSTATION>
References: <1045662734.611.17769.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030219143520.009737c0@plum.cream.org>

At 14:17 19/02/03 , Monica Coyne wrote:
>Not sure if this has been posted before but the BBC has a bit of
>information about Timothy Spall on their web site.  There are a couple
>clips from interviews he did about the BBC drama Auf Weidersehen Pet and
>a link to their information about him.  Might be worth a look if you
>want to hear his real voice.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/pet/barry.shtml

A very timely post, Monica. :-)

I owe both Tim and everyone here apologies for some serious misinformation. 
I've just come back from lunch with a friend (also an HP fan) at the local 
university. As it happens, they have a very good media/arts library and we 
did some research (it's good to have friends in high places). :-)

It seems that I have fallen into a trap I thought was well beyond me. He's 
played so many Midlanders in the past that I simply assumed that his 
Brummie accent was his natural one. As the interviews above (and what I 
have read) have borne out, it's 100% fake - he has never lived in the area! 
As a Brummie myself, I am doubly impressed. I hear the accent all around me 
on a daily basis and I would have thought that I could tell a fake a mile off.

My (virtual) hat is doffed in Tim's direction!

My comments about his size remain valid, though; apart from his roundness, 
I'd estimate him at around 6'1" tall. :-)

And while I'm here, in reply to Anne, who asked  on a related issue:

>Brummie means "someone from the English Midlands"? Is it an
>abbreviation of something? I know Oxonians are from Oxford, and
>Mancunians are from Manchester, and Liverpudlians are from Liverpool,
>but I have no idea about Brummies.

A Brummie is someone from (or, as an adjective, anything related to) 
Birmingham, the region's largest city (and second largest in the UK after 
London) which is commonly referred to as Brum - the city's original name 
when it was nothing but a tiny hamlet beyond the mists of time was 
Brummagem. It happens to be my home town and current residence, so I could 
gush on, but I don't want to bore you all. :-)

(BTW, the word "brummagem" exists in its own right as an adjective and the 
OED offers the following synonyms: "Tastelessly showy: chintzy, flashy, 
garish, gaudy, glaring, loud, meretricious, tawdry". Nobody could possibly 
say that any of those apply to Birmingham, which has always had the 
reputation of being grey and dirty.  The reputation is eminently deserved, 
but the city is finally trying to do something to liven the place up a 
bit.) :-)

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who is feeling particularly sheepish about jumping to 
conclusions about Tim's accent.



From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 19 19:18:43 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:18:43 -0000
Subject: Digest Number 486
In-Reply-To: <b2u5u1+9vm0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b30laj+50ta@eGroups.com>

*laughs* Yes, I would *love* to see those dress robes. And with the 
great facial expressions that Rupert has, I think it'll be hilarious!

Lorien_Eve
> 
> Not to mention how hillarious it will be to see Rons dress 
> robes...oooh I had a very vivid mental image while reading it and 
i 
> hope they do the robes justice...lmao
> 
> 
> 
> Amanda
> AccioPotter
> 
> > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, ArtsyLynda at a... wrote:
> > > 
> > > Me:  Oh, I hope they keep the whole "getting a date" and Yule 
> Ball 
> > section!  
> > > There are a lot of good character and plot developments in 
that 
> > part (Rita 
> > > Skeeter hiding in the bushes as a bug while Hagrid *sweet 
talks* 
> > the 
> > > first-ever half-giant woman he's met; Krum's obvious devotion 
to 
> > Hermione and 
> > > her ignoring it; Ron's shock that Hermione's a *girl*!!  Many 
> > other things, 
> > > both funny and touching.)  The biggest thing that would be 
lost, 
> > though, is 
> > > the so-true-to-life part where Harry and Ron can't figure out 
how 
> > to ask 
> > > girls out.  Harry's showing his courage and generosity, yet 
> again, 
> > by asking 
> > > girls (Cho, and then Parvati) out, and getting Ron a date as 
> well, 
> > is very 
> > > special.  How rare a chance for him to be brave and generous 
that 
> > isn't 
> > > life-threatening -- and how well I remember how life-
threatening 
> > such things 
> > > felt when I was a kid!  I want to see those scenes!  JMHO
> > > 
> > > Lynda 
> > > * * *
> > > "Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tahewitt at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 19 16:44:55 2003
From: tahewitt at yahoo.com (Tyler Hewitt)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Casting
In-Reply-To: <1045662734.611.17769.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030219164455.56655.qmail@web14201.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi
New to this list (have been in the other HPFGU lists
for a couple of months).

I was talking to my sister a couple of days ago about
the casting in the films,and she had a great
suggestion:

Trelawney should be played by Tracey Ullman.
I think that's a great idea, but also think she would
make a great Rita Skeeter (in GoF).

My sister also thinks its a shame that Marty Feldman
is dead, because he could have been Mad-eye Moody
without makeup!

And why no Stephen Fry in the films? I think he's a
great actor!

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com




From belleps at october.com  Thu Feb 20 06:52:52 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:52:52 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin casting?
In-Reply-To: <1045662734.611.17769.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220004204.00a17dc0@pop.cox-internet.com>

At 01:52 PM 2/19/03 +0000, Lynda wrote:
>Oldman's size
>really is a problem to me, as well as his appearance -- a boxer or wrestler
>type would be a lot more like Sirius in his well-fed days, but he's been
>starved, so it needs to be a man with at least a large frame (big boned,
>tall, wide-shouldered), not well-muscled and filled out.  How could Oldman
>possibly turn into a BIG dog?!  Especially a black dog.  I just don't see it.

This conversation has been really interesting. Obviously, my impressions of 
the "Shrieking Shack Four" are very different from most.

Sirius: medium height, strong in a wiry sort of way, could bulk up into a 
lightweight boxer, but small-framed
Lupin: slightly taller than Sirius, lanky, larger-boned but looking just as 
underweight
Pettigrew: medium height or slightly below, round face, balding, still 
thick through the torso with a bit of a potbelly
Snape: tall, average build but broad-shouldered, long fingers, fit by 
default (because of diet and metabolism, not because he works at it; no 
definition, but not fat)
James? About 5'10", built like a gymnast

Isn't imagination great? <grin>

bel 




From artsylynda at aol.com  Thu Feb 20 15:39:28 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (Lynda Sappington <artsylynda@aol.com>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:39:28 -0000
Subject: Lupin casting?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220004204.00a17dc0@pop.cox-internet.com>
Message-ID: <b32srg+bgon@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Beth <belleps at o...> wrote:
> This conversation has been really interesting. Obviously, my 
impressions of 
> the "Shrieking Shack Four" are very different from most.
> 
> Sirius: medium height, strong in a wiry sort of way, could bulk up 
into a 
> lightweight boxer, but small-framed
> Lupin: slightly taller than Sirius, lanky, larger-boned but looking 
just as 
> underweight
> Pettigrew: medium height or slightly below, round face, balding, 
still 
> thick through the torso with a bit of a potbelly
> Snape: tall, average build but broad-shouldered, long fingers, fit 
by 
> default (because of diet and metabolism, not because he works at 
it; no 
> definition, but not fat)
> James? About 5'10", built like a gymnast
> 
> Isn't imagination great? <grin>
> 
> bel

Oh, this is fun.  Okay, my impression of these guys:

Sirius:  Tall (at least 6 feet), broadshouldered, large frame, 
handsome, black hair (obviously darker than James, I think, since 
he's a black dog), obviously a "hairy" man like Robin Williams (hair 
on his arms, "five o'clock shadow" when he shaves, that kind of 
thing). Not Gary Oldman!
Lupin:  Not quite as tall as Sirius, maybe 5'10" or so, smaller 
frame, sweet but sad face (he didn't *choose* to be a werewolf, it 
was an accident and he suffers for it), maybe handsome but not 
necessarily, very thin.  Honestly?  I think Gary Oldman could play 
this part or Pettigrew just fine, he's that versatile -- he just 
doesn't hit me right as Black.  (I like Oldman as an actor -- he's 
just so different from my impression of Black from the books I am 
having problems accepting him -- but in the movie, I'm sure he'll do 
fine, he truly is a gifted actor.)
Pettigrew: jowly rat-like face, long nose, scrawny because he's been 
under stress, hanging skin (jowls, etc.) very unfit-looking, short 
(5'6" tops), round-shouldered, nervous mannerisms (like a rat that 
twitches its whiskers a lot).  (Oldman could pull this off despite 
not being jowly -- from the films I've seen him in, he can make 
himself look like nearly anything but my image of Black!)
James Potter: Tall (6' 1" maybe?), black (or dark brown like Dan's) 
hair, handsome, quick and easy grin (like Dan -- they're going to 
have to look a lot alike), slender build, moves like an athelete (a 
fabulous Quiddich player).
Snape:  Alan Rickman portrays him exactly as I envisioned him.  
Perfect casting!

Lynda




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Feb 20 17:30:11 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:30:11 -0000
Subject: Lupin casting?
In-Reply-To: <b32srg+bgon@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b333b3+jrmh@eGroups.com>

O. K  I am going to get in on this one...

Sirius: As I have stated before, I picture Sirius to be extremely 
handsome pre-azkaban days....very muscular..tall, around 6' or 
so..black hair obviously and a lovely smile...Post-Azkaban..thin..but 
not emaciated..dirty..long dirty black hair and very pale..

Lupin: I picture Lupin to be around 5'10 or so..a handsome man in an 
everyday sort of way..a little hairier than your average guy...light 
brown hair...blue eyes...and a forgiving face..nice warm smile.

Pettigrew: Short...fat during flashbacks of the old days but now very 
thin and balding..long nose and twitchy mannerisms..very nervous 
guy...with grey hair and dark, sneaky eyes.

James: I picture James to be the tallest, around 6'2..with dark brown 
hair and blue eyes...wonderful smile..glasses...nice, lean, athletic 
build..

Amanda
AccioPotter--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Sappington 
<artsylynda at a...>" <artsylynda at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Beth <belleps at o...> wrote:
> > This conversation has been really interesting. Obviously, my 
> impressions of 
> > the "Shrieking Shack Four" are very different from most.
> > 
> > Sirius: medium height, strong in a wiry sort of way, could bulk 
up 
> into a 
> > lightweight boxer, but small-framed
> > Lupin: slightly taller than Sirius, lanky, larger-boned but 
looking 
> just as 
> > underweight
> > Pettigrew: medium height or slightly below, round face, balding, 
> still 
> > thick through the torso with a bit of a potbelly
> > Snape: tall, average build but broad-shouldered, long fingers, 
fit 
> by 
> > default (because of diet and metabolism, not because he works at 
> it; no 
> > definition, but not fat)
> > James? About 5'10", built like a gymnast
> > 
> > Isn't imagination great? <grin>
> > 
> > bel
> 
> Oh, this is fun.  Okay, my impression of these guys:
> 
> Sirius:  Tall (at least 6 feet), broadshouldered, large frame, 
> handsome, black hair (obviously darker than James, I think, since 
> he's a black dog), obviously a "hairy" man like Robin Williams 
(hair 
> on his arms, "five o'clock shadow" when he shaves, that kind of 
> thing). Not Gary Oldman!
> Lupin:  Not quite as tall as Sirius, maybe 5'10" or so, smaller 
> frame, sweet but sad face (he didn't *choose* to be a werewolf, it 
> was an accident and he suffers for it), maybe handsome but not 
> necessarily, very thin.  Honestly?  I think Gary Oldman could play 
> this part or Pettigrew just fine, he's that versatile -- he just 
> doesn't hit me right as Black.  (I like Oldman as an actor -- he's 
> just so different from my impression of Black from the books I am 
> having problems accepting him -- but in the movie, I'm sure he'll 
do 
> fine, he truly is a gifted actor.)
> Pettigrew: jowly rat-like face, long nose, scrawny because he's 
been 
> under stress, hanging skin (jowls, etc.) very unfit-looking, short 
> (5'6" tops), round-shouldered, nervous mannerisms (like a rat that 
> twitches its whiskers a lot).  (Oldman could pull this off despite 
> not being jowly -- from the films I've seen him in, he can make 
> himself look like nearly anything but my image of Black!)
> James Potter: Tall (6' 1" maybe?), black (or dark brown like Dan's) 
> hair, handsome, quick and easy grin (like Dan -- they're going to 
> have to look a lot alike), slender build, moves like an athelete (a 
> fabulous Quiddich player).
> Snape:  Alan Rickman portrays him exactly as I envisioned him.  
> Perfect casting!
> 
> Lynda




From hp at plum.cream.org  Thu Feb 20 18:40:06 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:40:06 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Lupin casting?
In-Reply-To: <b333b3+jrmh@eGroups.com>
References: <b32srg+bgon@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030220183052.0097fc30@plum.cream.org>

I buy Amanda (acciopotter)'s descriptions, with one small deviation:

>James: I picture James to be the tallest, around 6'2..with dark brown
>hair and blue eyes...wonderful smile..glasses...nice, lean, athletic
>build..

I don't buy tall!James. I see him as being of below-average or at best 
average height (I'm unwilling to put a numerical value to it), much like 
Harry. I appreciate that Harry's limited height is more likely due to 
underfeeding and spending his childhood in a cupboard, but even so I don't 
see James as being particularly tall. Sleek and athletic, yes, but tall - no.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who apart from his green eyes and not-entirely lean 
build sees himself in Amanda's description of James. :-)




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 20 19:20:39 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:20:39 -0000
Subject: James casting, good looks (was Lupin casting?)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030220183052.0097fc30@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b339q7+obtk@eGroups.com>

Richard wrote:

> I buy Amanda (acciopotter)'s descriptions, with one small deviation:
> 
<snip>
> 
> I don't buy tall!James. I see him as being of below-average or at 
best 
> average height (I'm unwilling to put a numerical value to it), much 
like 
> Harry. I appreciate that Harry's limited height is more likely due 
to 
> underfeeding and spending his childhood in a cupboard, but even so 
I don't 
> see James as being particularly tall. Sleek and athletic, yes, but 
tall - no.

It is borne out by canon, though (PS/SS 12).  I know that's Harry's 
POV, but I don't see any reason to suppose that it just means "taller 
than Harry."  Harry is capable of distinguishing between tall men 
(Dumbledore, e.g.), and short ones (Fudge, Pettigrew, e.g.).

Sometimes people *are* short in childhood who shoot up to above-
average height in later years.  Also, Harry might look like his dad 
in lots of ways but not inherit his height.  James in the movie 
seemed about right to me--not unusually tall, but tall enough that 
one would describe him with that word.

Now, turning to one of my hobbyhorses--I know I've got some sugar 
lumps in one of these pockets--yes, here you go, boy--

Why, she muses sociologically, do so many of us imagine every 
character we like as handsome?  What percentage of people you meet in 
real life strike you as particularly handsome?  Aren't most of the 
nice people you know rather ordinary-looking--with faces that are 
very attractive to those who love them, but that wouldn't be judged 
handsome by our harsh, People-Magazine-trained, looks-obsessed 
society?  Why then do Lupin, James and Sirius all have to be good-
looking?  It's as if readers want to inhabit a fantasy world where 
all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the 
children are above average.  (I, of course, do not in any way inhabit 
a fantasy world.  I would never read fantasy novels obsessively or 
name myself after a fictional magical werewolf, for example.  :-P)

I like the fact that JKR saves this description for a very few 
people.  Lily is very pretty; Cho is very pretty; Cedric is extremely 
handsome; young Sirius is handsome; most other characters don't get 
labeled one way or another.

Amy Z




From gallo at wpaccs.com  Thu Feb 20 20:01:53 2003
From: gallo at wpaccs.com (quidditchmom <gallo@wpaccs.com>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:01:53 -0000
Subject: James casting, good looks (was Lupin casting?)
In-Reply-To: <b339q7+obtk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b33c7h+a4iq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:

> Why, she muses sociologically, do so many of us imagine every 
> character we like as handsome?  What percentage of people you meet 
in 
> real life strike you as particularly handsome?  Aren't most of the 
> nice people you know rather ordinary-looking--with faces that are 
> very attractive to those who love them, but that wouldn't be judged 
> handsome by our harsh, People-Magazine-trained, looks-obsessed 
> society?  Why then do Lupin, James and Sirius all have to be good-
> looking?  It's as if readers want to inhabit a fantasy world where 
> all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the 
> children are above average.  (I, of course, do not in any way 
inhabit 
> a fantasy world.  I would never read fantasy novels obsessively or 
> name myself after a fictional magical werewolf, for example.  :-P)
> 
>>
Me:

Oh dear, we do do that, don't we?  Hmmm.  What's that old 
saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?  I think, for me 
anyway, that if someone's personality is strong or pleasing to me or 
even if it's just their mannerisms that are attractive, I will see 
that person as "handsome" or "cute" or something like that 
(especially men *ahem*!).  

As far as Lupin, James and Sirius go, they all come across to me as 
people whom I would like to meet.  This is just going by 
how their personalities are described.  Maybe I can see some of my 
old friends in them or maybe some of myself?  James especially seems 
to remind me a lot of an old boyfriend of mine!  Sirius reminds me a 
bit of myself (mischevious, hothead?).  Lupin is kind and gentle, 
which I greatly admire.  

In short, I guess if we identify with a character in some way, or 
they are "our type" if it's the opposite sex, we'll tend to project 
our "ideal images" onto them to complete the picture.  I don't know 
if that makes any sense?  Then again, I could be out in left field, 
too!  Any thoughts?

Quidditchmom...who wishes she had a group of friends like the 
Marauders when she was in school...




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 20 20:01:58 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:01:58 -0000
Subject: James casting, good looks (was Lupin casting?)
In-Reply-To: <b339q7+obtk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b33c7m+2272@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:
 James in the movie 
> seemed about right to me--not unusually tall, but tall enough that 
> one would describe him with that word.

I haven't formed a firm opinion on Jame's height, but I saw Amy's comment as 
a way to bring up a peeve I have not brought up here previously (though it 
may have come up in earlier discussions, I don't know.) James and Lily, but 
particularly James look way too old in PS! Should they not be the age at 
which Harry was a year old? Snape is supposed to be 35-ish (though the 
casting director chose to have him be older, apparently, but let's look at 
canon) at the time Harry comes to Hogwarts. We also know Snape is about 
the same age as Lily and James since they went to school together, give or 
take a couple of years, perhaps. Either way, this means that if Harry's 
parents would have been 35-ish when he first came to Hogwarts, they would 
have been in their early twenties when Harry was born. The actors chosen to 
be James and Lily look considerably more mature to me. Lily looks like she'd 
be in her early thirties, James at least forty. Maybe they made this choice to 
make them match the Snape casting, and perhaps it isn't essential to the 
story how old they were when they had Harry, but....well, like I said--it's a 
peeve with me.

Sophia




From jmmears at comcast.net  Thu Feb 20 21:04:23 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust <jmmears@comcast.net>)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:04:23 -0000
Subject: James casting, good looks (was Lupin casting?)
In-Reply-To: <b33c7m+2272@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b33fsn+p15r@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl <sophiamcl at h...>" 
<sophiamcl at h...> wrote:

 
> I haven't formed a firm opinion on Jame's height, but I saw Amy's 
comment as 
> a way to bring up a peeve I have not brought up here previously 
(though it 
> may have come up in earlier discussions, I don't know.) James and 
Lily, but 
> particularly James look way too old in PS! Should they not be the 
age at 
> which Harry was a year old? Snape is supposed to be 35-ish (though 
the 
> casting director chose to have him be older, apparently, but let's 
look at 
> canon) at the time Harry comes to Hogwarts. We also know Snape is 
about 
> the same age as Lily and James since they went to school together, 
give or 
> take a couple of years, perhaps. Either way, this means that if 
Harry's 
> parents would have been 35-ish when he first came to Hogwarts, 
they would 
> have been in their early twenties when Harry was born. The actors 
chosen to 
> be James and Lily look considerably more mature to me. Lily looks 
like she'd 
> be in her early thirties, James at least forty. Maybe they made 
this choice to 
> make them match the Snape casting, and perhaps it isn't essential 
to the 
> story how old they were when they had Harry, but....well, like I 
said--it's a 
> peeve with me.


I do agree, Sofia.  James and Lily in canon should be in their early 
twenties at the time of their deaths.  If Snape, Black and Lupin 
were their classmates, then they should be no older than their late 
30's in the timeframe of PoA.  However, for reasons we're not privy 
to, they chose to cast actors who appear much older as Harry's 
parents.  They didn't have to do that in the case of James & Lily in 
order to make them believable as contemporaries of Snape, since it 
would seem that the mirror would show them as they were in Harry's 
memories of them and not as they would be now.

In order to enjoy the movies, I just have to write this off 
as "movie dissonance", much the same way as I ignore that Harry's 
eyes and hair are different from canon, and that Emma Watson doesn't 
look much like the Hermione in the books.  I doubt that they will 
recast Lily & James at this point, so I've just decided to go along, 
but keep my own ideas of them from the book as the "real" L & J.


Jo Serenadust, who also knows that Alan Rickman is really too old to 
be Snape, but extends him special dispensation because he's just too 
wonderful  




From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Thu Feb 20 20:32:49 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:32:49 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Casting Pettigrew
Message-ID: <v01540b00ba799b2ef187@[217.35.212.222]>

I've previously said that I don't care about casting, and I don't...but as
everyone is talking about Pettigrew, the only actor whom I could see in the
role is Alan Cumming. He played the nasty little Russian baddie in
'Goldeneye' ("I am inwincible!") and could easily do a rat.

Regards,
Nicholas
just back from seeing CoS for I suppose the last time in the cinema.
Thursday morning show at half term; cinema was *full*.





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 20 22:06:56 2003
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
Message-ID: <20030220220656.30053.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com>

Well, it looks like the embargo Warner Bros. may
have had on the news item about the commencement
of PoA expired at the beginning of today...or was
supposed to at the end of today (see date below).
 I got the following from an email sent out by
AOL News but I can't access it (the 'click here'
doesn't work).  And the original source,
BusinessWire, doesn't have this on their site at
this time.  And 'lucky' me haven't been able to
read TLC for months now...

Anyone out there with the AOL program installed
and have an AOL acct. and can go to the AOL
keywords?

I'd appreciate the full story forwarded to me!

Petra, was bounced - now weeks behind on HPFGU
a
n  :(

     *     *     *

Subj:    Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban'' Commences...

Date:    2/21/2003 12:17:48 AM 
Eastern Standard Time

From:    AOL News

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban''
Commences Production for Warner 
Bros. Pictures and P of A Productions

BURBANK, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 20, 2003--


Gary Oldman, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, David
Thewlis, Pam Ferris and Paul Whitehouse Join
All-Star Ensemble Cast Warner Bros. Pictures'
highly anticipated film, "Harry Potter and the
Prisoner of Azkaban," will commence principal
photography in Leavesden, England, on February
24, it was announced today by Jeff Robinov,
President of Production, Warner Bros.
Pictures....

For the full text of this story, click here.

To edit your profile, go to keyword NewsProfiles.
For all of today's news, go to keyword News.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From hp at plum.cream.org  Thu Feb 20 22:19:42 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:19:42 +0000
Subject: James & Lily casting
In-Reply-To: <b33fsn+p15r@eGroups.com>
References: <b33c7m+2272@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030220212325.00953790@plum.cream.org>

Sophia and Jo raised interesting points about the casting of James and Lily 
in PS/SS.

To be fair to the movie makers, there is no indication *in canon* about how 
old they are, except that Lupin is described a couple of times as being 
"quite young" despite having some older attributes. "Quite young" is in all 
honestly a meaningless phrase, even (especially?) from the POV of a 13 
year-old. OK, we fans know of the extra-canon detail that Snape (and thus 
the others) are in their mid-30s (presumably in PoA), and the movie-makers 
have access to JKR who would have told them even more (especially as she 
had final say on casting). However, a lot of people watching the movies 
won't be aware of that particular piece of information.

That said, we shouldn't forget that Rickman was *JKR's choice* (i.e. the 
casting director didn't suggest Rickman to her, but she asked them to get 
Rickman involved, which was also the case with Coltrane and Smith, and also 
as I recall, Harris). Rickman is in his mid-fifties, and his Snape makeup 
takes off (IMO) about 6-7, perhaps as much as 10, years off that. The 
result is that Snape appears in the movies to be somewhere in his 
mid-forties. *With JKR's blessing*.

As both Sophia and Jo suggested, the movie-makers had little choice but to 
cast that age group both for the survivors (Sirius, Remus and Peter) and 
for the deceased Potters (though about a decade younger) in order to make 
the PoA revelations believable.

I've bored people here before with my views that they should have cast 
according to Rickman's age, so I won't repeat myself. I'm prepared to 
accept actors who appear to be in their mid-forties in these parts as long 
as they're believable as the characters and all appear to be contemporaries.

As for Lily and James, to date (in book canon as well as the two movies to 
date) they've only appeared in flashbacks or photographs. It therefore 
makes sense that they appear to be in their mid thirties. One thing about 
their casting makes me suspect something in the remaining 3 books' plot 
development. In PS/SS  James was played by a bit-part player about whom we 
know nothing at all beyond his name, Adrian Rawlins (not even his age, 
although I'd have clocked his PS/SS appearance in his mid-30s). Lily, on 
the other hand, was played by Geraldine Somerville, who is absolutely not a 
nobody in Britain (though I accept that she's probably unknown elsewhere). 
She's currently 36, which puts her very much in the right age bracket.

My plot point is that the only reason the producers would have had to cast 
a "name" in the less-than-cameo role of Lily is that she's going to be 
back, with a much bigger part to play (incidentally, ditto re. casting of 
Tom Riddle, played by a clearly non-16 year-old adult). In the books to 
date, James looms large in Harry's thoughts whilst his mother is just sort 
of there in the background - if the production team knew they would have 
plans for James, they would have cast a "name", as they did for the 
remaining seemingly inconsequential roles. I therefore suspect that in 
terms of the series as a whole, we are going to see a lot more of Lily than 
of James.

Incidentally, I suspect that PoA *might* include a flashback further back 
to their schooldays to illustrate the Shrieking Shack revelations. A junior 
Snape would be *very* interesting. ;-)




From hp at plum.cream.org  Thu Feb 20 22:39:19 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:39:19 +0000
Subject: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
In-Reply-To: <20030220220656.30053.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030220222026.00964100@plum.cream.org>

At 22:06 20/02/03 , Petra Pan wrote:
>Well, it looks like the embargo Warner Bros. may
>have had on the news item about the commencement
>of PoA expired at the beginning of today...or was
>supposed to at the end of today (see date below).
>  I got the following from an email sent out by
>AOL News but I can't access it

<snipperama>

TLC had a link on their site earlier today to a story on comingsoon.net 
whch reproduced more of that press release (and includes a picture of Dan & 
Cuaron with the Knight Bus):

http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1045762736,16499,

It confirms all the casting we've been speculating recently, including 
Gambon as Dumbledore. It also adds Paul Whitehouse as Sir Cadogan. Just for 
a change, whilst I'd never have thought of him for the part, I *really* 
like the idea.

Of course, this is another case of everyone outside Britain saying "Paul 
WHO?" He's exceptionally well-known over here for several TV shows 
including The Fast Show, in which he appeared with Mark Williams (aka 
Arthur Weasley): http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/
There are no decent pictures of him there (and none at all out of 
character); he's the one with the fake 'tache next to the "History" link on 
that page, and there's lots of interesting stuff about him and the team if 
you take that link (and a photo of him as another character).

There's a Real Video interview with him about his current show, a sitcom 
called "Happiness", at 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/happiness/interviews/paulwhitehouse/

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, "educating the Yanks", as usual. :-)




From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 01:25:19 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:25:19 -0000
Subject: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030220222026.00964100@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b33v5v+ak6e@eGroups.com>

> GulPlum AKA Richard, "educating the Yanks", as usual. :-)

For which we're grateful!

We do get a lot of BBC TV here, you know, but not The Fast Show, as 
far as I know (but then, I haven't been able to tune PBS in for 
years, so I'm a bit out of date).  I notice from IMDb that Whitehouse 
is yet another David Copperfield connection.  Was *everyone* in 
British film in that production?

