The Importance of Being Flint

[Susan Atherton]

Oh, Kyle. We do argue over the silliest things :)

You wrote:
No you really don't need Flint but why cut flint and the whole Quidditch 
scene if everybody loves it???  

I reply:
Because certain things have to go! Look, as I've said many time before, I'm a major advocate for keeping Quidditch, I'm written several posts on the importance of Quidditch in PoA, particularly the Hufflepuff match, but the script is done! If they've already written it out, then it's gone. I think it completely sucks, but as I've said before - I would sacrifice Quidditch, seeing the Firebolt in action, Sir Cadogan, even ~steels self to say it~ the Boggart lesson, if it means we get a good climax. The Shrieking Shack scene is SO important to the story, and the Time Turner rescue, if done properly, would add the action and tension usually introduced via Quidditch. 

That said, I *really* hope they don't cut the Boggart lesson...

The thing we need to accept is that Cuaron is not making our movie. The only person who would make a PoA to completely satisfy me is me. The only person who would make a PoA to completely satisfy you is you. Cuaron is making his movie, not ours. I have faith in him that it will be a worthwhile film - I'm just doubtful as to how well it well stand up to my vision of PoA in my head.

I said:
I would've liked to see Wood, but the 
> decision has been made and there's not a huge amount of point bitching 
> about it now. (Like that's stopped us before... ;) )

Kyle said:
Well why do you feel nothing can get done???  No we are not workers 
protesting pay for Harry Potter but on the other hand if we don't like 
something we well make it not air anymore!  Think Pee-Wee Playhouse.  You may 
say there is a difference but how??  We picketed and it left the air waves.  

And I say:
I assume you are talking about the issues over striking on the set about the wages. That's a completely different issue. Striking over pay is not about Harry Potter. It's about being paid what they feel they deserve. (The more cynical among us might say "being paid whatever they feel they can squeeze out of the WB/HP franchise"; I don't know what their current wages are or what they're asking, so I can't really say.) It has nothing to do with Harry and his chums; on the contrary, it could have happened on any film.

And Pee-Wee's Playhouse - yeah I say there's a difference! Okay, I'm English and we never got it over here, so you'll have to give me a certain amount of leeway here. I know it's that thing with Paul Reubens that looked seventeen different types of awful (they did show the movie one afternoon on satellite - I watched it for about five minutes out of curiousity). That was a TV show for preschoolers, am I correct? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm really not sure of what age group it was aimed at. Please correct me if I'm wrong) Meaning that they had a limited audience in the first place. I don't know why it was picketed (something to do with Reuben's charges about certain things being found on his PC? I don't know when it was, either, so you'll have to help me out), but I'd warrant that most of the parents got behind it and made a big stink over whatever disturbed them so. If it WAS the pictures on his computer, then of course it got cancelled - the general policy of most companies is to immediately distance themselves from any kind of negative publicity in the area of sex crime lawsuits. I don't know if non-Brits will get the reference, but look at the John Leslie rape thing, or all that stuff with Matthew Kelly. Both were sacked IMMEDIATELY, without any kind of ado - guilty until proven innocent, as far as the media is concerned. Matthew Kelly was proven innocent, so he got his job back - John Leslie, on the other hand, is still out in the cold. When that Blue Peter presenter was snapped by the paparazzi taking cocaine, he was sacked instantly too - when kids presenters do anything, it's even more touchy.

If it WASN'T the pics on his PC - well, I just rambled for a paragraph. Sorry :) But either way, the total boycott of everything Pee-Wee would have had an impact. But you know full well, Kyle, that everyone in this fandom will go to see PoA when it comes out, yourself included. The HP fandom worldwide is just too big - and a lot of them are kids, who don't care about the subtle subplots, they just want to see Harry. Doing anything. They'd watch Harry watching paint dry, for crying out loud :) The only thing WB would listen to is a boycott, because then they'd have to watch their little brown cash cow keel over. And the chances of enough people boycotting to make any sort of impact are tiny. The first movie is the second biggest grossing film of all time - literally millions of us would have to boycott to get them to change their minds, and it still wouldn't work until PoA comes out, because people can *say* they'll boycott all they want, but unless they actually do it, GoF will go ahead without fan input too. (which I don't think woudl be SUCH a bad thing - PS and CoS sucked compared to the books, but they weren't unwatchable)