Amy






From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 21 01:27:33 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:27:33 -0000
Subject: James & Lily casting
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030220212325.00953790@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b33va5+ea0m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> My plot point is that the only reason the producers would have had 
to cast 
> a "name" in the less-than-cameo role of Lily is that she's going to 
be 
> back, with a much bigger part to play (incidentally, ditto re. 
casting of 
> Tom Riddle, played by a clearly non-16 year-old adult). In the 
books to 
> date, James looms large in Harry's thoughts whilst his mother is 
just sort 
> of there in the background - if the production team knew they would 
have 
> plans for James, they would have cast a "name", as they did for the 
> remaining seemingly inconsequential roles. I therefore suspect that 
in 
> terms of the series as a whole, we are going to see a lot more of 
Lily than 
> of James.
> 
> Incidentally, I suspect that PoA *might* include a flashback 
further back 
> to their schooldays to illustrate the Shrieking Shack revelations. 
A junior 
> Snape would be *very* interesting. ;-)

I agree, A junior Snape would be very interesting indeed...

I think that perhaps they cast the role of Lily to a *name* actress 
because we may be reliving the scenes of and prior to Lily and James' 
death. I knokw we shortly relived them in PS/SS, but I think there 
will be a much more involved scene in the coming books, in order to 
clarify just why LV was after them in the first place and what their 
jobs were...Maybe they were preparing for OoP to be made into a film 
because didn't JKR say that we will be finding out about Harry's 
parents jobs and also finding out something HUGE about Lily??

Amanda
AccioPotter *who can't help typing in run on sentences when I get a 
brainstorm!!!






From geri510 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 01:29:25 2003
From: geri510 at yahoo.com (geri510 <geri510@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:29:25 -0000
Subject: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030220222026.00964100@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b33vdl+h6ti@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> 
> Of course, this is another case of everyone outside Britain 
saying "Paul 
> WHO?" He's exceptionally well-known over here for several TV shows 
> including The Fast Show, in which he appeared with Mark Williams 
(aka 
> Arthur Weasley): http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/
> There are no decent pictures of him there (and none at all out of 
> character); he's the one with the fake 'tache next to 
the "History" link on 
> that page, and there's lots of interesting stuff about him and the 
team if 
> you take that link (and a photo of him as another character).
> 
> There's a Real Video interview with him about his current show, a 
sitcom 
> called "Happiness", at 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/happiness/interviews/paulwhitehouse/
> 
What I found: Go to 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2785000/2785975.stm 
to see a picture of Paul.




From urbana at charter.net  Fri Feb 21 02:13:34 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:13:34 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 
Message-ID: <b3420e+3ij3@eGroups.com>

Not sure why this wasn't posted straight to this group *first*, but 
here it is...

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Enchanted" <enchanted at p...> 
wrote:
>From comingsoon.net
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Starts Production
Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:38 CST

Warner Bros. Pictures' Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban will
commence principal photography in Leavesden, England, on February 24, 
it was
announced today by Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros.
Pictures.

Renowned actors Gary Oldman, Timothy Spall (Nicholas Nickleby), 
Michael
Gambon (Gosford Park), David Thewlis (Timeline), Pam Ferris 
(Mathilda) and
Paul Whitehouse (star of the BBC's The Fast Show) have joined the 
esteemed
ensemble cast of the film, which is being directed by Academy Award 
nominee
Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien) and produced by David Heyman, Chris
Columbus and Mark Radcliffe.

The executive producers of the film are Michael Barnathan and Callum
McDougall. The screenplay is by Steve Kloves.

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and his 
friends
Ron and Hermione return as teenagers to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft 
and
Wizardry for their third year of study, where they delve into the 
mystery
surrounding an escaped prisoner who poses a dangerous threat to the 
young
wizard.

"We couldn't be more excited about 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban' being in the hands of such a relentlessly imaginative 
director as
Alfonso Cuaron, and are thrilled about the new actors he has 
assembled to
join our already established cast," said David Heyman.

"To be entrusted with such rich and beloved material, and given the
opportunity to collaborate with this extraordinary cast and crew on 
the next
Harry Potter adventure is an honor," Alfonso Cuaron said. "I look 
forward to
bringing this intricate story to the screen and sharing it with film
audiences around the world."

"I'm so proud to have been involved in this truly amazing film 
series, both
as a director and a producer," added Chris Columbus. "I look forward 
to
seeing it grow as Alfonso and the cast and crew further our 
imaginations
with their truly inspired work."

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Gary Oldman plays Sirius 
Black,
the eponymous prisoner whose escape is thought to pose a great threat 
to
Harry Potter; Michael Gambon plays the role of Professor Dumbledore,
Hogwarts' venerable headmaster; Timothy Spall portrays Peter 
Pettigrew, an
old friend of Harry's father, James Potter, from their days at 
Hogwarts;
David Thewlis plays Professor Lupin, the new Defense Against the Dark 
Arts
Professor who harbors a mysterious secret; Pam Ferris plays Harry's
overbearing Aunt Marge; and Paul Whitehouse portrays Sir Caddogan, a 
Knight
who becomes the temporary guardian of Gryffindor Tower.

Reprising their roles from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets are
Daniel Radcliffe in the title role; Emma Watson as Hermione Granger; 
Rupert
Grint as Ron Weasley; Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid; David Bradley as 
Argus
Filch; Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy; Richard Griffiths as Uncle Vernon
Dursley; Robert Hardy as Cornelius Fudge; Alan Rickman as Professor 
Snape;
Fiona Shaw as Aunt Petunia Dursley; Dame Maggie Smith as Professor
McGonagall; Julie Walters as Mrs. Weasley; and Mark Williams as Mr. 
Weasley.

-Enchanted
Welcome to the world of Harry Potter
http://www.geocities.com/iluvnaac/enchantedcastle.html


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





From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb 21 02:19:45 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:19:45 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
References: <b33v5v+ak6e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <018401c2d94f$b3f5a820$319ccdd1@RVotaw>

>> GulPlum AKA Richard, "educating the Yanks", as usual. :-)

Amy wrote:

>For which we're grateful!

Totally OT comment here, do people in the UK *really* refer to all Americans as Yanks?  If so, interesting, I've never been called one before. :)  I'm from the DEEP South, so to me the Yanks are all up north (you know, past, say, Kentucky? :D)  And no, I do *not* have a Southern drawl, I actually talk very fast and people have been known to ask me to slow down from time to time.

> years, so I'm a bit out of date).  I notice from IMDb that Whitehouse 
> is yet another David Copperfield connection.  Was *everyone* in 
> British film in that production?

Okay, back on topic here.  Somebody help me out, Paul Whitehouse is listed as the pawnbroker.  Is that the guy David Copperfield was selling his clothes and stuff to in the store?  I'm guessing it is, now I've got to watch it again and take a look at him.  (My mother absolutely refuses to be in the same room with me when I'm watching it, she takes one look at little Daniel Radcliffe's big, sad blue eyes and leaves, claiming "He's too cute and they're too mean.")

Richelle

P.S. And Amy, I am starting to wonder if everyone who was in David Copperfield will at some point turn up in, or at least be rumored to have been cast in one of the HP films!


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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 21 02:20:55 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:20:55 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <b3420e+3ij3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b342e7+f9r9@eGroups.com>

> 
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Enchanted" 
<enchanted at p...> 
> wrote:
>> Renowned actors Gary Oldman, Timothy Spall (Nicholas Nickleby), 
> Michael
> Gambon (Gosford Park), David Thewlis (Timeline), Pam Ferris 
> (Mathilda) and
> Paul Whitehouse (star of the BBC's The Fast Show) have joined the 
> esteemed
> ensemble cast of the film, which is being directed by Academy Award 
> nominee
> Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien) and produced by David Heyman, 
Chris
> Columbus and Mark Radcliffe.
> 
 OH NO!! My worst fear has been officially confirmed!! Oldman to play 
Black!! lol And I was preparing to lead a campaigne against it...he 
he..I might as well get used to the idea...maybe they will do some 
fancy camera work to get around the height thing...Although, if Mr. 
Dan will be beating the tar out of him..maybe it is better that he is 
closer to his height...lol I can't wait to see that scene!

On another note...Is the producer Mark Radcliffe Daniel's 
father....if so..that is mighty convenient,eh?

Oh and I think Pam Ferris will make a superb Aunt Marge, although I 
don't know how keen I would be on playing someone described 
as "large, beefy, and purple faced, she even had a mustache..."

Amanda
AccioPotter
*who is looking around screaming..."NOOOOOOO!"




From urbana at charter.net  Fri Feb 21 02:28:28 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:28:28 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <b3420e+3ij3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b342sc+3vh8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Anne <urbana at c...>" 
<urbana at c...> wrote:

> Robert Hardy as Cornelius Fudge; 

Could this be the same Robert Hardy who played my beloved Siegfried 
Farnon (equine veterinarian extraordinaire) in the wonderful British 
TV series All Creatures Great & Small?? (as well as doing a wonderful 
turn as Winston Churchill??) I certainly hope so:-)

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/PersonDetail/personid-41766

Anne U
(if not this Robert Hardy, then who? and did someone else play Fudge 
in the other HP movies?)





From amani at charter.net  Fri Feb 21 02:29:22 2003
From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:29:22 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
References: <b342e7+f9r9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002301c2d951$0bec2940$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>

Enchanted:
>> Renowned actors Gary Oldman, Timothy Spall (Nicholas Nickleby), 
> Michael
> Gambon (Gosford Park), David Thewlis (Timeline), Pam Ferris 
> (Mathilda) and
> Paul Whitehouse (star of the BBC's The Fast Show) have joined the 
> esteemed
> ensemble cast of the film, which is being directed by Academy Award 
> nominee
> Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien) and produced by David Heyman, 
Chris
> Columbus and Mark Radcliffe.

Amanda:
 OH NO!! My worst fear has been officially confirmed!! Oldman to play 
Black!! lol And I was preparing to lead a campaigne against it...he 
he..I might as well get used to the idea...maybe they will do some 
fancy camera work to get around the height thing...

Me:
>From what I've heard, there are lots of really simple filming tricks to make actors look taller or shorter. I should expect that if it's felt needed to make Oldman seem taller, it'd be very simple to do so. (I'm among those who love the idea of Oldman and Sirius, and think that he /is/ goodlooking if you find the right pictures. He's just purposely made to look unattractive in many of the movie's he's been in.)

--Taryn

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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 21 02:31:34 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:31:34 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <b342sc+3vh8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b34326+94sl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Anne <urbana at c...>" 
<urbana at c...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Anne <urbana at c...>" 
> <urbana at c...> wrote:
> 
> > Robert Hardy as Cornelius Fudge; 
> 
> Could this be the same Robert Hardy who played my beloved Siegfried 
> Farnon (equine veterinarian extraordinaire) in the wonderful 
British 
> TV series All Creatures Great & Small?? (as well as doing a 
wonderful 
> turn as Winston Churchill??) I certainly hope so:-)
> 
> http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/PersonDetail/personid-41766
> 
> Anne U
> (if not this Robert Hardy, then who? and did someone else play 
Fudge 
> in the other HP movies?)

He played Fudge in CoS..although he was only on for a moment to bring 
Hagrid to Azkaban..which by the way..I don't think he put up nearly 
the fight I would have after just being told I was going to that 
place...

Anyhow I think Robert Hardy is a perfect Fudge...I mean he looks like 
a bumbling idiot like Fudge...O.K. that was rude but I am just 
stating MHO!!

Amanda
AccioPotter*who thinks that Fudge is a moron and should be impeached!!




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 21 02:37:01 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:37:01 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <002301c2d951$0bec2940$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>
Message-ID: <b343cd+d5or@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" <amani at c...> wrote:
> Enchanted:
 (I'm among those who love the idea of Oldman and Sirius, and think 
that he /is/ goodlooking if you find the right pictures. He's just 
purposely made to look unattractive in many of the movie's he's been 
in.)
> 
> --Taryn
> 
  I guess the image I get when I think of him is Dracula...Although 
perhaps that is the very image that made them think of casting Mr. 
Oldman in the first place...I'm not saying he is completey 
unnatractive..just not my image of Mr. Black...but the wonderul crew 
of the movies will probably make me eat my words...

One more thing about the casting announcements...I know it isn't like 
we have a choice..but I think it will be hard to picture Dumbledore 
as anyone but the late Richard Harris...Mr. Gambon definately has 
some large shoes to fill IMO.


Amanda
AccioPotter




From CLShannon at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 02:27:41 2003
From: CLShannon at aol.com (CLShannon at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:27:41 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: "PoA Commences Production" announcement
Message-ID: <127.22dcc7cd.2b86e89d@aol.com>


In a message dated 2/20/03 6:20:42 PM, rvotaw at i-55.com writes:

<< Okay, back on topic here.  Somebody help me out, Paul Whitehouse is listed 
as the pawnbroker.  Is that the guy David Copperfield was selling his clothes 
and stuff to in the store?  I'm guessing it is, now I've got to watch it 
again and take a look at him.  (My mother absolutely refuses to be in the 
same room with me when I'm watching it, she takes one look at little Daniel 
Radcliffe's big, sad blue eyes and leaves, claiming "He's too cute and 
they're too mean.") >>

I think that would be the pawnbroker, as I remember it.
And I agree with your mother - the first time I watched that thing, my heart 
was breaking and I wanted to scream at all those mean characters - 'what's 
wrong with you people, how can you abuse that child!' Dan was incredibly 
adorable in that and such sad, old eyes on a child ;-)
That scene of him in the gutter, all dirty and worn out from his walk gets me 
every time. What a poster child for Dickensian child abuse <g>
And of course, I love the scene wherein Maggie Smith, playing Aunt Betsy, 
gives the poor kid a bath ;-) 
Cindy




From CLShannon at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 02:32:17 2003
From: CLShannon at aol.com (CLShannon at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:32:17 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Message-ID: <1c6.564a5f5.2b86e9b1@aol.com>


In a message dated 2/20/03 6:29:43 PM, urbana at charter.net writes:

<< Could this be the same Robert Hardy who played my beloved Siegfried 
Farnon (equine veterinarian extraordinaire) in the wonderful British 
TV series All Creatures Great & Small?? (as well as doing a wonderful 
turn as Winston Churchill??) I certainly hope so:-) >>

Yes, it's the same Robert Hardy and he played Fudge in Chamber of Secrets ;-)
Cindy




From CLShannon at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 02:30:46 2003
From: CLShannon at aol.com (CLShannon at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:30:46 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Message-ID: <1d5.34f0335.2b86e956@aol.com>


In a message dated 2/20/03 6:21:28 PM, crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net writes:

<< 
On another note...Is the producer Mark Radcliffe Daniel's 
father....if so..that is mighty convenient,eh?
 >>

I know other folks will answer this, but what the heck - no, it's not 
Daniel's father. Daniel's father is Alan Radcliffe and he's a literary agent, 
I believe. And also, I think Mark Radcliffe is an American and therefore 
probably not related ;-)
Cindy




From divaclv at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 04:28:12 2003
From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312 <divaclv@aol.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:28:12 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <002301c2d951$0bec2940$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>
Message-ID: <b349ss+f5ka@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" <amani at c...> wrote:
> Me:
> From what I've heard, there are lots of really simple filming 
tricks to make actors look taller or shorter. I should expect that if 
it's felt needed to make Oldman seem taller, it'd be very simple to 
do so. (I'm among those who love the idea of Oldman and Sirius, and 
think that he /is/ goodlooking if you find the right pictures. He's 
just purposely made to look unattractive in many of the movie's he's 
been in.)
> 

Four words: "Lord of the Rings."  There's some excellent examples of 
foreshortening and other height tricks there, especially in at the 
beginning of LotR with Gandalf and the hobbits.  Similar techniques 
have been used for Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (he's a big man, yes, 
but not THAT big).  Failing all else, there's built-up shoes--that's 
what Ewan MacGregor used in "Moulin Rouge" (you can actually see them 
as he climbs on top of the elephant in one shot).

~Christi, who didn't have Gary Oldman as her first (or even second) 
choice, but who's willing to give him the benifit of the doubt




From urbana at charter.net  Fri Feb 21 04:36:59 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:36:59 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <b349ss+f5ka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b34adb+7hah@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "c_voth312 <divaclv at a...>" 
<divaclv at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Taryn Kimel" <amani at c...> 
wrote:
> > Me:
> > From what I've heard, there are lots of really simple filming 
> tricks to make actors look taller or shorter. I should expect that 
if 
> it's felt needed to make Oldman seem taller, it'd be very simple to 
> do so. (I'm among those who love the idea of Oldman and Sirius, and 
> think that he /is/ goodlooking if you find the right pictures. He's 
> just purposely made to look unattractive in many of the movie's 
he's 
> been in.)
> > 
> 
> Four words: "Lord of the Rings."  There's some excellent examples 
of 
> foreshortening and other height tricks there, especially in at the 
> beginning of LotR with Gandalf and the hobbits.  

John Rhys-Davies (who in RL is probably about as big as Robbie 
Coltrane) said that in playing Gimli the dwarf in LOTR, he shot most 
of his scenes on his knees :-)

Anne
(who should find a better picture of Robert Hardy, because he is 
really a WONDERFUL, very suave, actor, and I've never seen him play 
anyone like Fudge before)





From belleps at october.com  Fri Feb 21 07:05:10 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:05:10 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Lupin casting?
In-Reply-To: <1045796111.1498.29253.m11@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030221005423.00a2aec0@pop.cox-internet.com>

British and you look like James? Ah, but you're not single, are you? Do you 
have a single brother who looks like James?

Never mind, just daydreaming. <Big Grin>

This really is interesting. I had no idea that my "internal casting" was so 
different from other people's. PoA will be very interesting to watch, I 
think. I truly don't remember what my earlier "internal casting" was like 
before PS/SS came out, so I don't know how it was affected (or matched by) 
the movie casting. I do know that the movie casting has pretty much taken 
over my visualizations of the characters, and that I don't remember any 
great disappointment over the casting.

bel

At 02:55 AM 2/21/03 +0000, you wrote:
>GulPlum AKA Richard, who apart from his green eyes and not-entirely lean
>build sees himself in Amanda's description of James. :-)




From vincentjh at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 09:43:23 2003
From: vincentjh at yahoo.com (vincentjh <vincentjh@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:43:23 -0000
Subject: Lupin Cast?
In-Reply-To: <b2tebq+i2er@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b34sbr+a49b@eGroups.com>

Call me crazy, but somehow I felt, if Thewlis had red hair and was 
thirty years younger, he'd look like book Ron. The nose, the long 
legs, and those big hands....

Having worked as a cartoonist/illustrator, I tend to imagine book 
characters as cartoons. So I guess no real human would match my 
mental image. Therefore, I don't usually get disappointed by the 
casting based on actor's looks because I hardly think about what the 
characters should look like in human form anyway. Of course, if 
they'd gotten a blond kid to play Harry, that would be too much a 
stretch. But as long as the actors more or less resenble book 
descriptions, I am fine with it. What's more important is that the 
actors can act and have good chemistry with the rest of the cast.

On a more serious note, I am glad they didn't get a good-looking guy 
to play Lupin. I never felt that Lupin would be good-looking, at 
least not in the conventional way. He'd not stand out in a crowd, but 
he'd possess a quiet charm that makes it easy for people to warm up 
to him but at the same time find it difficult to get too close to 
him. Can Thewlis be like that? I've only seen him in Black Beauty. 
And that character's no where close to Lupin. So I really can't judge.

BTW, has anyone seen The Count of Monte Cristo? I thought Jim 
Caviezel would be a good Sirius. But he won't be. (He's not Bristish 
anyway). Other than Jim Caviezel, the kid who plays Mercedes' son 
also reminded me of HP character. He seems to fit the description of 
Cedric, except that he has blue eyes. Here're some photos of him, 
just for reference. 
http://www.intensevibe.com/henry/graphics/imagemap.jpg
http://www.intensevibe.com/henry/photos/moviestills/castle002.jpg

(I saved the links/photos only for the purpose that next time when I 
want to picture Cedric in human form, I'll have something/someone 
more concrete to base my imaginations on. Unfortuantely, I haven't 
found a human model for Harry....So he's still a cartoon in my head.)

VJH




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 21 10:13:07 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:13:07 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <1d5.34f0335.2b86e956@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b34u3j+f4u2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, CLShannon at a... wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 2/20/03 6:21:28 PM, crookshanks731 at s... writes:
> 
> << 
> On another note...Is the producer Mark Radcliffe Daniel's 
> father....if so..that is mighty convenient,eh?
>  >>
> 
> I know other folks will answer this, but what the heck - no, it's not 
> Daniel's father. Daniel's father is Alan Radcliffe and he's a literary agent, 
> I believe. And also, I think Mark Radcliffe is an American and therefore 
> probably not related ;-)
> Cindy

Actually, I've heard Mark is Daniel's uncle, but I'd have to do some scrounging 
round to find where I got that information in the first place.

Sophia




From idcre at imap2.asu.edu  Fri Feb 21 10:40:19 2003
From: idcre at imap2.asu.edu (backstagemystic <idcre@imap2.asu.edu>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:40:19 -0000
Subject: James & Lily casting
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030220212325.00953790@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b34vmj+5o38@eGroups.com>

"GulPlum" wrote:
>>To be fair to the movie makers, there is no indication *in canon* 
about how old they are [edit]<<
>>...[snip] we fans know of the extra-canon detail that Snape (and 
thus the others) are in their mid-30s (presumably in PoA) [edit]...<<

When I first read the books, I had the impression (as did many others)
that Snape was somewhere around the age of 40.

His very demeanor and mannerisms...his austerity, presence, 
intelligence, discipline, word-choice, ability to command attention, 
his extensive knowledge of potions, etc just struck me as being of 
that of a by and large more mature adult...and even his physical 
description suggests a man who's seen some wear and tear.

Snape just has the feel of a man who's been around the block a few 
times and has the scars to show it... but he's not yet reached an age 
where the tell-tale signs of wisdom, thoughtful reflection and 
patience start kicking in.   

He's clearly had a hard life, even if we only know a smattering of 
details (we can make respectable guesses)...and he's been around long 
enough to become hardened, cynical and embittered.

Yet there's still those traces of an anrgy young man:  He harbors a 
lot of rage, resentment and jealousy...and has a nasty, often 
childish and petty, vindictive streak running through him.  There's 
an underlying hint of an insecure person desperately seeking respect, 
who's unsure of his mark and his worth in the world and is seemingly 
disappointed that he hasn't become more than he has.

And though he is often fearless and quick to take command when need 
arises, he's also clearly aware of where the lines of authority lie, 
and quickly defers to that authority with little pressing.  This is 
especially true with Dumbledore, where one almost gets the feel of a 
father/son relationship at times. Unlike "Minerva", who is often on a 
first-name basis with "Albus," Snape always addresses Dumbledore 
as "Headmaster."

So I was stunned when I found out from an interviews with JKR that 
Snape was "35 or 6" (in another interview, she stated he was in 
his "late thirties")...unless she meant that was his age at the time 
of the first book, which seems a bit more believable to me.

Otherwise, I just have a very hard time with the notion that Lily and 
James were only around 20 years old when they had Harry...that just 
seems like an awfully young age for a bright, talented couple to have 
a child.   One would be more inclined to think they went on to some 
sort of university or at least got out and established themselves in 
the world before beginning the huge responsibility that is raising a 
family.

Also, in the first book, we have Percy telling Harry that Snape's 
been after Quirrel's job for years...indicating that Snape's been a 
professor at Hogwarts for many terms.  And considering that Hogwarts 
is supposed to be the finest school of its kind, one would think that 
only the most talented, qualified and experienced would be allowed to 
grace the ranks of the faculty (don't even ask me to explain 
Lockhart)...making me feel that Snape wouldn't have come on board as 
a professor until he was in his mid to late 20's at the 
earliest...but that's just me.

>>That said, we shouldn't forget that Rickman was *JKR's choice* 
(i.e. the casting director didn't suggest Rickman to her, but she 
asked them to get Rickman involved, which was also the case with 
Coltrane and Smith, and also as I recall, Harris). Rickman is in his 
mid-fifties, and his Snape makeup takes off (IMO) about 6-7, perhaps 
as much as 10, years off that. The result is that Snape appears in 
the movies to be somewhere in his mid-forties. *With JKR's 
blessing*.<<

Rickman is a brilliant choice for the role - he's absolutely nailed 
Snape on the head.  And between the makeup and the fact that Rickman 
has aged very well (he more than has the energy, fitness and 
intensity), he's easily believable for the part.  The same can be 
said for Maggie Smith, who is also a brilliant choice for her role as 
McGonagall.

I'm more than willing to engage my "willing suspension of disbelief"
and overlook age discrepancies (a Snape that looks all of 10 years 
older than he's supposed to be just doesn't bother me) if it means 
getting the right actors for the roles...and Rickman and Smith 
qualify as "right" in my book.  

And for what it's worth, I feel the same for the young actors as 
well.  Even though Radcliffe, Watson, Grint, Felton and the rest are 
obviously aging faster than the films can be made, they, too, are 
well cast and have an incredible chemistry together...which, along 
with consistency, is very important to the series.  

It just wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they ended up being 3-
5 years older than the actual age of their characters by the time the 
7th film rolls around (if all 7 films are made, that is, and made 
within a reasonable span of time).

I hope the powers-that-be will retain this incredible cast, both 
adult and youth, for as long as they're willing and able to play the 
roles.  

BM









From idcre at imap2.asu.edu  Fri Feb 21 10:55:28 2003
From: idcre at imap2.asu.edu (backstagemystic <idcre@imap2.asu.edu>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:55:28 -0000
Subject: How "true" does Cuaron have to be?
In-Reply-To: <b02tr9+l723@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b350j0+9ne0@eGroups.com>

>>Did anyone else wonder why that wonderful cut scene in the SS DVD 
of Snape vs. Potter in Potions class was cut??<<

Yes (grumble). >:-/

The scene as shown in the movie was good, but the entire 
(aka "extended") scene as shown on the DVD extras was incredible.

So much was told so brilliantly in that extra minute or two that it 
should have been left intact...for it establishes the firey, abrasive 
dynamic between Snape and Harry that continues throughout the books.

BM






From trinity61us at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 11:11:48 2003
From: trinity61us at yahoo.com (alex fox)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:11:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: aging trio
Message-ID: <20030221111148.72782.qmail@web14904.mail.yahoo.com>


 In America there was a show called "Beverly Hills 90210" in which nearly 30 year old actors were playing high school kids. It was a huge hit. IMHO, I really don't a recasting will be necessary, or prudent.  The characters age throughout the books, so why should a 20 year old trio not be able to play 17? Or 16 for that matter? Just MHO, again.

alex fox, who likes Draco AND Ron



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

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




From artsylynda at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 12:33:27 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (artsylynda at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:33:27 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie]Lupin casting
Message-ID: <27.39f58287.2b877697@aol.com>

GulPlum:

> >James: I picture James to be the tallest, around 6'2..with dark brown
> >hair and blue eyes...wonderful smile..glasses...nice, lean, athletic
> >build..
> 
> I don't buy tall!James. I see him as being of below-average or at best 
> average height (I'm unwilling to put a numerical value to it), much like 
> Harry. I appreciate that Harry's limited height is more likely due to 
> underfeeding and spending his childhood in a cupboard, but even so I don't 
> see James as being particularly tall. Sleek and athletic, yes, but tall - 
> no.
> 

But Harry sees him as tall -- and in his pictures, I don't remember him 
appearing undersized.  Our son was the shrimp of the world until he hit 15 -- 
now he's 6'2"!  He was always the smallest boy his age, short and skinny and 
fine-boned, almost delicate looking.  He was at least a full head shorter 
than most of his classmates for most of his life.  When he was 15 he started 
shooting up and grew 8 inches in one summer!  We were so glad it was summer 
so he was in shorts -- trying to keep him in long pants that *fit* would've 
been very expensive!  Now (at 24) he's tall and thin, broadshouldered but 
still has those long, fine bones.  So I have no problem with James being tall 
-- my son could've been Harry (except he was blond and no glasses and no 
wizardry either) -- but as shrimpy as Harry, until he hit 15, at which point 
I HOPE JKR will allow poor Harry to grow!

BTW, about Harry's size.  Unless he was stunted at birth, and we have no 
indications he was, not being as well-fed as he should have been during his 
young childhood doesn't necessarily mean he won't reach his full growth 
potential.  We've been into horses for many, many years and have seen cases 
where a normal-size foal was starved (because idiots owned it who should've 
been arrested) and when it was taken to a better home and was well fed (like 
Harry at Hogwart's), it did grow to a normal size.  We've had a foal that was 
stunted at birth, (preemie sized, but due to a pregnancy problem), who was 
well-fed and cared for all the time we had her (until she was five) and she 
grew into a perfectly proportioned miniature Quarter Horse (a 14.1 hand pony, 
when she should've been 15 hands at least given the size of her parents).  I 
sold her last year because she just wasn't big enough for me, but her maximum 
potential size was determined by her placenta not being attached right in the 
womb, so she was tiny when born.  So Harry doesn't have to expect to always 
be "a midget in glasses" -- genetically, he can be as tall as his dad or 
taller (our son is 2 inches taller than anyone in the family has ever been, 
as far back as we can find out, and he was a true shrimp until he was 15).  

Amy wrote: 
 > Why, she muses sociologically, do so many of us imagine every 
> character we like as handsome?

And Quiddichmom replied:
 >>if someone's personality is strong or pleasing to me or 
even if it's just their mannerisms that are attractive, I will see 
that person as "handsome" or "cute" or something like that 
(especially men *ahem*!).? 

As far as Lupin, James and Sirius go, they all come across to me as 
people whom I would like to meet.? This is just going by 
how their personalities are described.? Maybe I can see some of my 
old friends in them or maybe some of myself?? James especially seems 
to remind me a lot of an old boyfriend of mine!? Sirius reminds me a 
bit of myself (mischevious, hothead?).? Lupin is kind and gentle, 
which I greatly admire.? <<

Me:  I think Quiddichmom has hit the nail on the head -- if we like people 
quite well, we usually find them attractive in some way -- we see their good 
points, overlook their flaws.  Sirius was described as "handsome" in canon (I 
remember reading it somewhere).  Harry's not "ugly" in any way (no matter 
what the Dursleys think) ust small (partly genetics, partly mistreatment) and 
he looks just like his father (except he has his mother's eyes).  I think 
Lupin should have a lot of *character* in his face -- he's suffered greatly 
-- and that, and his kind nature will make him attractive to those of us who 
are old enough to appreciate such qualities (that is, those of us who don't 
pay a lot of attention to who People magazine *tells* us is sexy -- we can 
tell for ourselves, thank you very much, and good character is much sexier 
than washboard abs, IMHO).  

Ah, so the casting list is official -- well, I hope they do use some of the 
"size comparision" tricks in future Potter movies that they did in LOTR -- 
Harry can stay smaller (and stay Dan!!) as long as they want, and Oldman can 
stand on a box or something (Elijah Wood said in some scenes making him small 
was as simple as him kneeling on a box -- and in the '30's stars like Alan 
Ladd stood on boxes to be taller, since they were the "handsome leading man" 
types and their "love interests" were often taller than them!  ;->)

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 21 15:43:56 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:43:56 -0000
Subject: How "true" does Cuaron have to be?
In-Reply-To: <b350j0+9ne0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b35hfs+jlq5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "backstagemystic <idcre at i...>" 
<idcre at i...> wrote:
> >>Did anyone else wonder why that wonderful cut scene in the SS DVD 
> of Snape vs. Potter in Potions class was cut??<<
> 
> Yes (grumble). >:-/
> 
> The scene as shown in the movie was good, but the entire 
> (aka "extended") scene as shown on the DVD extras was incredible.
> 
> So much was told so brilliantly in that extra minute or two that it 
> should have been left intact...for it establishes the firey, 
abrasive 
> dynamic between Snape and Harry that continues throughout the books.
> 
> BM

I agree with this post 100%. The "Deleted" scene shows Harry's true 
personality..he is a fighter (not in the physical sense) and he 
wouldn't just let Snape walk all over him. I felt that the scene 
showed in the actual movie displayed Harry as a scared little boy who 
isn't willing to stand up for what is right..I really wish they would 
have included the whole scene...It definately boosted my confidence 
in Harry when I watched it!! (not that it could have been boosted 
very much..as Harry is one of my fave's!)

Something else I have noticed in the movies is (and I know this is a 
bit OT) that Ron is made out to be a complete wimp! Not at all like 
the feisty Ron from the beloved books!! Why haven't they shown any of 
that red-headed temper we have all grown to love?? Oh..one more 
thing...I hope they show Hermione's great "SMACK" in the PoA...I 
can't wait to see Draco get a taste of his own medicine..hee hee hee

Amanda
AccioPotter  *who wishes they would show Harrry's true nature in 
every scene...




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Fri Feb 21 16:37:01 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:37:01 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: How "true" does Cuaron have to be?
References: <b35hfs+jlq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01c2d9c7$763b9210$6d9fcdd1@RVotaw>

Amanda wrote:

> I agree with this post 100%. The "Deleted" scene shows Harry's true 
> personality..he is a fighter (not in the physical sense) and he 
> wouldn't just let Snape walk all over him. I felt that the scene 
> showed in the actual movie displayed Harry as a scared little boy who 
> isn't willing to stand up for what is right..I really wish they would 

Absolutely.  I think that in SS/PS they went overboard trying to have Harry be a sweet well mannered little boy who inadvertantly got into mischief.  (Oops, the headmaster's gone, McGonagall thinks we're nuts.  Better do it ourselves).  Whereas they made an overcorrection in CoS as Harry "saves the day."  (Sorry, I still like that line one way or another, though.)

Which brings me to my point. (yes, there is one!)  In PoA, I wonder what they'll do with the Snape subbing for Lupin scene? It's important because of the werewolf assignment.  I know, they could think of another way to do it, but it's so good as it is.  Harry coming in, and rather defiantly demanding to know where Professor Lupin is, what's wrong with him, etc.  I love that scene, and I hope they keep it as it is.

On another note, the Japanese magazine Roadshow has (as always) some Potter stuff in their April issue.  It includes a picture of Dan as Harry (you can see it at www.danradcliffe.com) which I've never seen.  I was wondering if it was a new publicity picture for PoA, Japan does always seem to get their hands on things first!  I realize they usually have exclusive photo shoots with the cast, but those aren't usually in costume.  Just wondering.

Richelle


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




From flyeagle at the-i.net  Fri Feb 21 17:12:27 2003
From: flyeagle at the-i.net (Virginia Faye Garza)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:12:27 -0600
Subject: My problems with the James/Lilly casting in ps/ss
Message-ID: <3046a8b7edb34d7787167739e4ad337f.flyeagle@THE-I.NET>


Hi, Ok, maybe this is just me, but I thought that I would let you all know what
I thought about the casting of James and Lily in PS/SS.  For some reason in my mind's
eye I envision James and Lily being in their mid to late twenties at the time of
their deaths.  But in PS/SS both James and Lily looked to be about 33.  I have always
pictured them about 8 years younger.  Is that just me or what?  I would like to
see what others have to say on this topic. Thanks,
 V. Faye Garza 




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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 21 19:17:27 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:17:27 +0000
Subject: Casting, etc (largely OT)
In-Reply-To: <018401c2d94f$b3f5a820$319ccdd1@RVotaw>
References: <b33v5v+ak6e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030221144733.00956390@plum.cream.org>

Comments on several posts in one.

First, I'd like to agree with everything backstagemystic said about Snape's 
age in canon (early 40s), for the same reasons.

Second, re. Mark Radcliffe. He is absolutely no relation to Dan and his 
dad. Mark Radcliffe is American, and a friend and business partner of Chris 
Columbus. He's co-producer on all of Columbus's films through their 
production company 1492 Pictures (any doubt where the name came from?) :-)

Another issue. It's common for people to compare the casting of the HP kids 
to Beverly Hills 90210, but there's one major difference. I get the 
impression that throughout BH90210 (I never watched it) they were just 
pretty much generic older (American) teenagers and what they got up to was 
far more important than what they looked like. Besides, from my limited 
knowledge of the series, it wasn't really a "character" piece. It's also 
hardly the only US TV series to be centered on older teenagers who are set 
at a permanent age of about 17-19 for a whole multi-season series. The 
classic Happy Days and the current Buffy are more examples.

If we want to look at realistic teens, where the basic idea behind the 
series is kids growing up, we should look at Wonder Years or the current 
Malcolm In The Middle (both of which I have been known to watch 
sporadically, although I'm not very deeply into either). In those, the 
actors are roughly the age of the characters they play (if a little older, 
as I understand it), and just as The Wonder Years finished when the central 
character finished school, I expect the same to be true of MITM. Does 
anyone follow Sabrina The Teenage Witch? Does she get older from season to 
season?

Of course, when it comes to the later HP movies, the actors will be a few 
years older than the characters, but that's hardly going to be an issue. 
Even without using the "permanent teenagers" TV series as examples, there's 
no need for the kids to stop playing those parts just because, say, a 17 
year-old Dan will be playing a 15 year-old Harry.

I don't think it's irrelevant that all talk of the kids "outgrowing" their 
roles has come exclusively from the production camp (particularly 
Columbus). This is all a smokescreen. Columbus & Co have their own ulterior 
motives. For one thing, they have to balance the pros and cons of tying 
kids with unproven actual acting talent and possibly waning interest to 
long-term contracts at a fixed rate against making individual (financial) 
deals for each movie.

Whilst the core HP movie audience (let's face it, 9-12 year-olds) don't 
give a jot about whether the kids can act, but on the basis of two (soon, 
three) movies have a definite image of these actors playing these parts, 
the more discerning audience consisting of us adult fans of the books and 
the parents of the core audience (not to mention the critics) do expect 
just a little more.

It's fine for 10-13 year-olds to base an acting career on nothing but charm 
(which the HP cast has in abundance) but after that, one expects just a 
little more depth in the performance, and especially in the Potterverse, 
where Harry and Ron in particular have some increasingly complex 
characterisation to portray.

Don't get me wrong, Dan is a charming, intelligent and witty boy, and his 
parents have every right to be proud of him. But is he a good screen actor? 
Based on CoS, I would say no. Then again, so much of his poor performance 
is down to the watered-down script and lacklustre direction and editing, 
that I prefer to keep my own counsel until I've seen PoA.  I'll add Tom 
Felton to my list of doubts; Emma's playing very close to her own character 
as far as I can tell so her abilities are something of an unknown; Rupert 
has yet to be stretched - the CoS script's parody of Ron gave him very 
little opportunity to show what he might be able to do.

The thing is, if PoA shows little improvement in the acting stakes over the 
previous two movies, or if the actors' financial demands start getting more 
than the production team can accept, they just might decide that one or 
more of the kids have to go, a decision they will have to balance against 
any inevitable backlash from the kids in the audience. This of course also 
needs to balanced with the kids'  interest in continuing at all, and their 
parents' desire to *allow* them to continue.

Richelle:

>Totally OT comment here, do people in the UK *really* refer to all 
>Americans as Yanks?

Yes. "Yanks" is a general term for anyone from the USA (basically, because 
calling you all "Americans" is misleading as it could mean anyone from the 
whole continent; some people, myself included, may be found to use the term 
"USian").

Richelle again:

>I am starting to wonder if everyone who was in David Copperfield will at 
>some point turn up in, or at least be rumored to have been cast in one of 
>the HP films!

Bear in mind that every Christmas the BBC do a big novel adaptation and get 
lots of stars involved. For the stars, these are seen as a way to do a 
character that their usual audience won't have seen them play without 
having to spend *too* much time on a set. As a result, the credits for any 
one of the BBC's big Christmas numbers looks like a who's who of British 
acting talent. Of course, the big one for HP fans will always be David 
Copperfield because Dan had a reasonably large part in it. :-)

I agree with Columbus on his praise for the British acting community, who 
(as a rule) don't tie themselves down to one production company or project 
on a long-term basis (this particular tendency in the US media has recently 
come to the UK, with ITV signing up several big name actors for HUGE sums 
of money, for whom they create "vehicles"; few of these have actually been 
successful). I admire British actors who treat TV series and one-offs, 
movies, commercial and repertory theatre with the same respect and move 
from one to the other with ease. Of the HP cast, Richard Griffiths or Zoe 
Wannamaker are great examples.

It's when some of them become superstars and move to Hollywood that this 
work ethic falls to pieces. Also, this no longer seems to apply to the 
younger generation of actors, who seem to find their niche and stick to it. 
More's the pity.

Beth:

>British and you look like James? Ah, but you're not single, are you? Do you
>have a single brother who looks like James?

Other way around. I'm single, my brother is not. And we both look 
James-like (him more than me, actually). :-)

As it happens, I feel a deep affinity with MWPP: when I was at school, we 
had our own little group of four (me, Peter, Mark and George) and although 
the characterisations aren't quite parallel, I see a lot of the four of us 
in the four of them. I was a bespectacled intellectual, Peter was a sporty 
"bruiser", George was the quiet one who only ever spoke when he had 
something important to say (and was the glue which kept us together) and 
Mark was a bit of a hanger-on and just a little incompetent.

Unlike MWPP, we were mainly known for doing *good* things rather than bad 
ones (not that we wanted to ingratiate ourselves with the teachers, it's 
just that all four of us always found it more fun to make things rather 
than destroy them).

Although of course we were teenagers, and we did get into the odd scrape - 
this mainly consisted of breaking things when we got a little 
over-exuberant, but we were always willing to repair what we'd broken (as 
long as we didn't have to pay for it from our meagre allowances).  :-)

We've remained friends ever since (as then, Peter and I are closest) and 
I'm the only one without kids, though I'm godfather to both Mark's and 
Peter's first-borns. As it happens, I'm off to stay with Peter and family 
next weekend (for reasons we can't remember, I'm referred to in their house 
as "Uncle Bob"). :-)

We also had our own nemesis, who was a really nasty piece of work and 
stupid to boot.  I've no idea what he's doing now, but I do know that he 
spent some significant time in prison...

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who thinks he's now caught up with all the threads.




From bruinfan1988 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 19:19:25 2003
From: bruinfan1988 at yahoo.com (bruinfan1988 <bruinfan1988@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:19:25 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie]Lupin casting
In-Reply-To: <27.39f58287.2b877697@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b35u3t+fh1v@eGroups.com>

"and Oldman can stand on a box or something" 

Hee!  My sister's big issue with Oldman is his height--she's sure 
that at some point there will be a Lucius/Sirius confrontation, and 
since the actor who plays Lucius is so tall, and Oldman is small, 
Sirius is going to look ineffectual.  Maybe the box will solve the 
problem!




From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 21 19:27:33 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:27:33 +0000
Subject: James/Lilly casting 
In-Reply-To: <3046a8b7edb34d7787167739e4ad337f.flyeagle@THE-I.NET>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030221191737.0096cca0@plum.cream.org>

At 17:12 21/02/03 , Virginia Faye Garza wrote:

>Hi, Ok, maybe this is just me, but I thought that I would let you all know 
>what
>I thought about the casting of James and Lily in PS/SS.  For some reason 
>in my mind's eye I envision James and Lily being in their mid to late 
>twenties at the time of their deaths.  But in PS/SS both James and Lily 
>looked to be about 33.  I have always pictured them about 8 years 
>younger.  Is that just me or what?  I would like to see what others have 
>to say on this topic. Thanks,

See the other threads on casting. The movies have made all the characters 
of James & Co's generation a little older than book canon indicates. In the 
books, they seem to have all been in their early 20s when Harry was born, 
and thus in their mid-to-late-30s during Harry's school years,  but 
Rickman's casting has forced them to add about 10 years to that.

As I said a couple of days ago, Rickman's casting was JKR's idea, and so 
this is one thing for which we really can't blame Columbus & Co. For the 
new PoA characters, they've gone with late-30s to early-40s actors, which 
is certainly a step in the right direction.

I've not heard anyone ever complain about Rickman's casting (I'm certainly 
not going to start because I think he's done a terrific job) so complaining 
about the age of the other characters is, frankly, a display of double 
standards.




From kechelsen at aol.com  Fri Feb 21 21:50:16 2003
From: kechelsen at aol.com (kathye_c <kechelsen@aol.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:50:16 -0000
Subject: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <b34adb+7hah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b366uo+lumq@eGroups.com>

<<--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Anne <urbana at c...>" <> (who 
should find a better picture of Robert Hardy, because he is 
> really a WONDERFUL, very suave, actor, and I've never seen him play 
> anyone like Fudge before)>>

He played a servant to Prince Wendell and a member of the 4th Kingdom 
Council in a TV miniseries titled The 10th Kingdom three years ago.  
Not quite like Fudge, but close.






From penumbra10 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 22:57:25 2003
From: penumbra10 at yahoo.com (Nia <penumbra10@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:57:25 -0000
Subject: Is Chris Columbus to return?????
Message-ID: <b36asl+2mer@eGroups.com>

I hope someone, perhaps that dashing 'Knight of the Last Word,' 
Richard, can asuage my fears.  From this post:

  http://www.iharrypotter.net/

It appears that Chris Columbus will return to apply his vapid paint-
by-numbers directing style to GoF.  We've barely begun to discuss 
PoA and what new and innovative touches Cauron might add when we're 
slapped with this!  Columbus couldn't handle PS/SS, how can he 
possibly manage all the plot strands of GoF??  I've seen Cauron's 
work and he's brilliant.  He sees people and is so artful as to be 
able to capture personalities in amazing, unforgettable detail 
within very small amounts of camera time.  He would never turn out a 
soulless hack-job of a film as Coloumbus did in CoS.  I was hoping 
he'd stay on for at least two films...  I don't spend a great deal 
of time online so I don't know the rumor-mongers from trustworthy 
sites.  Is this a probable rumor or the footsteps of doom for 
creativity?
--Nia




From LeeMunLim03 at aol.com  Sat Feb 22 00:26:41 2003
From: LeeMunLim03 at aol.com (LeeMunLim03 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:26:41 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: How "true" does Cuaron have to be?
Message-ID: <28.33ff8269.2b881dc1@aol.com>

No, but I wish they had kept it too.


Kyle Longbottom 


In a message dated 2/21/03 5:56:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
idcre at imap2.asu.edu writes:

> 
> >>Did anyone else wonder why that wonderful cut scene in the SS DVD 
> of Snape vs. Potter in Potions class was cut??<<
> 
> Yes (grumble). >:-/
> 
> The scene as shown in the movie was good, but the entire 
> (aka "extended") scene as shown on the DVD extras was incredible.
> 
> So much was told so brilliantly in that extra minute or two that it 
> should have been left intact...for it establishes the firey, abrasive 
> dynamic between Snape and Harry that continues throughout the books.
> 
> BM
> 



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




From insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 22 00:39:05 2003
From: insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk (Scott <insanus_scottus@yahoo.co.uk>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:39:05 -0000
Subject: sets
In-Reply-To: <b36asl+2mer@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b36gr9+5nlp@eGroups.com>

According to the website iharrypotter.net that was just referenced 
for other matters-

"Alnwick Castle and Durham Cathedral, which featured in some of the 
most stunning scenes in the last two films, have been ditched in 
favour of sites in Scotland and southern England."

!!!!

Is this true? Well I erm, suppose so, but it's something that I just 
can't accept. Will Hogwarts not look totally different? Alnwick is 
very distinctive and some scenes, such the Whomping Willow in CoS, 
have been clearly established within its borders.  It seems to me 
that this creates an unnecessary muddle.  Perhaps indoor scenes may 
be recreated but a large scale outdoor scene is unlikely. Any 
suggestions?

On a bit of a tangent did anyone else notice that the hospital wing 
set used in CoS was totally different than that used in PS/SS? In 
the first film, unless I'm very much mistaken, the Divinity School 
of the Bodleian Library, Oxford was used. Here's a link with a 
picture, albeit not a very big 
one...http://www.d.umn.edu/~ahartley/marhistcitOED.html 
I lived in Oxford for a short while in 2001 (alright I just studied 
for a month, but live sounds much more romantic) and I remember  
clearly that this was so (partially from the HPFGU members that I 
met whilst there, but I digress). 

Anyway you can go on a 360degree tour of the CoS set at 
http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/vr/cos/infirmary.html

There. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but they're totally different rooms 
and it makes me mad (not to mention this fact irked me to no end in 
the hospital scenes, ack!)

That's all.
Scott






From insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 22 00:44:08 2003
From: insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk (Scott <insanus_scottus@yahoo.co.uk>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:44:08 -0000
Subject: sets
In-Reply-To: <b36gr9+5nlp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b36h4o+bo8o@eGroups.com>

responding to myself is never a good sign, but...
I haven't been all over the bodleian library and I don't know what 
the other rooms look like, but I suppose this could be one of them. 

Also on the WB website the room which one can see through the open 
doors on the far side looks a bit like the original infirmary. Zoom 
in and see what you guys think. The resolution's not that great and 
it's blurry, but it does seem possible.

Hmmm...

Scott (again)




From hp at plum.cream.org  Sat Feb 22 00:51:14 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:51:14 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Is Chris Columbus to return?????
In-Reply-To: <b36asl+2mer@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030222002751.0095ef10@plum.cream.org>

At 22:57 21/02/03 , Nia <penumbra10 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>I hope someone, perhaps that dashing 'Knight of the Last Word,'
>Richard, can asuage my fears.

I hope that's not me you're talking about. :-) I can live with "dashing", 
but I'm not sure I want to be anyone's "Knight of the Last Word". :-)

>It appears that Chris Columbus will return to apply his vapid paint-
>by-numbers directing style to GoF.

<snip the rest>

I know nothing more than was implied in that article. I share your concerns 
that Columbus might want to be back for GoF, am I'm hoping (with fingers 
crossed) that the paragraph in question is down to a mix of journalistic 
hyperbole and wishful thinking.

The article came from a small local paper in Northumberland (covering both 
Alnwick Castle and Durham Cathedral) and it's only natural that they're 
concerned about the loss of revenue the HP productions have provided over 
the last couple of years. I'm hoping that the article is more an expression 
of their desire for Columbus to return, rather than any specific knowledge 
that he will.

In any case, I doubt that the decision for no PoA filming to be done there 
is down to Cuaron.

Alnwick was used for the Quidditch pitch and the Hogwarts grounds. Although 
there are three Quidditch matches in the book (and although I'd like them 
to keep all three in, I suspect that they're going to find a way to show 
only one judging by their efforts to date), they don't need the Alnwick 
grounds, as it's all digital effects  anyway. They also don't need to use 
the grounds as most of the action happens in classes or the Gryffindor 
Common Room, all of which have standing sets at Leavesden.

Durham Cathedral was used for some of the cloister shots (the main ones 
were in Gloucester) and I don't think I've read anything about not filming 
in Gloucester; besides there probably won't be many shots in those areas.

In any case, I suspect that their love for Columbus and their hope that 
he'll come back to make GoF there, is somewhat misplaced. There is no 
Quidditch (except for the QWC, which needs different scenery, so Alnwick 
won't be needed anyway). The Quidditch pitch only appears for the final 
challenge and is overgrown with hedges, so it's not needed for that either. 
To coincide with the darker storyline, I expect the GoF film to feature 
very little daytime outdoor filming, so it can all be done on the standing 
sets.

So if Columbus does come back to make GoF, it'll probably be the worst of 
both worlds: we fans probably won't be happy, and neither will the 
Northumberland economy...

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who doesn't know which is the worse prospect: Columbus 
directing or of Kloves writing GoF... Together, they're an abomination.





From irene_mikhlin at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 22 01:00:55 2003
From: irene_mikhlin at yahoo.com (irene_mikhlin <irene_mikhlin@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:00:55 -0000
Subject: A horrible thought
Message-ID: <b36i47+73vs@eGroups.com>

By the looks of things there is no Professor Trelawney in the movie.
Which should not be a problem, after all they must cut something. And
it's much better to do a clean amputation of the whole plotline than
trying to give a sample of everything. But how this time will be
spent? Something tells me it's not going to be character development
culminating in 40 minutes long Shrieking Shack + confrontation. No,
it'll be Knight Bus sequence rescuing wizards in trouble all over
London and other action special effects. :-(
And if you think it was the horrible thought, I haven't started yet.
Us Snape fans were sustained through the 2 films that cut every
Potions lesson by the thought of PoA and all that comes with it. But
now I think that it's not even obvious that Snape is going to be in
the Shrieking Shack. It can be done without him: Lupin comes, they
talk, confront Pettigrew, go happily to the castle until Lupin
transforms. That's dramatic enough. And the confrontation in the
hospital wing can be with Fudge alone. They didn't bother to establish
the life-debt to James in PS, or the fact that they were classmates,
so it's not impossible.
That's my horrible thought for the day.

Irene




From penumbra10 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 22 01:20:53 2003
From: penumbra10 at yahoo.com (Nia <penumbra10@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:20:53 -0000
Subject: Thanks, Richard (Was: Is Chris Columbus to return?????)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030222002751.0095ef10@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b36j9l+41fs@eGroups.com>

 GulPlum wrote:
>> I know nothing more than was implied in that article. I share 
your concerns 
> that Columbus might want to be back for GoF, am I'm hoping (with 
fingers 
> crossed) that the paragraph in question is down to a mix of 
journalistic 
> hyperbole and wishful thinking.
> 
> The article came from a small local paper in Northumberland 
(covering both 
> Alnwick Castle and Durham Cathedral) and it's only natural that 
they're 
> concerned about the loss of revenue the HP productions have 
provided over 
> the last couple of years. I'm hoping that the article is more an 
expression 
> of their desire for Columbus to return, rather than any specific 
knowledge 
> that he will.
<snip>

Thanks, Richard, for such a thoughtful answer.  It did help quite a 
bit.  I never stopped to consider how the local economy could 
possibly impact the story.  :-)
--Nia




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Sat Feb 22 02:00:20 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:00:20 -0000
Subject: A horrible thought
In-Reply-To: <b36i47+73vs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b36ljk+o0mm@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "irene_mikhlin 
<irene_mikhlin at y...>" <irene_mikhlin at y...> wrote:
> By the looks of things there is no Professor Trelawney in the movie.
> Which should not be a problem, after all they must cut something. 
And
> it's much better to do a clean amputation of the whole plotline than
> trying to give a sample of everything. But how this time will be
> spent? Something tells me it's not going to be character development
> culminating in 40 minutes long Shrieking Shack + confrontation. No,
> it'll be Knight Bus sequence rescuing wizards in trouble all over
> London and other action special effects. :-(
> And if you think it was the horrible thought, I haven't started yet.
> Us Snape fans were sustained through the 2 films that cut every
> Potions lesson by the thought of PoA and all that comes with it. But
> now I think that it's not even obvious that Snape is going to be in
> the Shrieking Shack. It can be done without him: Lupin comes, they
> talk, confront Pettigrew, go happily to the castle until Lupin
> transforms. That's dramatic enough. And the confrontation in the
> hospital wing can be with Fudge alone. They didn't bother to 
establish
> the life-debt to James in PS, or the fact that they were classmates,
> so it's not impossible.
> That's my horrible thought for the day.
> 
> Irene

Irene...The whole Trewlawney subject was brought up on another 
message board that i visit today! How can they cut her...She is the 
one who first brings up the subject of the grim and she also predicts 
Pettigrews return to YKW!!

I will be terribly mad if they waste time on the knight bus when the 
shrieking shack confontation is the scene that needs the most time 
spent!! The more I think about what they could do to this movie..the 
madder I get...I didn't really have this problem with PS/SS because I 
saw the movie before I read any of the books..Yes, I am fairly new to 
the Potter world, but have bedcome a full fledged Potterholic...And I 
thought CoS was good although..IMO..it could have been 
better..cough..valentines day..cough..Mr. Weasley and Mr. Malfoy's 
fight..cough!!

I am waiting to see what else will be cut...perhaps the whole part 
about Lupin being a werewolf...maybe they will all just go to the 
shrieking shack for a cup of tea instead....lol

Amanda
AccioPotter






From urbana at charter.net  Sat Feb 22 02:02:13 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:02:13 -0000
Subject: Official WB press release for HPPOA casting on Newsround
Message-ID: <b36ln5+jcr1@eGroups.com>

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2788000/2788225.stm>

Discuss among yourselves...

Anne U





From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Sat Feb 22 13:36:05 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:36:05 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <b37uc5+bju0@eGroups.com>

I have finally come to the sad realization that it's possible 
that "Prisoner" may not come any closer to the vision of JKR 
than "Chamber of Secrets" or "Sorcerer's Stone." It's patently clear 
that the directors, no matter how talented and how eloquent, are not 
making these films for me, someone who's read the books and 
desparately wants to see them come alive. They are making 
action/adventure movies for kids. The emotional core is just a 
subplot that unfortunately, can't ever seem to be worked in very 
well. I thought it was just Chris Columbus who couldn't seem to 
manage Harry being a real breathing sometimes vulerable person. But 
now that I see there is no Prof. Trelawny, possible no or very little 
quidditch, I realize that Cuaron seemingly must sacrifice huge chunks 
of the plot as well to get a movie made. For me the best hope is 
that, despite all the sacrifices that must be made, he will still try 
to show Harry as a fuller character, with flaws and self-doubts as 
well as courageous and brave. I try to tell myself that bravery and 
courage as so much easier to portray that it's obvious why those 
aspects of Harry have always been emphasized. Now I just want to see 
if Curaon is as good as they say at portraying teen age angst...
-JenD





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sat Feb 22 15:13:45 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali <Ali@zymurgy.org>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:13:45 -0000
Subject: Locations of PoA was Re: Is Chris Columbus to return?????
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030222002751.0095ef10@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b38439+l02h@eGroups.com>

Richard aka GulPlum wrote:-

>> Durham Cathedral was used for some of the cloister shots (the main 
ones were in Gloucester) and I don't think I've read anything about 
not filming in Gloucester<< 

I have! There was an article in the local Gloucester paper on 10th 
February which was later reported on the Leaky Cauldron (17th 
February, if this link doesn't work:
www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
odeId=74375&command=displayContent&sourceNode=73927&contentPK=4074524

I wonder if they're still going to film at Christchurch College 
Oxford. That seems to be one of the few on-location sites that hasn't 
already been ruled out.

In terms of good reasons for keeping the filming in one place, they 
need only use one set of extras, rather than have new extras for each 
location which appears to have been the case for PS and CoS. It will 
also keep the costs down. I do fear that some of the ambience gained 
from filming in these old colleges and catherdrals will be lost. 
Perhaps the more imaginative filming and directing will make up for 
this.

Ali




From hp at plum.cream.org  Sat Feb 22 15:25:02 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:25:02 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <b37uc5+bju0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030222142725.00963570@plum.cream.org>

At 13:36 22/02/03 , susanbones2003 <rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:

>They are making
>action/adventure movies for kids. The emotional core is just a
>subplot that unfortunately, can't ever seem to be worked in very
>well. I thought it was just Chris Columbus who couldn't seem to
>manage Harry being a real breathing sometimes vulerable person.

I have maintained since the beginning (well, since I read the books, 
post-PS/SS) that the character assassination isn't so much down to 
Columbus's direction, as much as Kloves's script. Harry is a reluctant 
hero, Ron is not a wimp, Dumbledore is eccentric. The script, rather than 
the direction, overthrew all of these, and no amount of clever direction 
would have been able to return the characters to their full glory. My 
doubts about Dan's ability to portray some of the subtleties the character 
requires are just further grist to the mill.

I am only hoping that the re-write Cuaron is rumoured to have instituted 
(referred to in Columbus interviews when CoS came out) are on that level.

>But
>now that I see there is no Prof. Trelawny, possible no or very little
>quidditch, I realize that Cuaron seemingly must sacrifice huge chunks
>of the plot as well to get a movie made.

Hang on. Both of those statements are suppositions based on incomplete 
information. The BBC comments on the WB press release indicated that 
further casting has yet to be announced, and to be honest I really can't 
see the long-term narrative working without Trelawney being introduced. I 
do expect, though, that we won't have any Divination lessons (I think there 
are three in the book), and the only Trelawney scene will be Harry's end of 
year exam and the prediction. The Grim, the silliness of her methods, 
Hermione's dropping the subject and a few other subtleties can be dealt 
with in other ways.

I don't doubt that some Quidditch will be in the movie (a HP film without 
Quidditch is akin to a James Bond film without a car chase). The Quidditch 
matches aren't just action moments (though the movies mainly portray them 
as such); each match is important to the plot. In PoA, the first 
(Hufflepuff) is needed for the effect of the Dementors on Harry (or rather, 
his need to find a way to deal with them), the destruction of the Numbus 
2000 (and thus the later appearance of the Firebolt) and for the 
introduction of Cedric Diggory (also important because we need to have a 
match during which Harry fails to catch the Snitch).

The Ravenclaw match will probably fall by the wayside - it's really a Draco 
moment - showing Harry's Patronus to be ineffective can be established in 
other ways. Ditto the introduction of Cho Chang. In the book, the match is 
very short, and there's no real need to portray it.

The Slytherin match is of course important as Gryffindor (and Wood) win the 
Quidditch cup. Wood is popular with the movie fans, and this is his last 
moment in the series. The "fake Dementors" could be incorporated into this 
match, and it would actually make more sense for Crabbe & Goyle to attempt 
to distract Harry during a match against Slytherin. And of course Harry 
needs a match to show of the Firebolt. :-)

Incidentally, I don't for a second expect the movie to drop the Firebolt 
sub-plot (although I expect them to simplify it a little), if for no other 
reason that to introduce more merchandise. That and the Shrieking Shack are 
really the only new items of merchandise available for this movie (apart 
from figurines of the new characters, of course).

>For me the best hope is
>that, despite all the sacrifices that must be made, he will still try
>to show Harry as a fuller character, with flaws and self-doubts as
>well as courageous and brave.

On the contrary, that is where my greatest fears lie. Harry is going to 
remain the resolute all-powerful heroic mini-Superman the first two movies 
have portrayed.

Another one of my great fears is something Irene's post last night 
introduced: the distinct possibility that Snape could be cut out of the 
Shrieking Shack scene altogether. I had never thought about that before, 
but I literally had difficulty sleeping last night because I went over the 
possibilities, and realised that what Irene said is true: the narrative 
function of the scene works perfectly well without him there. Snape's 
relationship to MWPP is sufficiently covered in dialogue (perhaps 
accompanied by a flashback) so there is no real reason for him to be present.

Kloves's heavy-handed treatment of the characters makes me really fear that 
we will lose one of the highlights of the series: Harry and Hermione 
blowing their top at Snape. The two movies to date have already lost 
Harry's sarcastic snipes in his direction, so we've had no indication of 
Harry's more vicious side. In that context, his attack on Snape in the SS 
is understandable; without it, the attack comes pretty much out of the 
blue. The only thing which leaves me hopeful that Snape's presence will be 
maintained is that his contribution doesn't take a great deal of time.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, crossing his fingers.



From natmichaels at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 22 18:04:16 2003
From: natmichaels at hotmail.com (lorien_eve <natmichaels@hotmail.com>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:04:16 -0000
Subject: A horrible thought
In-Reply-To: <b36ljk+o0mm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b38e30+i1u1@eGroups.com>

And the Death Day party! I still can't believe they left that out! I 
was really looking forward to seeing how they did it.

Lorien_Eve

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "acciopotter 
<crookshanks731 at s...>" <crookshanks731 at s...> wrote
...And I 
> thought CoS was good although..IMO..it could have been 
> better..cough..valentines day..cough..Mr. Weasley and Mr. Malfoy's 
> fight..cough!!
> 
> Amanda
> AccioPotter




From irene_mikhlin at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 22 18:13:53 2003
From: irene_mikhlin at yahoo.com (irene_mikhlin <irene_mikhlin@yahoo.com>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:13:53 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030222142725.00963570@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b38el1+dull@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:

> Kloves's heavy-handed treatment of the characters makes me really
fear that 
> we will lose one of the highlights of the series: Harry and Hermione 
> blowing their top at Snape. The two movies to date have already lost 
> Harry's sarcastic snipes in his direction, so we've had no
indication of 
> Harry's more vicious side. In that context, his attack on Snape in
the SS 
> is understandable; without it, the attack comes pretty much out of the 
> blue. The only thing which leaves me hopeful that Snape's presence
will be 
> maintained is that his contribution doesn't take a great deal of time.

And how long would it take in CoS to have Draco say his bit about
Snape being the best possible headmaster and recommending him to his
father? It's beyond me why they passed the opportunity to establish
connection between Draco, Snape and Lucius in 30 seconds top.

Irene




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Sat Feb 22 18:51:28 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:51:28 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <b38el1+dull@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b38grg+qc9e@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "irene_mikhlin 
<irene_mikhlin at y...>" <irene_mikhlin at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> 
> > Kloves's heavy-handed treatment of the characters makes me really
> fear that 
> > we will lose one of the highlights of the series: Harry and 
Hermione 
> > blowing their top at Snape. The two movies to date have already 
lost 
> > Harry's sarcastic snipes in his direction, so we've had no
> indication of 
> > Harry's more vicious side. In that context, his attack on Snape in
> the SS 
> > is understandable; without it, the attack comes pretty much out 
of the 
> > blue. The only thing which leaves me hopeful that Snape's presence
> will be 
> > maintained is that his contribution doesn't take a great deal of 
time.
> 
> And how long would it take in CoS to have Draco say his bit about
> Snape being the best possible headmaster and recommending him to his
> father? It's beyond me why they passed the opportunity to establish
> connection between Draco, Snape and Lucius in 30 seconds top.
> 
> Irene

The more I times I reread PoA..and I have read it many-a-times..the 
more things I find that worry me about the movie...there seems to be 
a huge amount of room for error in this one...so many things are 
necessary for the plot..I would hate to see them leave out things 
that are vital to the plot..for instance..the quidditch match with 
the dementors..and the whole dialogue in the shrieking shack..who 
cares about the night bus...we want quality content..not just 
overhyped action sequences!!

Amanda
AccioPotter *( who is becoming more and more worried about this and 
will most likely be a complete nutcast by next summer...At least I 
will have OoP to take my mind off things..well for several hours 
while I read it)




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Sat Feb 22 19:18:55 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:18:55 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030222142725.00963570@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b38iev+9ujf@eGroups.com>

GulPlum wrote:
> I have maintained since the beginning (well, since I read the 
books, 
> post-PS/SS) that the character assassination isn't so much down to 
> Columbus's direction, as much as Kloves's script. Harry is a 
reluctant 
> hero, Ron is not a wimp, Dumbledore is eccentric. The script, 
rather than 
> the direction, overthrew all of these, and no amount of clever 
direction 
> would have been able to return the characters to their full glory.

Then Me:
Even if it was the script at fault, I must maintain that ultimately 
it's the director who must understand the material and Chris 
obviously didn't or he would have asked for rewrites, don't you 
agree? 

GulPlum again:
> I am only hoping that the re-write Cuaron is rumoured to have 
instituted 
> (referred to in Columbus interviews when CoS came out) are on that 
level.

Thank you for telling me about that rumor as I had not read it!!

> >For me the best hope is
> >that, despite all the sacrifices that must be made, he will still 
try
> >to show Harry as a fuller character, with flaws and self-doubts as
> >well as courageous and brave.

GulPlum wrote:> 
> On the contrary, that is where my greatest fears lie. Harry is 
going to 
> remain the resolute all-powerful heroic mini-Superman the first two 
movies 
> have portrayed.

Me: Please explain this to me further. As I read it, you don't see 
any possible additional character development or you fear what Cuaron 
might do? Sorry if I am being a bit thick....

> Next bit:
> Another one of my great fears is something Irene's post last night 
> introduced: the distinct possibility that Snape could be cut out of 
the 
> Shrieking Shack scene altogether. I had never thought about that 
before, 
> but I literally had difficulty sleeping last night because I went 
over the 
> possibilities, and realised that what Irene said is true: the 
narrative 
> function of the scene works perfectly well without him there. 
Snape's 
> relationship to MWPP is sufficiently covered in dialogue (perhaps 
> accompanied by a flashback) so there is no real reason for him to 
be present.

Me: I really believe Irene is on to something. It seems totally 
believable without Snape. That's the infuriating thing. They edit out 
so much, somehow leave the skeleton intact but sacrifice so many 
things that make the story memorable.


> 
GulPlum keep your fingers really really crossed.
JenD




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Sat Feb 22 20:42:36 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:42:36 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <14e.1c129496.2b893abc@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/22/2003 12:54:21 PM Central Standard Time, 
crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net writes:

> The more I times I reread PoA..and I have read it many-a-times..the 
> more things I find that worry me about the movie...there seems to be 
> a huge amount of room for error in this one...so many things are 
> necessary for the plot..****I would hate to see them leave out things 
> that are vital to the plot..for instance..the quidditch match with 
> the dementors****..and the whole dialogue in the shrieking shack..who 
> cares about the night bus...we want quality content..not just 
> overhyped action sequences!!
> 

>From what I've read about the COS DVD interview with JKR and Kloves I'm not 
to worried about things important to the further plots being left out.

JKR said that she's told Kloves far more about future events than she's told 
anyone else. Kloves has also said that he is/was concerned about cutting 
things that might be important to the end of the series. (I've tried to get 
the exact quote from The Leaky Cauldron but the page won't open for me) 

On the whole I will trust that JKR has advised Kloves exactly what needs to 
be in POA to guarantee continuity through book 7/movie 7.  It might not be 
what we think is important or what we specifically want to see however we 
don't know what JKR has planned fiurther down the line.  

I do think that Snape being at the Sheirking Shack is important if for no 
reason other to show the mutual hatred he and Sirius have for one another.  
The Dementors being at the Quidditch game is less crucial because their 
effect on Harry is demonstrated during the train ride.  No one else has a 
reaction that drastic. A quick explaination from Dumbledore as to the 
possible causes (ie he has a more horrible things happen in his past than his 
classmates ect) and we can move on to his learning the Patronus.

JMO
Melissa


 


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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Sat Feb 22 21:25:05 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 21:25:05 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <14e.1c129496.2b893abc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030222210202.00960260@plum.cream.org>

Melissa wrote:

> From what I've read about the COS DVD interview with JKR and Kloves I'm not
>to worried about things important to the further plots being left out.

As if happens, from the PS/SS interviews, it seems that JKR specifically 
did *NOT* give Kloves any information.

 From http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1101/Kloves/Kloves.html

"As much as Rowling would share, there is plenty she would not. No matter 
how hard he tried, no matter how many angles he approached it from, Kloves 
could not pry one hint, one breath of a hint about what's in store for the 
characters he has come to love so much.

"Oh, she knows," he says, laughing, "she knows already what's going to 
happen. Who's going to be left. After Goblet of Fire [in which a character 
dies] came out, she said, 'They've not seen anything yet.' And you would 
think she would tell me something, since I am writing it. But she won't. 
Nothing. And I've tried. I've been on the phone with her for hours talking 
about all sorts of things, and then I'll slip a question in about the 
future, and she'll say, 'Sorry, can't tell you that.' Very pleasant. With a 
smile. But maddening all the same."

(end quote)

It strikes me that all JKR is doing is correcting him *after the fact*, and 
he's most emphatic that she has not let him into what's to come.

>I do think that Snape being at the Sheirking Shack is important if for no
>reason other to show the mutual hatred he and Sirius have for one another.

That is already perfectly adequately covered in dialogue, both by Lupin and 
Sirius and there's nothing stopping Kloves feel that it's enough. If I 
was't attached to the scene for other reasons, I would be inclined to agree 
with that sentiment which is why I'm so scared that it'll be cut.

>The Dementors being at the Quidditch game is less crucial because their
>effect on Harry is demonstrated during the train ride.  No one else has a
>reaction that drastic. A quick explaination from Dumbledore as to the
>possible causes (ie he has a more horrible things happen in his past than his
>classmates ect) and we can move on to his learning the Patronus.

Except that we still need a rationale for the Nimbus 2001 to be broken, and 
as I said earlier, it's important for character development purposes for 
Harry to miss the Snitch at least once, even if it's not because the other 
Seeker is better. Every on-screen Quidditch match being a foregone 
conclusion is, frankly, boring.

Furthermore, Harry suffering from the Dementors' effects on the train does 
not give him an immediately personal reason to want to deal with them, and 
the impetus to do whatever he needs to get the Patronus to work (Quidditch 
is important to him - and the viewers - and without overcoming the Dementor 
problem, he is unable to play well, and is in immedate danger).

The narrative as it stands imposes limits on where the Demensotrs can be at 
Hogwarts, and thus it's unlikely that they would come into contact with the 
pupils, so Harry has realistically little to fear. We need to have it shown 
that the Dementors cannot be trusted to stick to those limits, and that the 
school population is aware that Harry is especially prone to their effects 
*whilst others are not* (the scene on the train involves only the Trio and 
Lupin). Their presence at the Quidditch match  establishes all of these 
things. The train sequence does not.

There's also the tiny point of establishing Cedric's honesty and honour by 
his insistence that the match be replayed rather than Hufflepuff winning by 
default.




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Sat Feb 22 22:42:08 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:42:08 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <14f.1c1919ff.2b8956c0@aol.com>

Melissa wrote:

> From what I've read about the COS DVD interview with JKR and Kloves I'm not
>to worried about things important to the further plots being left out.

HP wrote:

As if happens, from the PS/SS interviews, it seems that JKR specifically 
did *NOT* give Kloves any information.

>From <A HREF="http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1101/Kloves/Kloves.html">http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1101/Kloves/Kloves.html</A>

<snipped interview qoute>

It strikes me that all JKR is doing is correcting him *after the fact*, and 
he's most emphatic that she has not let him into what's to come.

Me again:

Here is the COS DVD quote from the Leaky Cauldron (finally opened after about 
a dozen tries):

*********
Liza Mzimba: Can you tell me how you work together to produce the final 
script?

Steve Kloves: Well from the beginning she gave me tremendous elbow room but 
when you're in the middle of a series like this it's important that I talk to 
Jo along the way and she will tell me if I'm going down the wrong path.

J. K. Rowling: I've given him more than I've ever given anyone else, which I 
probably shouldn't say on screen or they'll kidnap and torture him, and we 
need him.  

**********

This is why I'm not to terribly worried about the cuts that have to be made.  
I trust that when all is said and done (at the end 7 movies) that they will 
come together to make sense.  I've always been a glass-is-half-full type of 
person. Of course I also think that Dan is doing a fine job.  And I think 
that Cuaron is the perfect director to help him help Harry grow up.  (I 
really, really hope that Cuaron is still around for GoF.)


>I do think that Snape being at the Shrieking Shack is important if for no
>reason other to show the mutual hatred he and Sirius have for one another.

HP writes:

That is already perfectly adequately covered in dialogue, both by Lupin and 
Sirius and there's nothing stopping Kloves feel that it's enough. If I 
wasn't attached to the scene for other reasons, I would be inclined to agree 
with that sentiment which is why I'm so scared that it'll be cut.

Me again:

Hearing and seeing are too vastly different things.  I really think that we 
need see it for ourselves (afterall Lupin could be exaggerating).  Mainly 
because I feel that this is just going to get more and more important as we 
go through the rest of the series.

>The Dementors being at the Quidditch game is less crucial because their
>effect on Harry is demonstrated during the train ride.? No one else has a
>reaction that drastic. A quick explanation from Dumbledore as to the
>possible causes (i.e. he has a more horrible things happen in his past than 
his
>classmates ect) and we can move on to his learning the Patronus.

HP:

Except that we still need a rationale for the Nimbus 2001 to be broken, and 
as I said earlier, it's important for character development purposes for 
Harry to miss the Snitch at least once, even if it's not because the other 
Seeker is better. Every on-screen Quidditch match being a foregone 
conclusion is, frankly, boring.

Furthermore, Harry suffering from the Dementors' effects on the train does 
not give him an immediately personal reason to want to deal with them, and 
the impetus to do whatever he needs to get the Patronus to work (Quidditch 
is important to him - and the viewers - and without overcoming the Dementor 
problem, he is unable to play well, and is in immedate danger).

The narrative as it stands imposes limits on where the Demensotrs can be at 
Hogwarts, and thus it's unlikely that they would come into contact with the 
pupils, so Harry has realistically little to fear. We need to have it shown 
that the Dementors cannot be trusted to stick to those limits, and that the 
school population is aware that Harry is especially prone to their effects 
*whilst others are not* (the scene on the train involves only the Trio and 
Lupin). Their presence at the Quidditch match? establishes all of these 
things. The train sequence does not.

There's also the tiny point of establishing Cedric's honesty and honour by 
his insistence that the match be replayed rather than Hufflepuff winning by 
default.

Me again:

The train sequence could be used to show that Harry has a weakness where 
dementors are concerned. They could then have the Quidditch match against 
Hufflepuff take place off screen (hopefully we can see the final against 
Slytherin though). All they need to do is have the scene cut to after the 
fact with Harry in the hospital wing and Hermione, Ron ect., telling him what 
happened. 

Hermione gives him the demolished Nimbus and the twins relate Cedric's offer 
to play the match over. Throw in a nightmare about the dementors (perhaps 
while unconscious in the hospital wing) and you give him the personal need to 
find away to fight them.  

I just think that they might feel that Scabbers/Wormtail/Sirius plot 
development stuff is more crucial to the overall (series) story than 
Dementors and Quidditch. 

Melissa


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




From hp at plum.cream.org  Sun Feb 23 02:38:54 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:38:54 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <14f.1c1919ff.2b8956c0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030223014231.009562c0@plum.cream.org>

Melissa wrote:

(regarding my previous quote from
http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1101/Kloves/Kloves.html )

>Here is the COS DVD quote from the Leaky Cauldron (finally opened after about
>a dozen tries):
>
>Steve Kloves: Well from the beginning she gave me tremendous elbow room but
>when you're in the middle of a series like this it's important that I talk to
>Jo along the way and she will tell me if I'm going down the wrong path.
>
>J. K. Rowling: I've given him more than I've ever given anyone else, which I
>probably shouldn't say on screen or they'll kidnap and torture him, and we
>need him.

That doesn't actually contradict the Kloves quote I gave before. JKR guards 
the overall plot with something approaching paranoia and admitting that 
she's given Kloves "more than anyone else" doesn't actually mean a great deal.

Neither does it contradict what Kloves said about her correcting the 
scripts after he'd written them. Kloves says nothing more than that she's 
telling him when he's going down the wrong path. He is NOT saying that 
she's ever told him what the right path is, or where it's going. That whole 
exchange can mean that her contributions go no further than "you shouldn't 
have cut out this scene" or "what you're implying in that scene is incorrect".

>This is why I'm not to terribly worried about the cuts that have to be made.
>I trust that when all is said and done (at the end 7 movies) that they will
>come together to make sense.

The first two movies have shown that several characters have been turned 
into something they are not in the books as a result of simplifying them. 
That JKR has not made a huge noise about the fact that Ron in CoS is an 
utter wimp and more than a little stupid is her affair. That doesn't mean 
that we should accept it. JKR said from the beginning of the movie-making 
process that she was most interested in seeing her world become a reality, 
and in particular Quidditch. I'm not saying that the whole cycle of seven 
movies won't make sense. All I'm saying is that some elements have been 
subverted.

In other words, JKR is accepting too many compromises in the portrayal of 
her characters at the price of no compromises in the minutiae of the plot. 
If she felt able to open up a lot more to Kloves (or preferably a better 
screenwriter) about where the road is going rather than simply telling him 
what roads not to follow, he would have a much better idea of the 
relationship between the various plot elements and how to portray them 
cinematically instead of having to keep to her sometimes plotting which is 
designed for a *literary* whodunnit simply because he has no other option.

>I've always been a glass-is-half-full type of
>person. Of course I also think that Dan is doing a fine job.  And I think
>that Cuaron is the perfect director to help him help Harry grow up.  (I
>really, really hope that Cuaron is still around for GoF.)

I like to think of myself as an optimist as well, but based on the two 
movies to date and some of the character assassination they've included in 
them, I have absolutely no grounds on which to be optimistic for the 
future. My problem is, perhaps, that I want them to be good movies, and not 
just fairly decent portrayals of some of the action in the books whilst 
taking liberties with the characters. I agree that Cuaron is likely to do a 
better job than Columbus, but the basis of the film is the screenplay, and 
if PoA is the same kind of hatchet job that the first two films were, his 
input is going to be of limited value.

<snip>
I have a great difficulty in correlating these statements you made:

(re. need for Snape in Shrieking Shack):
>Hearing and seeing are too vastly different things.  I really think that we
>need see it for ourselves (afterall Lupin could be exaggerating).  Mainly
>because I feel that this is just going to get more and more important as we
>go through the rest of the series.

(re: need for Hufflepuff Quidditch match):
>The train sequence could be used to show that Harry has a weakness where
>dementors are concerned. They could then have the Quidditch match against
>Hufflepuff take place off screen (hopefully we can see the final against
>Slytherin though). All they need to do is have the scene cut to after the
>fact with Harry in the hospital wing and Hermione, Ron ect., telling him what
>happened.
>
>Hermione gives him the demolished Nimbus and the twins relate Cedric's offer
>to play the match over. Throw in a nightmare about the dementors (perhaps
>while unconscious in the hospital wing) and you give him the personal need to
>find away to fight them.

Errr.... Why is it important to you to see Snape's and Sirius's mutual 
hatred, yet the effect the Dementors have on Harry in public, the 
destruction of his beloved broomstick, Harry missing the Snitch for once 
and introducing Cedric on screen (the only shot we're likely to get of him 
in this film) are not?

As it happens, in purely cinematic terms, the Shrieking Shack scene works a 
lot better *without* Snape there. It's snappier and there's less talking. 
Lupin starts talking, we go into a flashback of MWPP's schooldays and 
Snape's discovery of the passage under the Willow and cut back to their 
revealing Pettigrew. Flashback to the night after the attack on the Potters 
and then the grovelling etc.

Snape's interruption with his own PoV just complicates things, and if these 
movies have done anything, they've replaced the characters with simplified 
cardboard cut-outs. MWPP's relationship to Snape has been established, and 
leaving it as a reference to a 20 year-old grudge rather than displaying 
the adults playing it out leaves the whole thing in the air. Snape's and 
Sirius's mutual loathing will be displayed *much* more effectively in a 
20-second sequence at the end of GoF when they're forced to acknowledge 
each other.

The elements we need from the Hufflepuff match, on the other hand, will be 
*boring* if we're just told about them rather than shown them. The 
necessary exposition will lose momentum and lose all power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating losing either scene. I've just got a 
clear idea of which one is more likely to go, and which one *need* to work 
visually and which one doesn't. Especially the absolute requirement to show 
Harry missing the Snitch unless we really want to perpetuate the movies' 
image of Harry as utterly invincible.

>I just think that they might feel that Scabbers/Wormtail/Sirius plot
>development stuff is more crucial to the overall (series) story than
>Dementors and Quidditch.

Of course they are. If you read back to what I said, it's not about the 
Quidditch match itself. It's what happens around it. The interesting thing 
is that you seem to admit that what's important is 
"Scabbers/Wormtail/Sirius", not "Scabbers/Wormtail/Sirius/Snape", which is 
absolutely my whole point.





From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Sun Feb 23 04:11:38 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 04:11:38 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030223014231.009562c0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b39hlq+q7dt@eGroups.com>


> (re: need for Hufflepuff Quidditch match):
> >The train sequence could be used to show that Harry has a weakness 
where
> >dementors are concerned. They could then have the Quidditch match 
against
> >Hufflepuff take place off screen (hopefully we can see the final 
against
> >Slytherin though). All they need to do is have the scene cut to 
after the
> >fact with Harry in the hospital wing and Hermione, Ron ect., 
telling him what
> >happened.
> >
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating losing either scene. I've 
just got a 
> clear idea of which one is more likely to go, and which one *need* 
to work 
> visually and which one doesn't. Especially the absolute requirement 
to show 
> Harry missing the Snitch unless we really want to perpetuate the 
movies' 
> image of Harry as utterly invincible.


 
I think both scenes are necessary...The train scene to introduce 
Lupin and dementors..also to show that Lupin is a worthy DADA 
teacher...I.e.the chocolate...

The Hufflepuff match is important because it once again shows HArry's 
weakness to the dementors but..like Gul said..it also shows that 
Harry isn't the all powerful, unbeatable charactor he has been mad 
out to be in the two previous movies..He is a person with fault. 

I am not going to go into charactor analysis between the books and 
the movies..but I think it is high time the real nature of the trio 
is shown and not just some made up personality to provide comic 
relief...cough cough Ron cough cough.

Amanda
AccioPotter





From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 23 08:04:48 2003
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Kloves (was) Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030223014231.009562c0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <20030223080448.92225.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com>

GulPlum:
> I have maintained since the
> beginning (well, since I read the
> books, post-PS/SS) that the
> character assassination isn't so
> much down to Columbus's direction,
> as much as Kloves's script. Harry is
> a reluctant hero, Ron is not a wimp,
> Dumbledore is eccentric. The script,
> rather than the direction, overthrew
> all of these, and no amount of
> clever direction would have been
> able to return the characters to
> their full glory. My doubts about
> Dan's ability to portray some of
> the subtleties the character 
> requires are just further grist to
> the mill.

I made a case against considering the 
movies to be canon in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
HPFGU-Movie/message/4605

I won't repeat it all here but what I 
said then applies here in regards to 
who may be most at 'fault' in terms of 
the character assassinations: 

What we all saw on the screen/DVD is 
NOT exactly as Kloves had set down on 
paper.

That is to say, there seemed to have 
been a lot of changes and 
improvisations that were not 
thoroughly thought through.  Such 
changes were unlikely to have been 
effected by anyone but the director 
and the producer and script doctors 
(if any) hired.

I can only think of 1 fair reason to 
improvise on an adapted screenplay on 
the set and here's where we may agree: 
to compensate for the young cast's 
inability to make the scenes (as 
they're written) work and the 
director's inability to make the 
youngsters 'sing the right notes' so 
to speak.

> I am only hoping that the re-write
> Cuaron is rumoured to have
> instituted (referred to in Columbus
> interviews when CoS came out) are on
> that level.  <snip>

As do I!

> The Ravenclaw match will probably
> fall by the wayside - it's really a
> Draco moment - showing Harry's
> Patronus to be ineffective can be
> established in other ways.  <snip>

'Ineffective'?  I'm confused...

> Kloves's heavy-handed treatment of
> the characters makes me really fear
> that we will lose one of the
> highlights of the series: Harry and
> Hermione blowing their top at
> Snape. The two movies to date have
> already lost Harry's sarcastic
> snipes in his direction, so we've
> had no indication of Harry's more
> vicious side. <snip>

Remember the extra scene in potions 
from the DVD in which Harry snaps 
sarcastically back at Snape?  That was 
in the script and in fact was shot but 
edited out by the director (and 
producer?).  There are many other 
moments of characterizations in 
Kloves' script that never made it onto 
celluloid.

But mistake me not for a Kloves 
apologist.  I don't actually think he 
has done a great job in adapting the 
HP books.  Neither do any of his peers 
- he hasn't gotten any accolades for 
his work that I know of.  Especially 
in this year, there are at least two 
adaptations that outshine his in 
completely different ways: "Chicago" 
streamlined a legit stage experience 
into a completely cinematic one and 
"Adaptation" captured the essence of 
Susan Orlean's book without actually 
staying faithful to its 'plot.'

Wonder if Bill Condon or Charlie 
Kaufman may be interested... <g>  
Though, in my heart of hearts, I'd 
love to see Emma Thompson adapt the HP 
books.

I am not asserting that you are 
letting Columbus off entirely, of 
course, but Kloves may not be as 
culpable as your posts suggest.

GulPlum (in later post):
> Neither does it contradict what
> Kloves said about her correcting the 
> scripts after he'd written them.
> Kloves says nothing more than that
> she's telling him when he's going
> down the wrong path. He is NOT
> saying that she's ever told him what
> the right path is, or where it's
> going. That whole exchange can mean
> that her contributions go no
> further than "you shouldn't have cut
> out this scene" or "what you're
> implying in that scene is
> incorrect".  <snip>

I am not even sure that JKR's 
contributions go that far.  According 
to the "Written By" article:

"The only time Rowling said words like 
'don't' or 'can't,' Kloves says, is 
when he would tweak references made in 
book one to characters who would, or 
would not, appear in later stories."

None of the articles I've read that 
mentions the adaptation of the HP 
books have outlined the process 
step by step (more's the pity).  But 
I never get the impression from the 
"Written By" article (nor from the Q&A 
that I attended) that JKR corrected 
the scripts...if by that you mean 
something as complete as editing or 
proofing the entire script.

I think she should...but on the other 
hand, I don't want to wait any more 
than the normal course of her process 
for Year 6 and 7!

> The first two movies have shown that
> several characters have been turned 
> into something they are not in the
> books as a result of simplifying
> them.  <snip>  All I'm saying is
> that some elements have been 
> subverted.  <snip>

I agree that distortions have crept 
into the fanon that are the movies.  
But I suspect such distortions are 
several generations deep and some are 
more than a degree of separation from 
Kloves - there may have been too many 
cooks in the kitchen!

> If [JKR] felt able to open up a lot
> more to Kloves (or preferably a
> better screenwriter) about where the
> road is going rather than simply
> telling him what roads not to
> follow, he would have a much better
> idea of the relationship between the
> various plot elements and how to
> portray them cinematically  <snip>

But what if JKR is right in her 
suspicion that everyone who is privy 
to future plotlines could fall victim 
to kidnap?  <wonders if JKR herself is 
being guarded by Fluffy>

Petra
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From hp at plum.cream.org  Sun Feb 23 15:46:55 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:46:55 +0000
Subject: Kloves 
In-Reply-To: <20030223080448.92225.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20030223014231.009562c0@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030223144500.0096b670@plum.cream.org>

Petra Pan wrote in reply to my previous musings:

<snip>

> > The Ravenclaw match will probably fall by the wayside - it's really a
> > Draco moment - showing Harry's Patronus to be ineffective can be
> > established in other ways.  <snip>
>
>'Ineffective'?  I'm confused...

Sorry, slip of the gears between brain and fingers. That was meant to be 
"ineffectual", i.e. weak.

>Remember the extra scene in potions from the DVD in which Harry snaps
>sarcastically back at Snape?  That was in the script and in fact was shot but
>edited out by the director (and producer?).  There are many other
>moments of characterizations in Kloves' script that never made it onto
>celluloid.

Oh, I'm absolutely sure of it. You're one up on me in that you've seen that 
draft script whereas I haven't. I agree that the full Potions scene should 
absolutely have been kept in the movie - in the space of a few seconds we 
establish that Harry isn't a goody-two-shoes and that he has a sarcastic 
way with words. It also establishes his relationship with Snape (or more 
particularly, Snape's relationship with *him*).

Harry's gift for sarcasm is one of the major things that both PS/SS and CoS 
lost *completely* and I simply cannot believe that *every* instance is down 
to Columbus editing Kloves, or indeed the possibility that Dan couldn't 
pull it off (judging by the full Potions scene and his appearances as 
himself, Dan doesn't seem to have any trouble at all with it).

Ditto, I can't believe that excising an important paragraph from 
Dumbledore's exposition scene in the hospital scene which establishes why 
Snape hates Harry ("it's funny how people's minds work...") is down to 
Columbus. That paragraph is of  particular interest to me: it was in the 
hope of finding an explanation that I read the book in the first place, as 
that question was at the front of my mind when I came out the cinema. Had 
the paragraph been left in the script, I may well not have bothered reading 
the book (which then led to reading the others, etc, etc...) . :-)

After I read the book, I simply could not understand why they left it out, 
and  who was to blame. Out of the two major suspects, I know which one I 
prefer. I don't suppose you remember whether or not it was in the script 
you read?

And are you *really* saying that making Ron out to be little more than a 
witless dork is entirely Columbus's work? Giving most of his best lines in 
CoS to Hermione was down to Columbus, or even shadowy script doctors? Whose 
idea was it to drop the reference to why he's scared of spiders?

>But mistake me not for a Kloves apologist.  <snip>

And please don't mistake me for a Clumbus apologist either. ;-) I think 
each is as bad as the other. The thing is, Kloves has sole credit for the 
script and he bears full responsibility. I honestly don't believe that 
*everything* is his fault, but as far as I can tell, he's not done anything 
else since embarking on the HP bandwagon and it was his job to supervise 
the re-writes (apart from being the connection to JKR) so if he's as "into" 
canon as you seem to suggest, he should have put his foot down more firmly. 
(As it happens, of his other work I've only seen The Fabulous Baker Boys of 
which I didn't think too much; I've somehow managed not to get around to 
Wonder Boys, though not willfully, so I can't really comment on him in 
general).

I have, on the other hand, seen all of Columbus's work and, well, I'm not 
impressed. He's OK with slapstick but not much besides. He can't do 
sentiment without going into slushy sentimentality (both in his directing 
and writing work), which is a major turn-off for me.

<snip>

>None of the articles I've read that mentions the adaptation of the HP
>books have outlined the process step by step (more's the pity).  But
>I never get the impression from the "Written By" article (nor from the Q&A
>that I attended) that JKR corrected the scripts...if by that you mean
>something as complete as editing or proofing the entire script.

Oh, I don't mean anything of the kind. I'm absolutely with you on this one: 
JKR appears to have taken a very hands-off approach to the adaptation 
process, and only, as we both seem to agree, pointing out errors in the 
plotting in draft scripts. However, I wish she'd paid as much attention to 
the characters as she appears to have done to the sets, etc.

>I agree that distortions have crept into the fanon that are the movies.
>But I suspect such distortions are several generations deep and some are
>more than a degree of separation from Kloves - there may have been too many
>cooks in the kitchen!

Sorry, but I think you're letting him off too lightly. He is the chef and 
he's signed the dish. He should be prepared to take all the flak. (His 
reluctance to address the "Irish Chappie" issue is, in my mind, very 
telling.) It's not as if after submitting the first/second/third draft of 
CoS he had more pressing obligations (other than to work on CoS) so he 
should have been available to ensure that more of *his* voice was heard. 
And it's not as if he had a lot on his plate while CoS was going through 
re-writes either.







From rvotaw at i-55.com  Sun Feb 23 19:05:33 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:05:33 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
References: <14e.1c129496.2b893abc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <013301c2db6e$8b388da0$069ccdd1@RVotaw>

Well, I've got a number of thoughts on the matter, so here goes.

First, I don't think I trust Steve Kloves as much as JKR does.  Go figure.  However, I must admit that while JKR doesn't seem to give him advance information, she does go over the script and corrects things that will in effect be proven impossible later on in the series.  I remember a specific Kloves quote on something he wanted to do in SS/PS and JKR said effectively, nope, impossible, can't happen, you'll find out why later.  She doesn't give him advance information, but she does correct things that would mess it up later.

Which leads me to believe that some things just aren't as important as we think they are.  Such as Harry's green eyes.  If the key point was the color green, I maintain that JKR would've insisted on green.  One way or another.  Which makes me think the key point is that they are the same as his mother's, so we can effectively give her blue eyes in the movies.

Next point, just because Trelawney casting wasn't announced doesn't mean they've deleted her.  The only vital scene with her would be in her classroom, and perhaps the Christmas scene (which could probably be skipped, but they do like those Christmas scenes).  She doesn't socialize with the other professors generally, so wouldn't even be needed at the group scenes in the great hall.  She may not even be cast yet, or they may be spoon feeding us information.  No Ernie Prang has been announced, but someone's got to drive the Knight bus.

The way I see it, things will be removed for the sake of time.  For example, here's how I see Quidditch, pure speculation only:

The three games will be combined into two games, both against Slytherin.  Harry will fall from his broom when the dementors come, and Malfoy will catch the Snitch.  So that instead of introducing Cedric and giving us reason to like him (wanting a rematch), it'll just bring up a further Malfoy rivalry.  The second game will be for the Quidditch cup, Harry will catch the snitch. Hopefully they'll have fake dementors still, but only in the form of Crabbe and Goyle, since the others would be in the game.  We still have Harry falling from his broom, Gryffindor winning the Quidditch cup, and it saves time.

I also think they might combine Hogsmeade visits into one trip.  He'll still overhear McGonagall and the others talking about Sirius Black.  But whether they would include the Draco parts here, I don't know.  Harry was pretty much in shock after hearing about Black, I don't think they could make reason for him to throw mud at Draco then.  

The whole Shrieking Shack scene has to be there intact.  It has to be.  Obviously the Knight Bus is in.  Diagon Ally has to be in, or else where will Harry meet up with the Weasleys and how will Hermione get Crookshanks?  

Is it June 2004 yet?

Richelle


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




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 23 21:18:36 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:18:36 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <013301c2db6e$8b388da0$069ccdd1@RVotaw>
References: <14e.1c129496.2b893abc@aol.com>
 <013301c2db6e$8b388da0$069ccdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <2224486958.20030223131836@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Sunday, February 23, 2003, 11:05:33 AM, rvotaw at i-55.com wrote:

> She doesn't give him advance information, but she does
> correct things that would mess it up later.

What I want to know is, why JKR doesn't correct
characterization.

That's the main part that bothers me about the movies, and
things have gotten worse from movie one to movie two,
especially for Ron and Hermione.

I *like* Hermione in the books, with all her rough edges,
but movie Hermione..., I can't stand her.

And Ron is a completely different character (I think Rupert
Grint could do just about anything asked of him, but almost
all they are giving him is comic relief scenes).

I understand that they can't put everything in the books
into a movie script, but why the differences in
characterization?

And I want to know if JKR thinks, the three main characters
ring true to her books.

So, like any good pessimist, I'm expecting nothing from the
next movie, so I can't be disappointed ;)

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




From tahewitt at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 23 18:17:57 2003
From: tahewitt at yahoo.com (Tyler Hewitt)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <1046005915.448.84866.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030223181757.23961.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>



JenD wrote:
I have finally come to the sad realization that it's
possible that "Prisoner" may not come any closer to
the vision of JKR than "Chamber of Secrets" or
"Sorcerer's Stone." It's patently clear that the
directors, no matter how talented and how eloquent,
are not making these films for me, someone who's read
the books and desparately wants to see them come
alive. They are making action/adventure movies for
kids. The emotional core is just a subplot that
unfortunately, can't ever seem to be worked in very 
well. I thought it was just Chris Columbus who
couldn't seem to manage Harry being a real breathing
sometimes vulerable person. But now that I see there
is no Prof. Trelawny, possible no or very little 
quidditch, I realize that Cuaron seemingly must
sacrifice huge chunks of the plot as well to get a
movie made. For me the best hope is that, despite all
the sacrifices that must be made, he will still try 
to show Harry as a fuller character, with flaws and
self-doubts as well as courageous and brave. I try to
tell myself that bravery and courage as so much easier
to portray that it's obvious why those aspects of
Harry have always been emphasized. Now I just want to
see if Curaon is as good as they say at portraying
teen age angst...


ME:
I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a
book that 1. is completely loyal to the source and 2.
didn't frustrate fans of the book.

I think that part of this is that written and visual
art mediums are just too different from each other as
to ensure a smooth transition. There's too much nuance
in a book, too much left open topersonal
interpretation, and too much left to the reader's
imagination (when I read I get visual images of what
locations and charecters look like) to ever allow for
a seamless adaptation.

After being frustrated myself on several occasions,
I've learned to accept this. As long as a film is
allowed to explore it's own creative space, related to
but not necessarily completely loyal to the source
book, I can live with it (even in extreme cases like
'A Clockwork Orange', a breathtaking, brilliant novel
and a hideous waste of celluloid as a film. I give
credit to Stanley Kubrick for pursuing his vision, but
he ruined a good story.). I think of films from
adapted novels as interpretations, like someone doing
a cover version of another's song. There's SUPPOSED to
be an interpretation occuring, not just an aping of
the original.  

Which brings me to the Potter films. I liked the first
one ok, it wasn't earth shattering, but it told the
story reasonably well and proved entertaining to fans
and newbies alike. The casting was inspired at times
(I love Alan Rickman as Snape, and can't imagine
anyone coming closer to how I imagine Ron than Rupert
Grint). The second film I found more problematic. The
special effects look better than in the first, but the
film seems hollow and unsatisfying. In trying to
follow the book as closely as possible it hasn't been
allowed to be a film in its own right. An uninspiring
script and coolie-cutter direction don't help.

I heard an interview on National Public Radio with
Terry Gilliam a couple of weeks ago. He said that JK
Rowling personally recruited him to be the director of
CoS. Of course it didn't go anywhere, Gilliam is way
too much of a rebel to be trusted by the major
studios. But I kept thinking, "my god! what that film
COULD HAVE been!".  Chris Columbus is like the
McDonald's of film directing. No surprises, the same
replicable blandness that will make the maximum amount
of money, and alas, no magic. I'm hoping that the new
director for PoA will break away some from what we've
seen so far and let the movie be something new and
original. I'm willing to sacrifice a few details from
the book were this to occur.

And if it does work, I hope the producers at Warner
Brothers wake up and hire Terry Gilliam to direct
'Goblet of Fire' (makes me drool just thinking of the
possibilities!).

Tyler


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Sun Feb 23 22:03:56 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:03:56 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <2224486958.20030223131836@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <b3bggc+3g2u@eGroups.com>

> Suzanne raised some really good points about characterizations:

I *like* Hermione in the books, with all her rough edges,
> but movie Hermione..., I can't stand her.
> 
> And Ron is a completely different character (I think Rupert
> Grint could do just about anything asked of him, but almost
> all they are giving him is comic relief scenes).
> 
> I understand that they can't put everything in the books
> into a movie script, but why the differences in
> characterization?
> 
> And I want to know if JKR thinks, the three main characters
> ring true to her books."

It seems, and this is entirely cynical, it seems the JKR has given 
the "movie" people free reign to get their movies made as long as 
they don't wreck future plotlines. That's the only assumption I can 
come up with and that saddens me to no end after having seen her 
on "60 Minutes" a few years back and heard her tell how hard she was 
working not to sell out to all the merchandisers and such (really she 
did say that and she did hold out an awfully long time before 
caving...) Maybe all she really cares about is seeing quidditch on 
screen and realizing that. I am a staunch Danny fan. I saw him when 
he was a nobody in "David Copperfield" and he was trasfixing. He held 
the viewer in the palm of his hand. I regret that his performance in 
the two Potters so far has had to exist in a very tight little 
superhero box. I know he's capable of much more. Yesterday when I 
started this thread, I was convinced it was mostly Chris' fault. Then 
a very good post made me consider Kloves culpability. But ultimately, 
it's JKR who washed her hands of character accountability and for 
someone who so zealously guards her characters in print, that's quite 
a disappointment.

I quote Suzanne:
> So, like any good pessimist, I'm expecting nothing from the
> next movie, so I can't be disappointed ;)
>JenD




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Sun Feb 23 23:29:25 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:29:25 -0000
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <20030223181757.23961.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b3blgl+dagt@eGroups.com>


> 
Tyler: 
You said:
> I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a
> book that 1. is completely loyal to the source and 2.
> didn't frustrate fans of the book.

I would agree that there have to be compromises but I think what all 
this hinges on is the question of "what makes a good adaptation..."
You said it best
> I think that part of this is that written and visual
> art mediums are just too different from each other 

and so they are but and this is a biggy, a successful adaptation 
captures the SPIRIT of the piece (that would certainly still allow 
for a work to inhabit its own creative space, I believe)and I think 
what's got so many Potter-fans hot and bothered is the spirit has 
been violated. Compromises, yes, but just totally re-arranging 
characters, taking away their strengths, making them 2-dimensional, 
getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books 
(as in "Don't worry, I will be...") well that seems unnecessary. If 
you have good bones, why change them? Use them, build on them. Make 
the compromises but why would you have to change the essence of 
characters? 
JenD




From insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Feb 24 00:30:35 2003
From: insanus_scottus at yahoo.co.uk (Scott <insanus_scottus@yahoo.co.uk>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:30:35 -0000
Subject: film adaptations  (veering off-topic?)
In-Reply-To: <b3blgl+dagt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3bp3b+7p6m@eGroups.com>

Tyler (You?) said:
"I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a book that 1. 
is completely loyal to the source and 2. didn't frustrate fans of 
the book.

me:
I have five words for you- "A Room With A View." (aRWaV)  This is 
one of my favourite books, and consquently one of the best movies 
I've ever seen. Perhaps not perfect but pretty darn close. I've said 
before that I "hear" more that I "see" when I'm reading, and the 
other day when feeling sick from the flu I reread aRWaV; it was like 
playing the movie over in my mind. 

This could be because there are amazing people in it...Maggie Smith, 
Helena Bonham Carter, Simon Callow, Denholm Elliot, Daniel Day 
Lewis, and I could go on and on but I needn't.  (After all there are 
some great actors in HP, but...well I'm coming to that.)  The point 
is good acting, a good script, sets, directing, whatever, 
individually none of these makes for a good film.  But aRWaV 
feels right like the clear notes of Puccini that fill the background.

(if I must complain it's that Lucy and George kiss in a field of 
poppies instead of violets, but even that's forgivable)

I must also say that whilst Merchant-Ivory film's are generally 
delightful (and I can't wait to see "Le Divorce") I didn't like 
"Howard's End" nearly as much. I also have never seen the other 
major Forster film adaptation "A Passage to India" which was 
directed by David Lean.

JenD wrote:
"what's got so many Potter-fans hot and bothered is the spirit has 
 been violated. Compromises, yes, but just totally re-arranging 
 characters, taking away their strengths, making them 2-dimensional, 
 getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books 
 (as in "Don't worry, I will be...") well that seems unnecessary. If 
 you have good bones, why change them? Use them, build on them. Make 
 the compromises but why would you have to change the essence of 
characters?"

me:
Hear! Hear! (or is it Here! Here!? I can't seem to remember) In any 
case you are absolutely right.  Hogwarts might look right but it 
isn't really Hogwarts at all. Dan *is* Harry Potter, but 
the onscreen Harry Potter isn't Harry at all.  Which is what makes 
one so incredibly mad; they picked someone ripe with the potential 
to be an amazing Harry, but then they make a mediocre film that 
limits the opprotunity for any sort of brilliance.


What I can't understand is...when you've got great stuff why change 
it first the worse? Surely not time constraints, Hermione says all 
of Ron's lines but it wouldn't take any longer for Ron to say them.  
In fact some things could go, I think, quicker and more clearly if 
they hadn't been altered.


So who's to blame? They're *all* to blame, but ultimately this movie 
is made for children, and the adults who made these movies, though  
not *all* adults for I don't think this, seem to believe that 
children are more entertained by caricature-- brilliant Hermione, 
stupid wimp Ron and superhero harry-- than by people who are 
remotely like them.  But I at least 
think that, were I still 12 years old, I'd still want to see the 
characters that I'd grown to love from the books.  

Stephen Cloves is largely to blame, but so is Columbus for not 
minding the crap that was handed over to him masquerading as a 
script, and I say that only in light of the list discussion and what 
we all know these movies *could* be.

As for Jo...well my friends and I have long been of the sentiment 
that she wears too much eyeshadow (and all the things which that 
implies that one can contemplate for one's self).

there.


scott




From purple_801999 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 24 01:07:43 2003
From: purple_801999 at yahoo.com (purple_801999 <purple_801999@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:07:43 -0000
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <20030223181757.23961.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b3br8v+5f7l@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Tyler Hewitt <tahewitt at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
 Tyler wrote:
 
> ME:
> I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a
> book that 1. is completely loyal to the source and 2.
> didn't frustrate fans of the book.
> 
> I think that part of this is that written and visual
> art mediums are just too different from each other as
> to ensure a smooth transition. There's too much nuance
> in a book, too much left open topersonal
> interpretation, and too much left to the reader's
> imagination (when I read I get visual images of what
> locations and charecters look like) to ever allow for
> a seamless adaptation.
> 
> After being frustrated myself on several occasions,
> I've learned to accept this. As long as a film is
> allowed to explore it's own creative space, related to
> but not necessarily completely loyal to the source
> book, I can live with it (even in extreme cases like
> 'A Clockwork Orange', a breathtaking, brilliant novel
> and a hideous waste of celluloid as a film. I give
> credit to Stanley Kubrick for pursuing his vision, but
> he ruined a good story.). I think of films from
> adapted novels as interpretations, like someone doing
> a cover version of another's song. There's SUPPOSED to
> be an interpretation occuring, not just an aping of
> the original.  

It is hard to capture the essence of a book like Harry Potter,what I 
miss in the films is the dry humor of the books, the language is the 
key, IMO. But there are five films to go, so we can still hope for 
improvemnet. Personally I sometimes doubt the wisdom of trying for 
all seven films and I sometimes doubt they will all get made, but if 
the studios are any indication they will make all seven if they have 
a forty year old Dan Radcliffe in the lead.




> Which brings me to the Potter films. I liked the first
> one ok, it wasn't earth shattering, but it told the
> story reasonably well and proved entertaining to fans
> and newbies alike. The casting was inspired at times
> (I love Alan Rickman as Snape, and can't imagine
> anyone coming closer to how I imagine Ron than Rupert
> Grint).

Speaking of Rickman and adaptations, does anyone agree with me that 
he would make a terrific Mr.Rochester for 'Jane Eyre'? They have yet 
to make a film of my favorite book that I absolutely love but the 
recent A&E version and the 1946 version with ,sigh,a young Orson 
Wells are pretty close. 



  
> I heard an interview on National Public Radio with
> Terry Gilliam a couple of weeks ago. He said that JK
> Rowling personally recruited him to be the director of
> CoS. Of course it didn't go anywhere, Gilliam is way
> too much of a rebel to be trusted by the major
> studios. But I kept thinking, "my god! what that film
> COULD HAVE been!".  Chris Columbus is like the
> McDonald's of film directing. No surprises, the same
> replicable blandness that will make the maximum amount
> of money, and alas, no magic. I'm hoping that the new
> director for PoA will break away some from what we've
> seen so far and let the movie be something new and
> original. I'm willing to sacrifice a few details from
> the book were this to occur.
> 
> And if it does work, I hope the producers at Warner
> Brothers wake up and hire Terry Gilliam to direct
> 'Goblet of Fire' (makes me drool just thinking of the
> possibilities!).
> 


Brazil and Twelve Monkeys are the best, but due to the notorious 
battles waged over creative control in the past Warner Bros. wouldn't 
touch Gilliam with a ten foot pole

 
 Olivia Grey





From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Feb 24 01:18:44 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:18:44 -0000
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <b3br8v+5f7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3brtk+klbd@eGroups.com>

> 
> Speaking of Rickman and adaptations, does anyone agree with me that 
> he would make a terrific Mr.Rochester for 'Jane Eyre'? 

Definately OT but I agree...He would have been wonderful as Mr. 
Rochester...I think the A&E version of the book was ok..The book is 
still far superior in my opinion

Amanda
AccioPotter




From artsylynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 01:49:57 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (artsylynda at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:49:57 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <14d.1c2e957f.2b8ad445@aol.com>

Melissa

> The Dementors being at the Quidditch game is less crucial because their 
> effect on Harry is demonstrated during the train ride

Whoa, hold on -- no dementors at the Quidditch game??  I can't see them 
missing an opportunity to drop Harry 50 feet from his broom -- it's too 
heart-stopping a moment to leave out.  And the fake dementors at the other 
Quidditch game are important too -- he shot off a powerful Patronus then 
while in hot pursuit of the snitch, and I think his being able to do that 
under such pressuer (even if they weren't real dementors -- he thought they 
were) is important.  

Where is the article that says all these things about what's in the PoA 
movie?  I must have missed some posts somewhere.  Thanks!



Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From urbana at charter.net  Mon Feb 24 02:45:18 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:45:18 -0000
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
In-Reply-To: <14d.1c2e957f.2b8ad445@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b3c0vu+a442@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, artsylynda at a... wrote:
> 
> Where is the article that says all these things about what's in the 
PoA 
> movie?  I must have missed some posts somewhere.  Thanks!

Lynda, I don't think you missed any posts...the only thing we know 
for sure, so far, is that the early Magnolia Crescent scenes were 
shot very recently. AFAIK nobody here has any access to the POA 
script, so we're all just speculating about which scenes from the 
book will be "in" or "out" or (gulp) combined. 

Anne U
(who hopes we don't witness any :::cough:::"composite 
characters":::cough:::)






From ABandt at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 02:57:33 2003
From: ABandt at aol.com (ABandt at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:57:33 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <1cb.376f767.2b8ae41d@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/23/2003 8:46:24 PM Central Standard Time, 
urbana at charter.net writes:


> (who hopes we don't witness any :::cough:::"composite 
> characters":::cough:::)
> 

Ugh...I *hate* those.  I live in fear since they composited my favorite 
character in The Lost World (aka Jurassic Park 2) right out of the movie.  
And it was a major character too!  And don't even get me started on the 
stupid movie ending....grrr...
(I recomend to anyone who hasn't read them to read both Jurassic Park and The 
Lost World, the first movie was much better than the second, but they still 
left out major chunks of the story)

Okay I'm back :-)  

I'm a little nervous about this movie because PoA is my favorite of the 4 HP 
books written so far but to keep my self sane I'll just go reread the book 
again instead of worrying about it until I see the movie :-)

~Amy


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




From robeeena at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 24 03:04:49 2003
From: robeeena at hotmail.com (Robin Keener)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:04:49 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
Message-ID: <F112RMWuLn5U9T3TGJ2000000f8@hotmail.com>

JenD:
>getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books
>(as in "Don't worry, I will be...")

Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by Daniel 
Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.

robina

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail





From hp at plum.cream.org  Mon Feb 24 03:40:41 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 03:40:41 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <F112RMWuLn5U9T3TGJ2000000f8@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030224033652.00953790@plum.cream.org>

At 03:04 24/02/03 , Robin Keener wrote:
>JenD:
> >getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books
> >(as in "Don't worry, I will be...")
>
>Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by Daniel
>Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.

So? Columbus thought it was a very good idea, and he should have known better.

In any case, the way all three people concerned tell the tale, Isaacs came 
up with his line, and Columbus came up with Dan's. What's even worse is 
that he told Dan to "say it like Clint Eastwood". *THAT* is what makes it 
out of character for Harry, and the whole debacle Columbus's fault.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, off to bed.





From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 04:12:09 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:12:09 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <bc.34955827.2b8af599@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/22/2003 8:36:19 PM Central Standard Time, 
hp at plum.cream.org writes:

> 
> Neither does it contradict what Kloves said about her correcting the 
> scripts after he'd written them. Kloves says nothing more than that she's 
> telling him when he's going down the wrong path. He is NOT saying that 
> she's ever told him what the right path is, or where it's going. 

me:

Actually it does.  If she's correcting him from going down the wrong paths 
one could deduce that she's leaves him alone when he goes down the right 
path.

HP:

That whole exchange can mean that her contributions go no further than "you 
shouldn't have cut out this scene" or "what you're implying in that scene is 
incorrect

Me:

As long as it happens before the film is "in the can"


HP:

The first two movies have shown that several characters have been turned 
into something they are not in the books as a result of simplifying them. 
That JKR has not made a huge noise about the fact that Ron in CoS is an 
utter wimp and more than a little stupid is her affair. That doesn't mean 
that we should accept it. JKR said from the beginning of the movie-making 
process that she was most interested in seeing her world become a reality, 
and in particular Quidditch. I'm not saying that the whole cycle of seven 
movies won't make sense. All I'm saying is that some elements have been 
subverted.>>>

Me:

Let's face it, these movies are being made with the casual fan in mind. Its a 
movie that someone can walk into and enjoy without necessarily having read 
the books. I think anyone who expects a completely faithful work is doomed to 
disappointment. Not many people are willing to sit thru a 5 hour movie (I 
would with an intermission or 2. . .popcorn is a necessity of life <g>).  I 
do agree about Ron though.  A simple line or two explanation as to his spider 
fear would have sufficed.


HP:

Errr.... Why is it important to you to see Snape's and Sirius's mutual 
hatred, yet the effect the Dementors have on Harry in public, the 
destruction of his beloved broomstick, Harry missing the Snitch for once 
and introducing Cedric on screen (the only shot we're likely to get of him 
in this film) are not?>>

Me:

I already answered that.  I think that this might be important later in the 
series. Some times simply telling the audience isn't enough.  If I had MY 
druthers it would be cut.  I don't care for Snape at all.

As for the Quidditch matches; I'd rather see all of them and the .  The 
Hufflepuff match with the Dementors, The Ravenclaw match with the 
fauxDementors and the the Slytherin match with them winning the cup. But I 
think its a pipe dream.  There simply isn't enough time to tell the entire 
story not to mention the Buckbeak side story.  I also think that they need to 
at least have the first class with Trelawney.  

Sorry it took so long for me to reply.  I had to work today.

Melissa


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 04:20:56 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:20:56 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Kloves (was) Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <18a.16809fb6.2b8af7a8@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/23/2003 2:05:11 AM Central Standard Time, 
ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com writes:

> >The Ravenclaw match will probably
> >fall by the wayside - it's really a
> >Draco moment - showing Harry's
> >Patronus to be ineffective can be
> >established in other ways.  <snip>
> 
> 'Ineffective'?  I'm confused...
> 

Me too.  As I recall Harry conjured a beautiful Patronus. 

Melissa


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




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 04:22:09 2003
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:22:09 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Kloves (was) Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <1e3.2ddf232.2b8af7f1@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/23/2003 2:05:11 AM Central Standard Time, 
ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com writes:

> Remember the extra scene in potions 
> from the DVD in which Harry snaps 
> sarcastically back at Snape?  That was 
> in the script and in fact was shot but 
> edited out by the director (and 
> producer?).  There are many other 
> moments of characterizations in 
> Kloves' script that never made it onto 
> celluloid.
> 

I liked the Christmas Feast scene myself with Harry sitting and gazing into 
the fire.


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




From robeeena at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 24 04:36:09 2003
From: robeeena at hotmail.com (Robin Keener)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:36:09 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
Message-ID: <F86HsqhA53ZpEVmkWFB0001a1ba@hotmail.com>

GulPlum:
>So? Columbus thought it was a very good idea, and he should have known 
>better.
>
>In any case, the way all three people concerned tell the tale, Isaacs came
>up with his line, and Columbus came up with Dan's. What's even worse is
>that he told Dan to "say it like Clint Eastwood". *THAT* is what makes it
>out of character for Harry, and the whole debacle Columbus's fault.

I think it really showed Lucius' level of evilness and further sets him up 
as a true villian for GoF.

This has probably been said before I'm sure, but when it comes to making a 
movie from a book, you're never gonna please everybody. I think J.K. Rowling 
could have made the movie herself and people would be saying "well I didn't 
see it like that".

robina

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




From Audra1976 at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 07:17:21 2003
From: Audra1976 at aol.com (Audra1976 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:17:21 EST
Subject: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <7e.35dd9e3f.2b8b2101@aol.com>

GulPlum <hp at plum.cream.org> writes:

<< I really can't 

see the long-term narrative working without Trelawney being introduced. I 

do expect, though, that we won't have any Divination lessons (I think there 

are three in the book), and the only Trelawney scene will be Harry's end of 

year exam and the prediction.  >>

Me:

First let me say that "Prisoner" is my favorite book of the series and I 
would gladly sit through a five hour movie where nothing is cut out, but the 
fact is they have to cut a lot.  That being said, I don't think it would be 
such a bad choice if they did cut Trelawney and Divination from the movie 
entirely.  

First, if they can interrupt Transfiguration class to explain the history of 
the Chamber of Secrets, then someone else could easily tell Harry the meaning 
of the Grim.  Actually, doesn't Ron do that already, when he is telling Harry 
about his Uncle Bilius?  Second, the prediction isn't strictly necessary to 
the plot.  Someone else could convey that Peter is going back to help 
Voldemort after he escapes.

Audra




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 24 09:36:31 2003
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Kloves
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030223144500.0096b670@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <20030224093631.41742.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>

I really shouldn't post while almost 3 
weeks behind on the mainlist, but...

GulPlum:
> Harry's gift for sarcasm is one of 
> the major things that both PS/SS and 
> CoS lost *completely* and I simply 
> cannot believe that *every* instance 
> is down to Columbus editing Kloves, 
> or indeed the possibility that Dan 
> couldn't pull it off (judging by the 
> full Potions scene and his 
> appearances as himself, Dan doesn't
> seem to have any trouble at all with
> it).

Far from 'every'...but there are some 
instances, with the left-out potion 
scene being a good example.

> Ditto, I can't believe that excising 
> an important paragraph from 
> Dumbledore's exposition scene in the 
> hospital scene which establishes why 
> Snape hates Harry ("it's funny how 
> people's minds work...") is down to 
> Columbus. That paragraph is of  
> particular interest to me: it was in 
> the hope of finding an explanation 
> that I read the book in the first 
> place, as that question was at the
> front of my mind when I came out the 
> cinema. Had the paragraph been left
> in the script, I may well not have
> bothered reading the book (which
> then led to reading the others,
> etc, etc...) . :-)

Ah, then we were almost deprived of 
the pleasure of your company, m'dear.

> After I read the book, I simply
> could not understand why they left
> it out, and  who was to blame. Out
> of the two major suspects, I know
> which one I prefer. I don't suppose
> you remember whether or not it was
> in the script you read?

Yes, I remember that part very well.  
On pages dated Sept. 11, 2000, which 
should mean that these words are of 
Kloves' own choosing, in response to 
Harry asking if Snape hated James, 
McGonigal tells HHR that Snape and 
James were not compatible 
personalities...that James then did 
something Severus could never 
forgive...he saved Severus' life.  She 
goes on to tell the Trio that she 
supposed that Severus felt it his 
obligation to look after Harry that 
year.

Is this what you mean?

Another bit that was in the script but 
not on the screen is the payoff to 
having LV offer to bring James and 
Lily back to life.  Dumbledore makes 
the comparison between LV and the 
Mirror of Erised.  In response to 
Harry second-guessing himself and 
asking if in giving LV the Stone, LV 
could have brought his parents back, 
Dumbledore was to have replied that 
some people are like mirrors - they 
reflect our most desperate desire - we 
see what they want us to see.

> And are you *really* saying that
> making Ron out to be little more
> than a witless dork is entirely
> Columbus's work? Giving most of his
> best lines in CoS to Hermione was
> down to Columbus, or even shadowy
> script doctors? Whose idea was it to
> drop the reference to why he's
> scared of spiders?

Have yet to read the CoS script so I'm 
afraid I don't have the answer to 
that, not even a guess.  But I can 
tell you that on the pages of the 
PS/SS script, Ron is much more 'canon' 
than on screen.  For example, in that 
above scene, Ron asserts that now that 
Snape has squared things, Snape can 
hate Harry in peace.  McGonigal 
replies that Hogwarts teachers do not 
hate their students, no matter how 
taxing they may be.  Ron then provides 
the wry coda in "I think she's warming 
up to me."

Some of the Ron bits that Kloves had 
written are actually rather funny.  On 
the Hogwarts Express, Harry's query as 
to whether the Chocolate Frogs are 
real frogs is coupled with a shot of 
one frog leg wriggling out of Ron's 
mouth.

The love/hate relationship between Ron 
and Hermione is also better developed 
on the page as opposed to on the 
screen.  The script called for Ron to 
feel outdone by Hermione's 'oculus 
reparo' especially since it was right 
after she points out that his attempt 
to turn Scabbers yellow has failed.

On the 1st day of classes, hopelessly 
lost with Ron, Harry in frustration 
asks how many staircases are there.  
Guess who provides the actual answer 
to the rhetorical question by quoting 
Bathilda Bagshot?  As Hermione pass on 
by without helping them find their 
way, Ron states "I hate her."  All 
this of course better builds up the 
plotline showing how such petty 
animosity can turn into friendship 
through fighting a troll together.

Then there's that later scene with 
Neville under the leg-locker curse.  
As that scene unfolds, Hermione and 
Ron are bickering, as usual.  But the 
minute Neville enters, the two of them 
unite in identifying the curse and the 
curser.  Though this scene was shot 
(and is one of the bonus scenes on the 
DVD), the script did not (1) assign 
the lines identifying Neville's 
dilemma to Harry and (2) leave the 
audience with the impression of Ron 
and Hermione bickering (again) without 
countering it with their ability to 
put together an unified front when 
such is called for.

There are more, many more but I've got 
to run.  And BTW, the script DID call 
for Harry to have GREEN eyes.  <g>

> And please don't mistake me for a
> Clumbus apologist either. ;-) I 
> think each is as bad as the other. 
> The thing is, Kloves has sole credit 
> for the script and he bears full
> responsibility.

And therein lies the rub.  Kloves is 
deemed responsible by the audience for 
scripting the movies because he's 
received sole credit, but I doubt he 
wield the power to keep changes to his 
words from happening.  That LA Times 
article is the most recent one I can 
find that discuss this evergreen 
conflict between the film writers and 
directors over who's REALLY the 
author.  The Writers Guild and the 
Directors Guild fight over the phrase 
'A fill_in_name Film' every once in a 
while in this town the way that the 
weather pattern El Nino visits Los 
Angeles every now and then.

> I honestly don't believe that 
> *everything* is his fault, but as 
> far as I can tell, he's not done 
> anything else since embarking on the 
> HP bandwagon and it was his job to 
> supervise the re-writes

Every movie is different, of course, 
so just because I have never heard of 
such a thing means little...but...
where did you get the idea that Kloves 
gets to supervise the re-writes?  See, 
THAT would be too logical for the 
suits in the suites... <g>

> (apart from being the connection
> to JKR) so if he's as "into" 
> canon as you seem to suggest, he 
> should have put his foot down more
> firmly.  <snip>

If in doing so, the ONLY thing he'd 
accomplish is to put himself out of 
the running for working on the next 
adaptations, I can understand why he'd 
opt to 'fight another day.'  I don't 
like it but I understand it.

Yours truly:
> I agree that distortions have crept
> into the fanon that are the movies.
> But I suspect such distortions are
> several generations deep and some
> are more than a degree of separation
> from Kloves - there may have been
> too many cooks in the kitchen!

GulPlum:
> Sorry, but I think you're letting 
> him off too lightly. He is the chef 
> and he's signed the dish. He should 
> be prepared to take all the flak. 
> (His reluctance to address the
> "Irish Chappie" issue is, in my
> mind, very telling.) It's not as if
> after submitting the
> first/second/third draft of CoS he
> had more pressing obligations (other
> than to work on CoS) so he should
> have been available to ensure that 
> more of *his* voice was heard. 
> And it's not as if he had a lot on 
> his plate while CoS was going 
> through re-writes either.

It is entirely possible of course that 
Kloves simply couldn't be bothered.  
But it is far, FAR from the realities 
of Hollywood that such shots were  
Kloves' to call.

Though the screenwriter's name is on 
the script, s/he rarely have final 
script approval.  Nor do they often 
have control over changes made to 
their words on the way to being shot 
onto celluloid.  I read his response 
to the "Irish Chappie" issue as 
frustration over his lack of power to 
force the correction, not 
embarrassment from having his mistake 
pointed out to him.  Kloves 
immediately knew why I was asking him 
about it...that it's a Cerebus 
reference that on screen no longer 
refer to Cerebus as JKR intended.

This is my personal opinion but I 
suspect that many writers become 
writer-directors in order to gain more 
creative control.  The extra money 
doesn't hurt either, of course.  
Interestingly enough, both Columbus 
and Kloves are writer-directors in 
their own right.

IIRC, the wga.org site has much to say 
on the subject of credits and the 
writers' creative control (or rather, 
the lack of thereof) over work with 
his/her name on it.  The Writers Guild 
advocates on behalf of the writers' as 
a whole in disputes with the rest of 
the industry (especially credit 
arbitrations) so they certainly see 
the writers' side more clearly than 
the producers' or the directors'.  
Nevertheless, you might want to check 
the site out for more details.  For 
fuller coverage, you can also check 
out variety.com (note: they offer 30 
days trial subscriptions).

In short, I very much doubt that 
Kloves has the power to shape the 
script as he pleases and force 
Columbus to follow his vision closely.  
That lies in Heyman's hands 
ultimately.

Petra
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From lupinesque at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 24 13:22:14 2003
From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:22:14 -0000
Subject: A horrible thought
In-Reply-To: <b36i47+73vs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3d6a6+lq22@eGroups.com>

Irene wrote:

> By the looks of things there is no Professor Trelawney in the movie.

Noooooooooooooooooo!

:-(
Amy
who thinks that's quite horrible enough, without any Snapethoughts




From vampirealchemist at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 24 13:29:32 2003
From: vampirealchemist at hotmail.com (stray_bludger <vampirealchemist@hotmail.com>)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:29:32 -0000
Subject: Snape in the Shack (was Prisoner's hopes and dreams)
In-Reply-To: <14e.1c129496.2b893abc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b3d6ns+85q6@eGroups.com>

Besides making us Snapefans happy, Snape's presence in the Shack 
could give the filmmakers an opportunity to show how much Snape hated 
the Marauders, especially James, which was omitted at PS. This could 
make his reasons for loathing Harry clearer than what the movie has 
already portrayed. And also, Snape has to give Fudge his account of 
the events in the Shack, leading to the "capture" of Sirius Black and 
showing how Harry's version of what happened is less believable, 
which is what urged Harry and Hermione to go back in time to fix 
things in the first place.

--Dianne
who has been lurking here for a long, long time

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at a... wrote:
> I do think that Snape being at the Sheirking Shack is important if 
for no 
> reason other to show the mutual hatred he and Sirius have for one 
another.  
> The Dementors being at the Quidditch game is less crucial because 
their 
> effect on Harry is demonstrated during the train ride.  No one else 
has a 
> reaction that drastic. A quick explaination from Dumbledore as to 
the 
> possible causes (ie he has a more horrible things happen in his 
past than his 
> classmates ect) and we can move on to his learning the Patronus.
> 
> JMO
> Melissa
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From manda at qx.net  Mon Feb 24 17:35:25 2003
From: manda at qx.net (Amanda Pressnell)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:35:25 -0800
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cuar=F3n_on_cable_TV_=28US=29?=
Message-ID: <3E59E75D.19396.19B33C5@localhost>

For those who want to see what Alfonso Cuar?n's style is like, his "A Little Princess" will be on as part of Turner Classic Movies' "31 Days of Oscar" (it was nominated for 
cinematography and set decoration). It will be on March 1st at 12:30 pm EST (in letterbox, no less!). I know it's readily available on VHS and DVD, but I thought some 
people might not have gotten around to finding it yet.

Also, "Great Expectations" will be on AMC on the 11th although, IMHO, it's quite a snoozer. At least it's shot beautifully!

Manda
--
http://www.MandaMia.com



From artsylynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 17:24:28 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (artsylynda at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:24:28 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Prisoners hopes and dreams/scripts
Message-ID: <1d2.387ba9c.2b8baf4c@aol.com>

Lynda, I don't think you missed any posts...the only thing we know 
for sure, so far, is that the early Magnolia Crescent scenes were 
shot very recently. AFAIK nobody here has any access to the POA 
script, so we're all just speculating about which scenes from the 
book will be "in" or "out" or (gulp) combined. 

Anne U
(who hopes we don't witness any :::cough:::"composite 
characters":::cough:::)

Thank you, Anne!  I do try to keep up, but it's really difficult as fast as 
this list goes and as often as the subject line changes.

As for composite characters, Hermione getting Ron's lines, etc. -- I know 
film makers do stuff to try to keep things moving, but good grief, things 
move so quickly in the books I cannot put them down (on my 6th reading 
through in less than 2 months time -- can you tell I can't put them down?  
I'm not obsessed, not me!!  LOL!).  I miss Harry's sarcasm, Ron's courage, 
and the beautifully dry wit shown in the books.  Harry is such a fully-drawn 
character, and I believe Dan can portray every nuance given the chance -- why 
have they not given him the chance?  Kids around the world are reading these 
books with great devotion, despite the high level of vocabulary, etc., which 
requires more work to read than the average "grade school level" book.  
Obviously they're capable of understanding challenging material.  Why dumb it 
down?  argh.  BTW, where do you get copies of the scripts?  I bought a first 
draft script for the "Starman" movie when I was in Hollywood one time -- 
there were HUGE differences in the script and the movie, and it was 
fascinating to see the differences (two examples of the differences -- 
Starman wasn't a blue light, he had a body and was in a space suit with 
thrusters on the wrists so he could get around on Earth; and he was part of a 
group of aliens that were exploring -- and he was a photographer.  He got 
left behind when the ship left, kind of like "ET" which may be why they 
changed so much of the early part of the script).  I would LOVE to see the 
early Potter scripts, or even later ones, to see the variations from the 
books and from what we eventually saw.  Is there a "preferred" source for the 
scripts?  Thanks!



Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From artsylynda at aol.com  Mon Feb 24 17:38:03 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (artsylynda at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:38:03 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Digest Number 494
Message-ID: <1e5.2ec0447.2b8bb27b@aol.com>

Audra1975:

> I don't think it would be 
> such a bad choice if they did cut Trelawney and Divination from the movie 
> entirely.  
> 
Me:  I love PoA too, but I honestly think all the interaction with Trelawney 
isn't so much to introduce Trelawney to us as to show that HARRY has the 
"Sight" whether he's having precognitive dreams or awake  Even when making 
things up, he's right on the money (Buckbeak keeps his head and flies away -- 
perfectly accurate!).  This precognition of Harry's is proving to be 
perfectly accurate where Voldemort is concerned, and he's shown indications 
he also has the Sight in non-Dark Lord matters (Buckbeak).  I think it's 
going to be an important plot point in the future.  Also the fact Hermione is 
NOT good at it and eventually quits is an interesting development in her 
character, I think.  So, while I'm not fond of Trelawney, I think her 
sub-plot is important enough to be at least touched on enough to establish 
Harry as a precog and Hermione as not the perfect (successful) student she 
always appears to be.  JMHO

Lynda 
* * *
"Don't let  the Muggles get you down." Ron Weasley PoA


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




From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Mon Feb 24 17:12:10 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:10 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
Message-ID: <v01540b01ba7ed1f40fc4@[217.35.221.175]>

>Melissa wrote:

>>Steve Kloves: Well from the beginning she gave me tremendous elbow room but
>>when you're in the middle of a series like this it's important that I talk to
>>Jo along the way and she will tell me if I'm going down the wrong path.
>>
>>J. K. Rowling: I've given him more than I've ever given anyone else, which I
>>probably shouldn't say on screen or they'll kidnap and torture him, and we
>>need him.

Richard replied:-

>The first two movies have shown that several characters have been turned
>into something they are not in the books as a result of simplifying them.
>That JKR has not made a huge noise about the fact that Ron in CoS is an
>utter wimp and more than a little stupid is her affair.

I had a discussion along these lines a while ago with an acquaintance who
is involved in theatre. She brought up the very valid point that, once an
author has sold the movie rights to a book, he/she has *no* right to
interfere with, guide or expect any input into, the making of the movie.
JKR has *sold the rights*, which means that if the movie makers had decided
to set the HP movies long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, or had cast
a blond kid with a Texan accent as Harry, or had decided that Ron would die
in the chess game in PS/SS, JKR could have done nothing to stop them.

However, the HP movies are a rather special case, because the story is a
work in progress; no one, apart from JKR, knows how the story will unfold,
and how the books will end. The Lord of the Rings moviemakers had great
latitude to adapt the storyline, bring in characters out of the books'
chronology, and change the emphasis of certain storylines, because they
knew the ending of their story, and had a lot of background information
from Tolkien's appendices. If the HP moviemakers were to do something
similar, they would run the risk of making a nonsense out of something yet
to be published, which would also mean putting themselves into a very
tricky situation when making future movies. That's why they are consulting
JKR as much as they are, not because she has any power of veto on what goes
into the movies.

(I had also heard a rumour that JKR has not sold the rights to the
as-yet-unpublished books. If this is true, the moviemakers would be anxious
not to upset her too much, as she could refuse to sell them the rights to
the remainder of the series. If she did indeed refrain from selling future
rights, she's a smart woman).

The argument with my creative friend also touched on the quality of the
movie adaptations. I maintained that the movies were a fairly decent
adaptation of the books; certainly not as good as they might have been, but
definitely not as bad either. That's damning with faint praise, but
remembering such recent adaptations as 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', 'The
Shipping News', and even the most extreme example, the chickflick
'Chocolat' (where the character of the villain, the basic storyline, the
character development and even the ending were all changed and tied up into
a neat, Hollywoodised package), I think that we got off pretty well with
what we did get in the HP movies.

My friend's argument was that the director had not taken enough risks with
the HP movies, that he should have been more adventurous with the
characters and the plot, instead of sticking so slavishly to the books. She
applauded directors who adapted the storyline and characters to give a new
slant on the plot. This is where the point about the author's input came
up, because I have met Joanne Harris, the author of 'Chocolat', and know
that she was not particularly happy with what was done with her book.

Although the author, having sold the rights to the book, cannot complain
about what Hollywood has done with it, the audience certainly can. They
have been led to believe that what they are going to see in the cinema
bears more than a passing resemblance to the book which they have enjoyed.
The movie makers use the book's title to lure them into the cinema; and if
they then fail to provide a reasonably accurate interpretation of the book,
they are in fact committing a deception. My creative friend thought that
this was nonsense.

While I agree that some more creativity in translating HP for the screen
would have been welcome, I am also horribly aware of what would happen if
things swung too far in the other direction, away from the canon of the
book. How happy would we be then?

And, never forget, Hollywood sees HP as a *children's* series. Whilst
adults may welcome some flexibility of interpretation, the younger fans of
the books, some of whom know certain sections *by heart*, would be
horrified to see any further divergence from canon. A teenage daughter of
one of my friends was very upset by the various differences from the book
in PS/SS; she would have been devastated by major changes. She's not
unique.

So; are the movies so far a perfect adaptation of the books? No way. Do
they bear a realistic resemblance to canon? Yup. Could it all have been
done with more flair? Oh yeah.

Regards,
Nicholas





From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Mon Feb 24 17:12:08 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:08 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Sets and Locations
Message-ID: <v01540b00ba7eb291b004@[217.35.221.175]>

Leaping to attention at the mention of one of my favourite hobby horses in
the movies.

Richard said:-

>Alnwick was used for the Quidditch pitch and the Hogwarts grounds.

Alnwick was used in the scene from PS/SS where Wood teaches Harry about
Quidditch, when the kids are learning to fly, when Hagrid drags the
Christmas tree across the courtyard, and all exterior shots which required
a castle background. The Quidditch match in PS/SS was SPFX set against a
background of Glen Nevis. I'm not sure whether they used the same spot in
CoS, but it wasn't filmed at Alnwick, AFAIK.

Alnwick featured far more in PS/SS than CoS; in the latter, it was really
only used for the arrival scene, when Harry and Ron, having been ditched by
the Ford Anglia, chase it though the courtyard before it disappears into
the Forest.

I think the point that the previous post had in mind was that the Whomping
Willow features importantly in PoA, and it would seem to be a little
strange to use another location as the background to the WW. However, the
sequence in PoA is considerably more complex than that in CoS; the WW has
to open up for people to go in and out, so the movie makers have presumably
determined that to build such a set at Alnwick would be difficult and
expensive; plus, if a lot of filming is required around the WW, there would
be added difficulties. Alnwick Castle is, after all, open to the public,
and lengthy filming there could cause them problems with their opening
hours. I would imagine that a backdrop of Alnwick Castle will be digitally
inserted as required.

Richard again:-
>Durham Cathedral was used for some of the cloister shots (the main ones
>were in Gloucester) and I don't think I've read anything about not filming
>in Gloucester; besides there probably won't be many shots in those areas.

Durham Cathedral cloisters featured strongly in both films; in CoS
particularly when Ron tries to curse Malfoy and ends up spitting slugs;
when the kids are talking about Hagrid perhaps being the one who opened the
Chamber, and they are interrupted by Hagrid himself; when the kids are
walking along discussing the possibility of Malfoy being the Heir of
Slytherin, and of course the scene in McGonagall's classroom, which is in
fact the Chapter House at Durham.

However, I noticed that a set was built for CoS *based on* the cloisters at
Durham. They used it for the corridor outside Dumbledore's study, and
possibly for the scene where Harry finds Justin and Nearly Headless Nick
petrified. Perhaps they intend to use the same set instead of setting up a
film unit at Durham itself for PoA.

I think that the hospital in CoS was a set, btw.

Richard:-
>GulPlum AKA Richard, who doesn't know which is the worse prospect: Columbus
>directing or of Kloves writing GoF... Together, they're an abomination.

Uh-huh; you also said the other day that you didn't think the kids did a
particularly good job in CoS. May one ask, therefore, why you have seen the
film...what...30 times?
:-)

Regards,
Nicholas





From amani at charter.net  Mon Feb 24 22:34:18 2003
From: amani at charter.net (Taryn Kimel)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:34:18 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams
References: <v01540b01ba7ed1f40fc4@[217.35.221.175]>
Message-ID: <002601c2dc54$de7b95c0$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>

Nicholas:
(I had also heard a rumour that JKR has not sold the rights to the
as-yet-unpublished books. If this is true, the moviemakers would be anxious
not to upset her too much, as she could refuse to sell them the rights to
the remainder of the series. If she did indeed refrain from selling future
rights, she's a smart woman).

Me:
That's odd. I've heard the exact opposite. ^_^;; That WB had the rights to film any Harry Potter book Rowling writes... Hrm.

--Taryn

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




From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 25 03:29:02 2003
From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: scripts
In-Reply-To: <1d2.387ba9c.2b8baf4c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20030225032902.83198.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com>

Lynda:
<snip>
> BTW, where do you get copies of
> the scripts?  I bought a first 
> draft script for the "Starman" movie when I was
> in Hollywood one time -- 
> there were HUGE differences in the script and
> the movie, and it was 
> fascinating to see the differences (two
> examples of the differences -- 
> Starman wasn't a blue light, he had a body and
> was in a space suit with 
> thrusters on the wrists so he could get around
> on Earth; and he was part of a 
> group of aliens that were exploring -- and he
> was a photographer.  He got 
> left behind when the ship left, kind of like
> "ET" which may be why they 
> changed so much of the early part of the
> script).  I would LOVE to see the 
> early Potter scripts, or even later ones, to
> see the variations from the 
> books and from what we eventually saw.  Is
> there a "preferred" source for the 
> scripts?  Thanks!

Hmm...well...except for the scripts published in
book form sold by legit booksellers, most copies
of scripts (on 3-hole punched paper bound with
brads) are either pirated/stolen or fakes.  In
fact, the writers do not get a cent from the
profits of these sales.  I'm sure there's a black
market for them SOMEwhere but I frankly am not
familiar with them.  Though, I have heard of them
being available on eBay.  See, how would you know
you're buying the real thing?  Only the copies
archived with legit organizations have believable
claims to authenticity and they emphatically do
not circulate their copies because of piracy.  

The ONLY copy of the PS/SS script that I have
been able to track down resides in a very
under-staffed and under-funded library who would
be very unhappy if I outed them on the web here. 
And no, <sigh> I do not have a personal copy of
it...far from it.

Notes? Yes.  Script? No.

Amongst the scripts that have been published,
there's little uniformity.  Some are versions 'as
envisioned by the credited screenwriters' which
are usually really interesting but others are
little more than transcriptions of the 'as seen
on screen' version (sort of the closed captioned
version, so to speak).  My current favorites
amongst the published scripts are Emma Thompson's
for "Sense and Sensibility" and Charlie Kaufman's
"Adaptation."  Emma's diaries of the S&S shoot is
a must-read for you Rickman fans...as is the shot
of him in his wedding finery... <g>

Petra
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 25 04:56:00 2003
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 04:56:00 -0000
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030224033652.00953790@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <b3et10+efnr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> At 03:04 24/02/03 , Robin Keener wrote:
> >JenD:
> > >getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the
> > > books (as in "Don't worry, I will be...")
> >
> >Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by
>  Daniel Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.
> 
> So? Columbus thought it was a very good idea, and he should have
> known better.
> 
> In any case, the way all three people concerned tell the tale,
> Isaacs came up with his line, and Columbus came up with Dan's.
> What's even worse is that he told Dan to "say it like Clint 
> Eastwood". *THAT* is what makes it out of character for Harry, and 
> the whole debacle Columbus's fault.
> 
> --
> GulPlum AKA Richard, off to bed.

bboy_mn:

While I respect your opinions greatly, I didn't read that scene the
same way most people did. I also know that to some extent we have
covered this ground before, so I will try and keep it short.

First, based on the knowledge I have, your assessment of the situation
is correct Isaacs improvised the line, something he seems to like to
do as he improvised in several scenes with Draco/Tom. Scene that never
made the final cut. Columbus liked it and expanded on the scene. I
think the 'like Clint Eastwood' simply meant the line should be
delivered very cold and emotionless.

Many many people saw Harry/Dan is this scene portrayed as arrogant, I
on the other hand saw it as a refusal to be intimidated by Lucius much
that same way the first scene in PS/SS potions class went. Snape was
being very overbearing, and just to show he couldn't be walk all over,
he made a comment about Hermione knowing the answer. Very subtle form
of rebelion against the attempted intimidation by Snape. 

I see that same attitude in this Lucius/Harry scene. In a very dry
subdued way, Harry is refusing to be intimidated. So from that
perspective, I can see this being in character for Harry. A long
lecture or speech, or bold 'in your face' comment would be out of
character, but this simple restrained comeback let's Malfoy know that
Harry sees him for what he is and he refuses to be intimidated. In a
sense, it is Harry standing his ground without being confrontational
or provocative.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn






From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 25 09:27:46 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:27:46 -0000
Subject: film allusions and characterization (WAS: film adaptations)
In-Reply-To: <b3et10+efnr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3fcuj+pubg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Steve <bboy_mn at y...>" 
<bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> > At 03:04 24/02/03 , Robin Keener wrote:
> > >JenD:
> > > >getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the
> > > > books (as in "Don't worry, I will be...")
> > >
> 
> Many many people saw Harry/Dan is this scene portrayed as arrogant, 
I
> on the other hand saw it as a refusal to be intimidated by Lucius 
much
> that same way the first scene in PS/SS potions class went

I agree with you. Whether the line was abominable or no, I read it as 
defiance, and rather enjoyed it, to be honest. I don't know if Dan 
pulled it off as a Clint Eastwood allusion, but I'd like to point out 
another allusion--another possible "say it like" from Chris Columbus:
When Crabbe and Goyle (what are the names of those actors again? What 
a terrific performance they gave as Harry and Ron in disguise) are 
leaving Christmas dinner to find the two cupcakes floating in mid-
air, they give off a distinct Beavis and Butthead vibe. They are 
sniggering in the classic Bavis-vein (hm-hm-hm-he-he-he-he-hm-hm) and 
in finding the cupcakes, Goyle says--distinctly Beavis-like "Cool!hm-
he-he-hm etc" Did anyone else pick up on that or am I just imagining 
things?

A couple of other comments:
The statue Ron and Harry hide behind in the aforementioned scene, who 
does it portray. I'm sure it is one of the founders, since he appears 
to be holding a replica of the great hall in his right hand, and at 
forst I pegged him as Godric Gryffindor beacuse of the lion at his 
right foot, but then I noticed a badger at his left foot and was no 
longer so sure.

We have read a slew of comments regarding Kloves and Columbus failure 
to translate the characers as we know them from the book to the 
screen. Apart from the changes in the trio and the trio dynamic, not 
many characters have survived the transfer--although this is not in 
every case a bad thing. Most of the "transfers" are interpretations 
of the Rowling characters, and I suppose we must always allow some 
leeway. However, as I've thought about it for the past couple of 
days, I have come to realize just how few of the characters strike me 
the same as in the book.

For instance (this has been mentioned before, I know), Dumbledore has 
his wisdom intact, but his movie-self is incomplete since all of his 
cookiness and eccentricity has been excised. 
Furthermore,in the book, Snape is entirely unpleasant in my view, 
with no redeeming qualities to date (except hints of possible bravery 
in the past--but that's sstuff for a different list)but the movie-
Snape comes off as a dedicated teacher who's just having a hard time 
keeping a personal grudge under wraps. The fact that he's also 
menacingly attractive I'm just putting down to Rickman himself. 

Also, as little as we've seen of Percy, he too, seems to me 
considerably more sympathetic than in the books. This could possibly 
be a result of that (in)famous morning hair scene in CoS. Book-Percy 
to me would never appear at breakfast other than fully dressed and 
neatly combed.

Finally, Crabbe and Goyle in the book have so far no redeeming 
qualities--they are just mean and unpleasant all the way. In the 
films, however, CoS particularly, we see them as bullied by Draco, 
possibly insecure around him--hangers on for protection by Malfoy's 
status maybe. They're just kind of stupid-cute. Notice that they try 
to get up to applaud Hagrid's return in the final great hall scene, 
but Malfoy stops them.

Why is that? Perhaps Kloves and Columbus decided to make these 
characters a little more human--after all they are nearly caricatures 
in the books, very belieavable, but still types in a sense. Perhaps 
the movie perspective ?s supposed to give us a more "objective" take 
on the characters, whereas the book-characters are all seen through 
Harry's eyes.

Sophia (screwing up her brain)




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Tue Feb 25 16:12:37 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:12:37 -0000
Subject: Sets and Locations
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00ba7eb291b004@[217.35.221.175]>
Message-ID: <b3g4ll+t28c@eGroups.com>

Oh my gosh!! 
At least I am not the only one!!!

> Richard:-
> >GulPlum AKA Richard, who doesn't know which is the worse prospect: 
Columbus
> >directing or of Kloves writing GoF... Together, they're an 
abomination.
> 
> Uh-huh; you also said the other day that you didn't think the kids 
did a
> particularly good job in CoS. May one ask, therefore, why you have 
seen the
> film...what...30 times?
> :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Nicholas

I have seen CoS way too many times to admit to anyone and I sit there 
mesmerized by Harry, the castle, the Great Hall, Harry (but that's 
another post for another time). I can only crack it up to the power 
of the visual. To see Harry Potter up there, even uttering lines that 
would make Clint Eastwood proud, it is thrilling. Are we saps or 
what? My question (and I do have one....) is this: Can Cuaron better 
capture the spirit, (and maybe more of the complexity) of the books? 
Is he somewhat trapped into doing the thing in the way it's been 
started Will it hurt the franchise if he goes off into a different 
direction or is that even possible anymore? There, that's the 
question I am been working on. You all are much more in the know than 
me, tell me what you think....
JenD




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 25 18:09:46 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:09:46 -0000
Subject: Sets and Locations
In-Reply-To: <b3g4ll+t28c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3gbha+eene@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003 <rdas at f...>" 
<rdas at f...> wrote:


> I have seen CoS way too many times to admit to anyone and I sit there 
> mesmerized by Harry, the castle, the Great Hall, Harry (but that's 
> another post for another time). I can only crack it up to the power 
> of the visual. To see Harry Potter up there, even uttering lines that 
> would make Clint Eastwood proud, it is thrilling.

Do you have a post brewing on the experience of seeing Harry up there, 
moving, talking, existing at Hogwarts? Bring it on!!! I'd love to hear someone 
else's experience (to know that I'm not nuts, you know....)--I think it's terrific 
too. I see the movie not for the plot, but just to BE THERE, in that place, with 
those people...  :-)


see you on the message index,
Sophia




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Tue Feb 25 19:06:53 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:06:53 -0000
Subject: Sets and Locations
In-Reply-To: <b3gbha+eene@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3gesd+3tj8@eGroups.com>

> Do you have a post brewing on the experience of seeing Harry up 
there, 
> moving, talking, existing at Hogwarts? Bring it on!!! I'd love to 
hear someone 
> else's experience (to know that I'm not nuts, you know....)--I 
think it's terrific 
> too. I see the movie not for the plot, but just to BE THERE, in 
that place, with 
> those people...  :-)

You know Sophia, et. al., this is the stuff of a PhD. thesis on the 
power of the visual to somehow block other parts of our brains from 
working as per normal. Nope, I don't have the all the stuff that's in 
my head down on paper yet. But I will say this, can you remember the 
first time you saw Ron's house, all the things going on, the dishes 
being magically washed, the knitting knitting itself, the scrub 
wooden table, the very humbleness of the house? Didn't you feel like 
you were home somehow? It was all RIGHT!!! That was such a powerful 
set of images. As sad as I was to see the storyline almost freeze-
dried (just add water maybe...)the visuals sucked me into that world 
totally. Knockturn Alley (Harry covered in soot...)Flourish and 
Blots, all cramped with books and middle-aged witches drooling over 
Kenneth Brannaugh...It felt so real!! I guess that's the killing 
thing!! They got the look and feel so right!! It's seductive I tell 
you. The visual medium is so seductive. Maybe being a filmmaker, you 
get used to that power and it becomes your primary tool, and Chris 
has just gotten better and better at it. Remember how 
Christmassy "Home Alone" was, down to the last detail? 
Cheers,
JenD




From heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk  Tue Feb 25 19:08:24 2003
From: heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk (heather)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:08:24 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re:film allusions and characterization (WAS: film
 adaptations)
In-Reply-To: <b3fcuj+pubg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030225190326.S27702-100000@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>

>
> We have read a slew of comments regarding Kloves and Columbus failure
> to translate the characers as we know them from the book to the
> screen. Apart from the changes in the trio and the trio dynamic, not
> many characters have survived the transfer--although this is not in
> every case a bad thing. Most of the "transfers" are interpretations
> of the Rowling characters, and I suppose we must always allow some
> leeway. However, as I've thought about it for the past couple of
> days, I have come to realize just how few of the characters strike me
> the same as in the book.
>
> For instance (this has been mentioned before, I know), Dumbledore has
> his wisdom intact, but his movie-self is incomplete since all of his
> cookiness and eccentricity has been excised.
> Furthermore,in the book, Snape is entirely unpleasant in my view,
> with no redeeming qualities to date (except hints of possible bravery
> in the past--but that's sstuff for a different list)but the movie-
> Snape comes off as a dedicated teacher who's just having a hard time
> keeping a personal grudge under wraps. The fact that he's also
> menacingly attractive I'm just putting down to Rickman himself.
>
> Also, as little as we've seen of Percy, he too, seems to me
> considerably more sympathetic than in the books. This could possibly
> be a result of that (in)famous morning hair scene in CoS. Book-Percy
> to me would never appear at breakfast other than fully dressed and
> neatly combed.
>
> Finally, Crabbe and Goyle in the book have so far no redeeming
> qualities--they are just mean and unpleasant all the way. In the
> films, however, CoS particularly, we see them as bullied by Draco,
> possibly insecure around him--hangers on for protection by Malfoy's
> status maybe. They're just kind of stupid-cute. Notice that they try
> to get up to applaud Hagrid's return in the final great hall scene,
> but Malfoy stops them.
>
> Why is that? Perhaps Kloves and Columbus decided to make these
> characters a little more human--after all they are nearly caricatures
> in the books, very belieavable, but still types in a sense. Perhaps
> the movie perspective ?s supposed to give us a more "objective" take
> on the characters, whereas the book-characters are all seen through
> Harry's eyes.
>
> Sophia (screwing up her brain)


That's an interesting way of seeing it, and I do wonder whether JKR is
allowing character differences in order to work things out for future
books :)

The off-character scene that most haunts me is when Draco falls off his
broom and the camera cuts to Lucius looking faintly disgusted. It seemed
to put the issue of his upbringing much more clearly than the books,
which rely almost entirely on Harry's information.

heather

>

--

Whiteness Thy Name Is Meltonian. This Leaden Pall. Turned Up Clocked On
Laid Off. Improv Workshop Mimeshow Gobshite. 13 Eurogoths Floating In The
Dead Sea. Whit Week Malarkey






From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 25 19:47:20 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:47:20 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re:film allusions and characterization (WAS: film adaptations)
In-Reply-To: <20030225190326.S27702-100000@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>
References: <20030225190326.S27702-100000@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <8944970731.20030225114720@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 11:08:24 AM, heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk wrote:

> The off-character scene that most haunts me is when Draco falls off his
> broom and the camera cuts to Lucius looking faintly disgusted. It
> seemed
> to put the issue of his upbringing much more clearly than the books,
> which rely almost entirely on Harry's information.

But the problem is that the Lucius actor (can't seem to
remember his name) brought all this in from his own
interpretation of the books.

The way Draco speaks about his father and his father's
action don't make me believe Draco is abused, personally.
He sounds more like a spoiled brat.
Of course, it could be all front, but I can't imagine Draco
demanding (and receiving) all the things/help from his
father, if he were truly afraid of him.

sophiamcl wrote:
> Why is that? Perhaps Kloves and Columbus decided to make these
> characters a little more human--after all they are nearly caricatures 
> in the books, very belieavable, but still types in a sense. Perhaps 
> the movie perspective s supposed to give us a more "objective" take 
> on the characters, whereas the book-characters are all seen through 
> Harry's eyes.

To me the characters seem more human in the books.

They all appear much more stereotyped in the movies.
They lose parts of their personality, not gain anything
(imo).


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




From TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk  Tue Feb 25 19:27:16 2003
From: TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk (TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:27:16 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
Message-ID: <v01540b00ba8004a010ab@[217.35.219.163]>


>>JenD:
>> >getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books
>> >(as in "Don't worry, I will be...")
>>
Robin:-

>>Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by Daniel
>>Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.

Well someone should have been intelligent enough to edit them out.

Regards,
Nicholas





From heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk  Tue Feb 25 19:59:21 2003
From: heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk (heather)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:59:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Casting, etc (largely OT)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030221144733.00956390@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <20030225195120.I34476-100000@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>

about [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Casting, etc (largely OT) ...

> Comments on several posts in one.
>
> Another issue. It's common for people to compare the casting of the HP
> kids
> to Beverly Hills 90210, but there's one major difference. I get the
> impression that throughout BH90210 (I never watched it) they were just
> pretty much generic older (American) teenagers and what they got up to
> was
> far more important than what they looked like. Besides, from my limited
> knowledge of the series, it wasn't really a "character" piece. It's also
> hardly the only US TV series to be centered on older teenagers who are
> set
> at a permanent age of about 17-19 for a whole multi-season series. The
> classic Happy Days and the current Buffy are more examples.

Buffy is a realistic series age-wise. The characters all went through
school at the proper rate and Buffy herself has a yearly birthday episode
where her age is mentioned. Coincidentally, she was born in 1981. One of
Buffy's friends is now in her third year at university and, despite some
leeway with career ladders, the two other lead characters left school in
the right time and got jobs. They even pay plumbing bills.

The only slight deviation is the current school-year of Dawn, but she's
not real and so doesn't count anyway ;)

The actors are almost all older than the characters, and one is a Beverley
Hills 90210 alumna, but they do try to be realistic on the timescale.


"heather"







From ABandt at aol.com  Tue Feb 25 20:47:09 2003
From: ABandt at aol.com (ABandt at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:47:09 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Casting, etc (largely OT)
Message-ID: <71.2dccfc9d.2b8d304d@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/25/2003 2:29:11 PM Central Standard Time, 
heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk writes:


> The actors are almost all older than the characters, and one is a Beverley
> Hills 90210 alumna, but they do try to be realistic on the timescale.

The reason a lot of shows use older actors is because of the 
regulations/limitations set on under-age actors and the length of time they 
are allowed to work and when they are allowed to work.  For Buffy there was 
much concern when they were first casting because most of the shooting is 
done at night so finding actors/actresses over the age of 18 was important.  
I can't remember what age Sarah Michelle was during the first season but I 
know that she was the youngest member of the original cast up until Eliza 
joined during the third season.  
~Amy


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




From heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk  Tue Feb 25 23:56:45 2003
From: heather at compsoc.man.ac.uk (heather)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:56:45 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Fwd:  NEWS - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
 Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <002301c2d951$0bec2940$0400a8c0@charterpa.com>
Message-ID: <20030225235155.J53279-100000@mrtall.compsoc.man.ac.uk>


> Enchanted:
> >> Renowned actors Gary Oldman, Timothy Spall (Nicholas Nickleby),
> > Michael
> > Gambon (Gosford Park), David Thewlis (Timeline), Pam Ferris
> > (Mathilda) and
> > Paul Whitehouse (star of the BBC's The Fast Show) have joined the
> > esteemed
> > ensemble cast of the film, which is being directed by Academy Award
> > nominee
> > Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien) and produced by David Heyman,
> Chris
> > Columbus and Mark Radcliffe.
>
> Amanda:
> OH NO!! My worst fear has been officially confirmed!! Oldman to play
> Black!! lol And I was preparing to lead a campaigne against it...he
> he..I might as well get used to the idea...maybe they will do some
> fancy camera work to get around the height thing...
>
> Me:
> >From what I've heard, there are lots of really simple filming tricks to
> make actors look taller or shorter. I should expect that if it's felt
> needed to make Oldman seem taller, it'd be very simple to do so. (I'm
> among those who love the idea of Oldman and Sirius, and think that he
> /is/ goodlooking if you find the right pictures. He's just purposely made
> to look unattractive in many of the movie's he's been in.)
>
> --Taryn

Oldman is one of the best actors of his generation, but like a lot of
British actors (including David Thewlis) he seems mostly knows to
Americans through 'pay-the-rent' work. I think the lack of height
(although he's at least 5ft 8) is no more relevant than Rickman's age. I
also thought he looked rather handsome in the Victorian sections of
'Dracula'.

And for some reason, I immediately approved of Thewlis as Lupin when I
thought of his performance in 'Life Is Sweet' - although he plays a lead
character's boyfrined who has a 'romantic' scene with chocolate sauce. It
might be the way he broke up with her; I haven't seen it for ages.

heather





From belleps at october.com  Tue Feb 25 23:56:39 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:56:39 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <1046103440.520.68546.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225174708.00a2a570@pop.cox-internet.com>

At 04:17 PM 2/24/03 +0000, GulPlum wrote:
>At 03:04 24/02/03 , Robin Keener wrote:
> >JenD:
> > >getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books
> > >(as in "Don't worry, I will be...")
> >
> >Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by Daniel
> >Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.
>
>So? Columbus thought it was a very good idea, and he should have known better.
>
>In any case, the way all three people concerned tell the tale, Isaacs came
>up with his line, and Columbus came up with Dan's. What's even worse is
>that he told Dan to "say it like Clint Eastwood". *THAT* is what makes it
>out of character for Harry, and the whole debacle Columbus's fault.

Isn't it wonderful how we can all see and hear the same thing and come out 
with completely different impressions? <grin> I love this list.

I WAS a bit sick of the scene from all of the trailers. I'll give you that.

But I still liked it. I still see it as a bit of a gauntlet-throwing scene, 
with Harry letting Lucius know that he's picking up the gauntlet and 
intends to win. I always picture Lucius as saying the line, thinking that 
he's putting one over on Dumbledore and Harry as he's saying it, convincing 
them both that he's really on Harry's side. (Don't forget his instructions 
to Draco that "it is not -- prudent -- to appear less than fond of Harry 
Potter".) I don't think that he considers Harry to be anything even close 
to a worthy adversary. But Harry lets him know, in no uncertain terms, that 
he understands exactly where Lucius is coming from, and he doesn't intend 
to meekly get out of his path, the way he did when Lucius entered the room.

Considering how often Harry talks back to adults, and how persistent and 
determined he can be to do the right thing in the end, I don't see this 
line as out of character for Harry at all. In fact, if we could see 
Dumbledore, I'd bet on a gleam or a twinkle. <grin>

bel 




From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 26 01:19:55 2003
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova <blessedbrian@yahoo.com>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:19:55 -0000
Subject: A Big Double Sized Happy Birthday To...
Message-ID: <b3h4nr+9d3m@eGroups.com>

  

  ...James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George Weasley), who are old 
enough today to enter the Triwizard Tournament without the aid of an 
Aging Potion (although I would still like to see them both in a pair 
of long white beards!!).

  Many, many more guys!!!

  Brian:-)  




From LeeMunLim03 at aol.com  Wed Feb 26 03:22:55 2003
From: LeeMunLim03 at aol.com (LeeMunLim03 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:22:55 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] A Big Double Sized Happy Birthday To...
Message-ID: <18.2d3f5c33.2b8d8d0f@aol.com>

Lets hope they don't recast James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and Goerge 
Weasley)!!!



In a message dated 2/25/03 8:35:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
blessedbrian at yahoo.com writes:

>  ...James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George Weasley), who are old 
> enough today to enter the Triwizard Tournament without the aid of an 
> Aging Potion (although I would still like to see them both in a pair 
> of long white beards!!).
> 
>  Many, many more guys!!!
> 
>  Brian:-)  



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




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Wed Feb 26 03:23:29 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:23:29 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
References: <b3et10+efnr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <017a01c2dd46$6f5cd800$9fa1cdd1@RVotaw>

bboy_mn wrote:

> Many many people saw Harry/Dan is this scene portrayed as arrogant, I
> on the other hand saw it as a refusal to be intimidated by Lucius much
> that same way the first scene in PS/SS potions class went. Snape was
> being very overbearing, and just to show he couldn't be walk all over,
> he made a comment about Hermione knowing the answer. Very subtle form
> of rebelion against the attempted intimidation by Snape. 

What I find ironic, is that (what's in and not in the books aside) so many people (including me) complain about the part with Harry snapping back at Snape being left out of SS/PS, while at the same time the "Don't worry, I will be" is gasped at in horror.  I too, (though I needn't be reminded I haven't actually seen CoS) saw the line as containing the same "I am not going to be trampled over" attitude that Harry should've shown in the Snape scene in SS/PS, but was removed from the final film.  I like it.  There, I said it. :)

Robin:-

>>Those two lines from Lucius and Harry were completely improvised by Daniel
>>Radcliffe and Jason Isaacs.

Nicholas:

>Well someone should have been intelligent enough to edit them out.

Sorry, they were all just as stupid as me, I suppose.  Still say I like it.  It's not a "devil may care" attitude as some have said, but a "I'm not a doormat, wipe your feet someplace else" attitude.  Considering the thick sarcasm dripping from Malfoy/Isaacs voice.

Richelle


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




From CLShannon at aol.com  Wed Feb 26 03:32:35 2003
From: CLShannon at aol.com (CLShannon at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:32:35 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
Message-ID: <1c7.5b189ba.2b8d8f53@aol.com>


In a message dated 2/25/03 7:25:15 PM, rvotaw at i-55.com writes:

<< What I find ironic, is that (what's in and not in the books aside) so many 
people (including me) complain about the part with Harry snapping back at 
Snape being left out of SS/PS, while at the same time the "Don't worry, I 
will be" is gasped at in horror.  I too, (though I needn't be reminded I 
haven't actually seen CoS) saw the line as containing the same "I am not 
going to be trampled over" attitude that Harry should've shown in the Snape 
scene in SS/PS, but was removed from the final film.  I like it.  There, I 
said it. :) >>

That's exactly what I have been thinking during this discussion ;-) And I 
have seen  COS and I liked the line. I also liked the look of pride on 
Dumbledore's face after Harry said it. Sort of like he was saying, 'well, 
Lucious, what do you make of that?' ;-)

I might add also that in the book POA, Harry gets rather ticked off at Uncle 
Vernon at the beginning during the 'Aunt Marge' bit. He kicks open his trunk 
and points his wand at Vernon and says, among other things, 'you keep away 
from me' and 'I'm going, I've had enough'. The description in the book says 
that a reckless rage came over Harry. Yet he delivers the lines rather 
quietly and not by shouting. Seems the same type of delivery as the line in 
COS to me - quietly threatening ;-), and in character.
Cindy



From blessedbrian at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 26 13:01:28 2003
From: blessedbrian at yahoo.com (Brian Cordova <blessedbrian@yahoo.com>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:01:28 -0000
Subject: A Big Double Sized Happy Birthday To...
In-Reply-To: <18.2d3f5c33.2b8d8d0f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b3idr8+2kfq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, LeeMunLim03 at a... wrote:
> Lets hope they don't recast James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and 
Goerge 
> Weasley)!!!

  Personally, I just hope in future productions to see more of the 
good natured mischievousness of the characters of Gred and Feorge.  
In all fairness, the films has been limited thus far as to where it 
is hard to tell if it may or may not have anything to do with the 
talent of the Phelps brothers.  

  Brian:-) 





From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Feb 26 14:57:25 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:57:25 -0000
Subject: film adaptations
In-Reply-To: <017a01c2dd46$6f5cd800$9fa1cdd1@RVotaw>
Message-ID: <b3ikkl+o0n2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richelle Votaw" <rvotaw at i...> 
wrote:
> What I find ironic, is that (what's in and not in the books aside) 
so many people (including me) complain about the part with Harry 
snapping back at Snape being left out of SS/PS, while at the same 
time the "Don't worry, I will be" is gasped at in horror.  I too, 
(though I needn't be reminded I haven't actually seen CoS) saw the 
line as containing the same "I am not going to be trampled over" 
attitude that Harry should've shown in the Snape scene in SS/PS, but 
was removed from the final film.  I like it.  There, I said it. :)
> 
> Robin:-
> 
 
 Me: Beleive me Robin, When you see CoS, you will know what we are 
talking about. The whole 2 line dialogue between Harry and Lucius is 
hopelessly cheesy. I was shocked when I saw it for the first time and 
even a little embarrased for all who were involved. It was that bad!!
Although I must say, I was equally horrified by Ron's personality in 
CoS, not himself at all...but we won't go there.

Amanda
AcioPotter





From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 26 16:29:55 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:29:55 -0000
Subject: film allusions and characterization (WAS: film adaptations)
In-Reply-To: <8944970731.20030225114720@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <b3iq23+khcr@eGroups.com>

 Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
 
> To me the characters seem more human in the books.
 
> They all appear much more stereotyped in the movies.
> They lose parts of their personality, not gain anything
> (imo).

Good comment. Maybe I need to revise. Let's see. As much as I enjoy the 
movies, I certainly think the books to be vastly superior.  I'm not saying that 
the characters necessarily gain anything per se in the movies (other than the 
what the visual experience can bring to the equation), but many of them give 
off a different feel than in the books, and generally that difference IMO seems 
to consist of a softening the edges--giving chacters such as Snape, Crabbe 
and Goyle, even Draco a slight makeover by introducing possible causes for 
audience-leniency: e.g. C&G bullied by D., D. bullied by his father.

Sophia




From robeeena at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 26 20:33:21 2003
From: robeeena at hotmail.com (Robin Keener)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:33:21 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: film adaptations
Message-ID: <F173xT18j7nqqKgWRjf0003fd25@hotmail.com>


>  Me: Beleive me Robin, When you see CoS, you will know what we are
>talking about. The whole 2 line dialogue between Harry and Lucius is
>hopelessly cheesy. I was shocked when I saw it for the first time and
>even a little embarrased for all who were involved. It was that bad!!
>Although I must say, I was equally horrified by Ron's personality in
>CoS, not himself at all...but we won't go there.

Oops, I think who said what is getting mixed up. I only said that those 
lines were improvised, though I agree with many in that it was cheesy, but I 
liked it. Easy mistake, no harm done. :) I've actually seen CoS 3 times now. 
:D

-robina

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




From buffyslays_uk at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Feb 26 22:21:09 2003
From: buffyslays_uk at yahoo.co.uk (Su <buffyslays_uk@yahoo.co.uk>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:21:09 -0000
Subject: film allusions and characterization (WAS: film adaptations)
In-Reply-To: <b3iq23+khcr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3jekl+j6aq@eGroups.com>


> > To me the characters seem more human in the books.
>  
> > They all appear much more stereotyped in the movies.
> > They lose parts of their personality, not gain anything
> > (imo).

I agree! The charm of the books are in the characters.  I mean of 
course we should be mostly following Harry in the movie. 

But I really miss all the little things like how Percy is a lot more 
pompous in the books..how he really cares about being a prefect and 
shines his badge.. you don't get that brotherly sense between the 
weasleys..like bantering...I don't think Ron even talked to Ginny in 
COS until the end of the movie. 

Fred and George just don't have the wit in the movies. I mean 
Kloves/Columbus would'nt have to write in much to develop the 
characters. Just something ..a hint..a nod... one line is all it 
takes sometimes. And other people like Lavender Brown and Parvati 
Patel. I know they're minor but I like them there! It makes 
everything complete.

Ok I'm being nitpicky...but since I'm typing I might as well get it 
all out!

 I still don't think they've got some of the main characters right. 
Like Hermione! Movie Hermione is just too stern all the time and 
seems to know everything In the books - she's just a more lovable 
character. I can't explain it. I've always imagined her voice to be 
more...shrill. Someone help me out!

I think everyone talked about Ron so I won't say more.
And I don't think they made a big enough deal of Snape in 
Philosopher's Stone either. 

Kibi




From belleps at october.com  Wed Feb 26 22:30:08 2003
From: belleps at october.com (Beth)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:30:08 -0600
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dumbledore casting
In-Reply-To: <1046280618.493.14249.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162306.00a25520@pop.cox-internet.com>

A friend sent me this new casting rumor...

"In a bold move earlier today, Warner Bros announced that the part of Albus
Dumbledore in the wildly popular 'Harry Potter' movies would be filled by
none other than Haley Joel Osment.

"We feel that Haley can really bring some depth to Dumbledore's character,"
noted Warner spokesman John Beguile.  "And the fact that he will probably
last for the next 24 sequels was definitely a plus in his favor."

When asked for comment, Mr. Osment whispered, "I see endorsement contracts."

More to follow..."

I like the bit about "the next 24 sequels".

<grin>
bel 




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Wed Feb 26 22:58:06 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:58:06 -0000
Subject: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <b3d6ns+85q6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3jgpu+jq8a@eGroups.com>

I just saw CoS for the nth time (can't divulge such topsecret info) 
but I wondered if anyone knew anything about the filming of the 
project. In his first scene, Alan Rickman looks ill. Like he just had 
all his wisdom teeth out or something. Next scene he's in, he looks 
fine,(the one where they discover Mrs. Norris). But in that first 
scene where he confronts Harry and Ron just back from a bit of 
dancing with the Whomping Willow, his face is very weird, pale, paler 
than normal and puffy. Among the other strange things I'd like to 
know about is the order of filming the scenes. Is there anyway to 
find out that sort of information?
JenD




From trinity61us at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 27 02:47:29 2003
From: trinity61us at yahoo.com (alex fox)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:47:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <b3jgpu+jq8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030227024729.1144.qmail@web14905.mail.yahoo.com>


I just now got back from my 6th viewing, and come to think of it I noticed the same thing. But what is bugging me is, who is the lovely witch seated next to Snape at the end of year banquet? I a;lso noticed her in Flourish and Blotts, and in the teachers box at the quidditch match? Any ideas? I hope she's not supposed to be , as someone said, "that new-agey old fruit bat" Trelawney!
 "susanbones2003 <rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu>" <rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:I just saw CoS for the nth time (can't divulge such topsecret info) 
but I wondered if anyone knew anything about the filming of the 
project. In his first scene, Alan Rickman looks ill. Like he just had 
all his wisdom teeth out or something. Next scene he's in, he looks 
fine,(the one where they discover Mrs. Norris). But in that first 
scene where he confronts Harry and Ron just back from a bit of 
dancing with the Whomping Willow, his face is very weird, pale, paler 
than normal and puffy. Among the other strange things I'd like to 
know about is the order of filming the scenes. Is there anyway to 
find out that sort of information?
JenD


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

________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. 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

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




From urbana at charter.net  Thu Feb 27 03:44:15 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:44:15 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore casting
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226162306.00a25520@pop.cox-internet.com>
Message-ID: <b3k1if+8k0c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Beth <belleps at o...> wrote:
> A friend sent me this new casting rumor...
> 
> "In a bold move earlier today, Warner Bros announced that the part 
of Albus
> Dumbledore in the wildly popular 'Harry Potter' movies would be 
filled by
> none other than Haley Joel Osment.
> 
> "We feel that Haley can really bring some depth to Dumbledore's 
character,"
> noted Warner spokesman John Beguile.  "And the fact that he will 
probably
> last for the next 24 sequels was definitely a plus in his favor."
> 
> When asked for comment, Mr. Osment whispered, "I see endorsement 
contracts."
> 
> More to follow..."

LOL ... there's some major irony here, since allegedly Haley Joel 
Osment was *very* interested in the role of Harry Potter.

> 
> I like the bit about "the next 24 sequels".

My guess is that Haley Joel is growing up just a tad slower than 
Daniel Radcliffe... maybe he'll be able to play Harry when the movie 
of Book 7 comes out...

Anne U
(in 2015!!)







From LeeMunLim03 at aol.com  Thu Feb 27 03:53:24 2003
From: LeeMunLim03 at aol.com (LeeMunLim03 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:53:24 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dumbledore casting
Message-ID: <50.18c9acb3.2b8ee5b4@aol.com>

No, No, No, Radcliffe and company won the roles!!  Not Haley!!  Haley had his 
chance and he didn't take it.  Radcliffe and company all the way!!  Even Tom 
(Draco Malfoy) Felton.

Kyle Longbottom 



In a message dated 2/26/03 10:45:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
urbana at charter.net writes:

> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Beth <belleps at o...> wrote:
> >A friend sent me this new casting rumor...
> >
> >"In a bold move earlier today, Warner Bros announced that the part 
> of Albus
> >Dumbledore in the wildly popular 'Harry Potter' movies would be 
> filled by
> >none other than Haley Joel Osment.
> >
> >"We feel that Haley can really bring some depth to Dumbledore's 
> character,"
> >noted Warner spokesman John Beguile.  "And the fact that he will 
> probably
> >last for the next 24 sequels was definitely a plus in his favor."
> >
> >When asked for comment, Mr. Osment whispered, "I see endorsement 
> contracts."
> >
> >More to follow..."
> 
> LOL ... there's some major irony here, since allegedly Haley Joel 
> Osment was *very* interested in the role of Harry Potter.
> 
> >
> >I like the bit about "the next 24 sequels".
> 
> My guess is that Haley Joel is growing up just a tad slower than 
> Daniel Radcliffe... maybe he'll be able to play Harry when the movie 
> of Book 7 comes out...
> 
> Anne U
> (in 2015!!)
> 



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




From rvotaw at i-55.com  Thu Feb 27 14:50:57 2003
From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:50:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dumbledore casting
Message-ID: <8517212.1046357457509.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com>


Anne wrote:

> My guess is that Haley Joel is growing up just a tad slower than <BR>
> Daniel Radcliffe... maybe he'll be able to play Harry when the movie <BR>
> of Book 7 comes out...<BR>

Hmm, I don't know.  IMDB has Haley Joel at 5'5" while Daniel is only 5'4" at 
the moment.  Haley Joel's also a year older, going on 15.  I think Haley Joel 
has missed his opportunity. :) Which if those rumors had been true way back 
when, would've been a major disaster, just so you know where I stand :) 

I'd still rather see a 25 year old Daniel, 26 year old Rupert, and 24 year old 
Emma any day over the rest of the world! :)

Richelle

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




From firekat482 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 27 15:07:05 2003
From: firekat482 at yahoo.com (firekat482 <firekat482@yahoo.com>)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:07:05 -0000
Subject: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <20030227024729.1144.qmail@web14905.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b3l9ip+j4og@eGroups.com>

alex fox <trinity61us at y...> wrote: 
> I just now got back from my 6th viewing, and come to think of it I 
>noticed the same thing. But what is bugging me is, who is the lovely 
>witch seated next to Snape at the end of year banquet? I a;lso 
>noticed her in Flourish and Blotts, and in the teachers box at the 
>quidditch match? Any ideas? I hope she's not supposed to be , as 
>someone said, "that new-agey old fruit bat" Trelawney!

I hope not either! In fact, I'm pretty sure that she is supposed to 
be Madame Irma Pince, the librarian. At least, that's what I've heard 
from other people. Where was she in Flourish and Blotts? I don't 
remember seeing her there.

~Jean





From urbana at charter.net  Thu Feb 27 18:50:19 2003
From: urbana at charter.net (Anne <urbana@charter.net>)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:50:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore casting
In-Reply-To: <50.18c9acb3.2b8ee5b4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b3lmlb+jto2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, LeeMunLim03 at a... wrote:
> No, No, No, Radcliffe and company won the roles!!  Not Haley!!  
Haley had his 
> chance and he didn't take it.  Radcliffe and company all the way!!  
Even Tom 
> (Draco Malfoy) Felton.
> 
> Kyle Longbottom 
> 

I didn't say I *want* Haley Joel Osment EVER to play Harry Potter... 
I was just commenting on that very clever and snide "rumor" about HJO 
being asked to play Dumbledore :-) Actually I have a feeling HJO will 
end up being a skinny little guy even when he's 26 years old -- 
whereas Daniel probably will not (his father appears to be fairly 
tall, and Dan was already 5'4" tall four months ago... which could 
mean he's 5'6" by now...) I do hope Warner Brothers will take a 90210 
attitude toward the movie casting and let Dan, Rupert and Emma 
continue to play HRH for as long as they want to ...

Anne U
(even when they're 26!)





From LeeMunLim03 at aol.com  Thu Feb 27 21:44:44 2003
From: LeeMunLim03 at aol.com (LeeMunLim03 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:44:44 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dumbledore casting
Message-ID: <1d4.3de5f55.2b8fe0cc@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/27/03 9:58:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, rvotaw at i-55.com 
writes:

> 
> 
> Anne wrote:
> 
> >My guess is that Haley Joel is growing up just a tad slower than 
> 
> >Daniel Radcliffe... maybe he'll be able to play Harry when the movie 
> 
> >of Book 7 comes out...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I don't know.  IMDB has Haley Joel at 5'5" while Daniel is only 5'4" 
> at 
> the moment.  Haley Joel's also a year older, going on 15.  I think Haley 
> Joel 
> has missed his opportunity. :) Which if those rumors had been true way back 
> 
> when, would've been a major disaster, just so you know where I stand :) 
> 
> I'd still rather see a 25 year old Daniel, 26 year old Rupert, and 24 year 
> old 
> Emma any day over the rest of the world! :)
> 
> Richelle
> 

I have to agree with you Richelle!!  All the way baby!!  Plus Tom Felton and 
the rest of the cast!!

Kyle Longbottom 


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




From LeeMunLim03 at aol.com  Thu Feb 27 22:04:03 2003
From: LeeMunLim03 at aol.com (LeeMunLim03 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:04:03 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dumbledore casting
Message-ID: <10f.1f129c53.2b8fe553@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/27/03 1:51:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
urbana at charter.net writes:

> 
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, LeeMunLim03 at a... wrote:
> >No, No, No, Radcliffe and company won the roles!!  Not Haley!!  
> Haley had his 
> >chance and he didn't take it.  Radcliffe and company all the way!!  
> Even Tom 
> >(Draco Malfoy) Felton.
> >
> >Kyle Longbottom 
> >
> 
> I didn't say I *want* Haley Joel Osment EVER to play Harry Potter... 
> I was just commenting on that very clever and snide "rumor" about HJO 
> being asked to play Dumbledore :-) Actually I have a feeling HJO will 
> end up being a skinny little guy even when he's 26 years old -- 
> whereas Daniel probably will not (his father appears to be fairly 
> tall, and Dan was already 5'4" tall four months ago... which could 
> mean he's 5'6" by now...) I do hope Warner Brothers will take a 90210 
> attitude toward the movie casting and let Dan, Rupert and Emma 
> continue to play HRH for as long as they want to ...
> 
> Anne U
> (even when they're 26!)
> 

Me too!  I agree with you and I hope they keep all the minor and major 
characters!!

Kyle Longbottom 


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




From bboy_mn at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 28 01:18:39 2003
From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:18:39 -0000
Subject: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <b3jgpu+jq8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3mddf+gaka@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003 <rdas at f...>"
<rdas at f...> wrote:
> ... In his first scene, Alan Rickman looks ill. Like he just had 
> all his wisdom teeth out or something. Next scene he's in, he looks 
> fine,.... .. that first scene .. he confronts Harry and Ron just back 
> from ... with the Whomping Willow, his face is very weird, pale, paler 
> than normal and puffy. ...edited...
> JenD

bboy_mn:

Well, I will agree with the puffy part. He seems to have gained
weight; his face looks full and his neck looked fat.

Having said that, I think part of it was the way he played the scene,
which I thought was all wrong. You will notice he is crouching, sort
of stoop shouldered, as he moves around his desk and he sort of had
his head pulled back and down which made his neck look fat. I think he
was going for the mean nasty old teacher look, but it didn't create
the intimidating powerful look that Snape needs to have. Even the
camera angle accented the crouched nasty wizard look.

In PS/SS, in the first potions scene, Snape stands tall, his voice is
somewhat soft but intimidating none the less. The camera angle create
the impression that he is both figuratively and literally looking down
his nose at Harry Potter. That's exactly how he should have played the
after the Whomping Willow scene. Standing tall, looking arrogant
instead of nasty, his anger should have radiated a force of power. He
should have towered over Harry and Ron making them cower against his
anger. 

I think this attempt a looking mean and nasty instead made him look
like he just drank some sour milk. 

Just a few thought on something that has always bugged me.

bboy_mn





From hp at plum.cream.org  Fri Feb 28 01:45:37 2003
From: hp at plum.cream.org (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:45:37 +0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <b3mddf+gaka@eGroups.com>
References: <b3jgpu+jq8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20030228012847.0095ee40@plum.cream.org>

Steve <bboy> wrote:

<snip>

>I think this attempt a looking mean and nasty instead made him look
>like he just drank some sour milk.

I'm with those who think he was unwell. Rickman is simply too good an actor 
(and has done enough bad-guy parts) to know how to play a scene like this. 
He was crouched over all the time he was talking to the boys, and for his 
journey around the table, looked like he desperately needed the table for 
support. He looked like he was in physical pain.

Something I find peculiar is that there isn't a single full-body shot of 
him standing up, or a single shot of Rickman's, Harris's and Smith's faces 
in the same frame.

He's doubled-up over the table as he's talking to the boys, then as 
McGonagall and Dumbledore walk in, we have shots from behind Snape's back 
or chest-up shots from his front. This only increases my suspicion that 
they could have used a body double for the shots from behind Snape's back, 
and he could have been seated for his bits of dialogue.

I suspect we'll never know the truth unless someone asks the actors 
involved in the scene, but the whole setup looks very dodgy to me, the 
easiest (and most plausible) explanations IMO being that he was unwell. 
Although I would have expected Columbus to use different shots, and 
certainly for him to have allowed Rickman to stay seated throughout the 
scene if he really was unwell, which just brings us back to a badly-filmed 
and uncharacteristically badly-played scene.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who has a huge backlog of posts to go through and 
many  comments to make, but is about to go away for the weekend and thus 
will have to wait...




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 28 01:46:38 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:46:38 -0000
Subject: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <b3l9ip+j4og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3mf1u+if55@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "firekat482 <firekat482 at y...>" 
<firekat482 at y...> wrote:
> alex fox <trinity61us at y...> wrote: 
> > I just now got back from my 6th viewing, and come to think of it 
I 
> >noticed the same thing. But what is bugging me is, who is the 
lovely 
> >witch seated next to Snape at the end of year banquet? I a;lso 
> >noticed her in Flourish and Blotts, and in the teachers box at the 
> >quidditch match? Any ideas? I hope she's not supposed to be , as 
> >someone said, "that new-agey old fruit bat" Trelawney!
> 
> I hope not either! In fact, I'm pretty sure that she is supposed to 
> be Madame Irma Pince, the librarian. At least, that's what I've 
heard 
> from other people. Where was she in Flourish and Blotts? I don't 
> remember seeing her there.
> 
> ~Jean

Really...Madame Pince...I always thought she was Prof. Sinistra.

Amanda
Acciopotter





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 28 01:46:30 2003
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:46:30 -0800
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20030228012847.0095ee40@plum.cream.org>
References: <b3jgpu+jq8a@eGroups.com>
 <4.2.0.58.20030228012847.0095ee40@plum.cream.org>
Message-ID: <14233882073.20030227174630@earthlink.net>



Hi,

Thursday, February 27, 2003, 5:45:37 PM, hp at plum.cream.org wrote:

> I'm with those who think he was unwell.

I thought so, too.

When I watched the movie for the first time, I was
definitely shocked at the way he had changed from PS.

If he were an acquaintance in RL, I would have rushed up
asking: "Are you feeling okay?".
He looked very white and puffy, and almost ready to faint.

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




From crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Feb 28 01:53:56 2003
From: crookshanks731 at sbcglobal.net (acciopotter <crookshanks731@sbcglobal.net>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:53:56 -0000
Subject: Snape in CoS
In-Reply-To: <14233882073.20030227174630@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <b3mffk+9v9c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thursday, February 27, 2003, 5:45:37 PM, hp at p... wrote:
> 
> > I'm with those who think he was unwell.
> 
> I thought so, too.
> 
> When I watched the movie for the first time, I was
> definitely shocked at the way he had changed from PS.
> 
> If he were an acquaintance in RL, I would have rushed up
> asking: "Are you feeling okay?".
> He looked very white and puffy, and almost ready to faint.
> 
 Here is a theory: Maybe JKR told the direcotr to make Snape look 
that way to support a plot line in an upcoming book..think about 
it..maybe he was just back from a confrontation with the death eaters 
and wasnt feeling well. I t could be something we learn about at a 
later time. I don't thin kthey would have let Mr. Rickman act if he 
couldn't even stand up on his own. I think there is more to this 
story than illness.

Amanda
AccioPotter




From dozierwoman at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 28 12:24:30 2003
From: dozierwoman at hotmail.com (Lisa <dozierwoman@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:24:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore casting
In-Reply-To: <10f.1f129c53.2b8fe553@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b3nkdu+fno0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, LeeMunLim03 at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/27/03 1:51:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> urbana at c... writes:
> 
> > 
> > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, LeeMunLim03 at a... wrote:
> > >No, No, No, Radcliffe and company won the roles!!  Not Haley!!  
> > Haley had his 
> > >chance and he didn't take it.  Radcliffe and company all the 
way!!  
> > Even Tom 
> > >(Draco Malfoy) Felton.
> > >
> > >Kyle Longbottom 
> > >
> > 
> > I didn't say I *want* Haley Joel Osment EVER to play Harry 
Potter... 
> > I was just commenting on that very clever and snide "rumor" about 
HJO 
> > being asked to play Dumbledore :-) Actually I have a feeling HJO 
will 
> > end up being a skinny little guy even when he's 26 years old -- 
> > whereas Daniel probably will not (his father appears to be fairly 
> > tall, and Dan was already 5'4" tall four months ago... which 
could 
> > mean he's 5'6" by now...) I do hope Warner Brothers will take a 
90210 
> > attitude toward the movie casting and let Dan, Rupert and Emma 
> > continue to play HRH for as long as they want to ...
> > 
> > Anne U
> > (even when they're 26!)
> > 
> 
> Me too!  I agree with you and I hope they keep all the minor and 
major 
> characters!!
> 
> Kyle Longbottom 

I am also in total agreement with keeping the same kids in the cast. 
The movies would just not be the same. I don't think I can picture 
anyone else playing Harry, Ron, Hermione, Draco, and the rest of the 
minor players.

Lisa aka Lady Firenze
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sophiamcl at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 28 19:53:12 2003
From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophiamcl <sophiamcl@hotmail.com>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:53:12 -0000
Subject: Cho on screen
Message-ID: <b3oen8+c5c2@eGroups.com>

There have been wispy rumours of Cho casting and nothing that comes even 
close to a confirmation. She is not essential to the main plot in any way, not 
even in GoF (let's face it). Which is not to say that she may important further 
on in the story, but would you say there's a chance that she gets the same 
treatment at Peaves? It would be a great shame, but just how essential is 
she? 
I wouldn't want her out myself--Harry's crush on her is a part of his growing 
up, and it adds a poignancy to Harry's interaction with Cedric in the 
tournament, but considering---ah, what am I talking about! Of course she'll 
be in the movies. There can be NO GoF without the Yule Ball--it's unthinkable, 
right? And the Yule Ball definitely calls for Cho, right? Yeah. She's in--she's 
gotta be.

Sophia (needing some reassurance)   




From rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu  Fri Feb 28 20:12:58 2003
From: rdas at facstaff.wisc.edu (susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:12:58 -0000
Subject: Cho on screen
In-Reply-To: <b3oen8+c5c2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b3ofsa+684u@eGroups.com>

Sophia opined in regards to Cho:
She is not essential to the main plot in any way, not 
> even in GoF (let's face it). Which is not to say that she may 
important further 
> on in the story, but would you say there's a chance that she gets 
the same 
> treatment at Peaves? It would be a great shame, but just how 
essential is 
> she? 

Oh Sophia, dear, she is a love interest. I'd say they'd get rid of 
Oliver Wood (Wood sobbing into Harry's shoulder clutching the 
Quidditch cup is something I have waited rather patiently to see...)  
in PoA way before her. See how they've rushed the Hermione/Ron thing? 
A full year and a half (WW timeline, that is) before it really shows 
itself. I am much more afraid there will be more than one shy smile 
exchanged in this one. But I have resigned myself. The books are the 
books, the movies are the movies and when they intersect, YIPPEE!! 
The book Harry is capable of acid replies to Snape. The movie Harry 
can only look up in quiet bewilderment. But the movie Harry does get 
to talk back to Lucius Malfoy... Hey, have you all discussed the 
utter absurdity of Movie Lucius pulling out his wand and beginning 
the AV curse? This guy is over the top!! Why do all these movie folk 
claim to love the books yet they haven't the foggiest (sometimes)
notion of the way the WW works? They must have read the Cliffnotes. 
But I digress...

Do I make a case for Cho?
> Sophia (needing some reassurance)
JenD, hoping she reassured...




From artsylynda at aol.com  Fri Feb 28 21:34:18 2003
From: artsylynda at aol.com (artsylynda at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:34:18 EST
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Dumbledore casting
Message-ID: <142.bcd6c64.2b912fda@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/28/2003 12:36:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com writes:

> Haley Joel at 5'5" while Daniel is only 5'4" at 
> the moment.  Haley Joel's also a year older, going on 15.  I think Haley 
> Joel 
> has missed his opportunity. :) Which if those rumors had been true way back 
> 
> when, would've been a major disaster, just so you know where I stand :) 
> 
> I'd still rather see a 25 year old Daniel, 26 year old Rupert, and 24 year 
> old 
> Emma any day over the rest of the world! :)
> 
> Richelle
> 

Well,  he never really was in the running, was he?  JKR insisted on an all 
Brit cast to the point where there was some grumbling about some girl who was 
born in Australia rather than Britain, from some article I read.  And I also 
read some quotes from Haley Joel that made me REALLY glad he didn't get the 
part -- he sounded downright rude about playing Harry, like it was beneath 
him.  Sounded like sour grapes to me!  And I, too, would rather watch our 
current stars into their twenties than have them replaced.  Sure hope the 
"powers that be" will listen to us!  Has anyone in the fandom figured out how 
to let the producers know our opinions on such things?

Lynda Sappington
 <A HREF="http://www.thesculptedhorse.com/">Equine Art by Lynda Sappington</A>  Elegant equine art in bronze, cold-cast 
porcelain, handcast paper and resin.  Also jewelry with an equine theme in 
14K gold and sterling silver.


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