I said:
Although we can discuss 
> whether or not we'd like to see a new cast or keep the old one, we won't 
> get much of a choice; if Dan decides he doesn't want to be 

inserted by Kyle:
(how do we know 
> Dan or the rest havent been pigeonholed right now or Alan Rickman, Robbie 
> Coltrane etc, etc !!) 
I say: Er, because Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane have had long-standing acting careers for years (ditto Maggie Smith, Gemma Jones, Miriam Margolyes, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman etc). I really don't think history will look back on Kenneth Branagh and say "ah, Lockhart" rather than "ah, Hamlet". As for Dan and the rest - well, that's debatable as to whether or not they've already been stereotyped. If they have, no wonder they want to get out now.

me again:
pigeonholed as Harry forever, or Emma falls in love 
> and emigrates, or Rupert decides to concentrate on his exams rather than 
> his acting, or Tom decides to do something crazy like concentrate on his 
> fishing... 

He said:
Well if we as the audience really want the cast to stay the same then we can 
tell them they have to stay or we won't go see the film!  

So I say:
I'm sorry, but this is irking me more and more. You are acting as though these kids are our personal property, just because they're famous. They're kids, for crying out loud! I just gave you a bunch of examples for why they might not stay, you need to take that into consideration! If they decide they don't want to do it anymore - let's take Felton as an example, because he's close to or actually already has decided to quit - then it's unbelievably arrogant of us to say "Tom, we, people you've never met, know what's best for you. You must continue to do the Harry Potter movies." If he wants to be a fisherman, so what? It does blow, because he's a great Draco - I think he's one of three people in that film who were cast PERFECTLY - but to say he should be denied the same opportunities and freedom as any other child is horrible. I don't know if you have kids, but you'd kill yourself trying to see them happy, any parent would - what makes you think the Watsons, Feltons, Radcliffes and Grints are any different?

" they have to stay or we won't go see the film!"
Hmmm. Do you really think they'll care if they aren't in it? Not *their* problem.  

<<So you telling me 
and others if they (WB) revamp the whole cast then we the public should just 
accept it and go on???>>

Yeah, pretty much. If you don't want to watch them, don't watch them - doesn't mean you'll stop everyone else doing, particularly the kid factor.

<<When Sir Arthuer Conan Doyle Killed Holmes there was 
much protest and he brought him back to life for one last adventure.>>

Holmes was fictional. BIG difference. If we were talking about rowing with JKR over writing an eighth book (which I dont' doubt will happen when bk7 has been published) it would be a different matter entirely. You are talking about the movies, which impact on many people's lives - the cast, the crew, the producers and directors, plus the non-filming people (editors, marketing people, etc). JKR has herself, her editor, and her publisher to think about - that's it. If she doesn't want to write any more HP, she doesn't have to - she's  not putting anyone out of a job, nor is she disappointing her fans (this is assuming she will continue to write, jsut not about Harry).

<<So I guess we should let Harry Potter be in the hands of Warner Brothers and we 
shouldnt have our voice heard becuase there going to do what they want 
regardless.>>

No no, if you want to petition, go ahead. But as I've said above, I'm just warning you that you might waste an awful lot of effort over something we can't really change.
  
<<Wonders why anybody would not want to at least do acting part time???  It 
does have it perks!  Why can't Felton do both???  Shakes head wondering why 
not live life to the fullest.
Shakes head in disbelief that we can destroy a T.V series but not a movie!  I 
guess since Harry Potter is so big we just need to tuck our tails between our 
legs and not do anything? Right??  I hope Tom and all the cast can go behind 
harry potter but again acting is a fickle business!>>

Felton probably *could* do both - HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO!!! He (for some god only knows reason!) thinks fishing is living life to the full (not fullest, that's not a word, love). Fair play to him - who are we to decided what does and does not signify living life to the full? And you aren't talking about destroying any old movie. Harry Potter is a runaway train of merchandise and franchising. It'd be like trying to stop McDonalds from introducing a new item on the menu, or making Coca-Cola stop producing Diet Coke. And yes, I'm thinking about the New Coke thing now, but it doesn't fit into my argument, so I'm ignoring it ;) 

Kyle said:
there is always ways to keep actors on board!  Ian Mckellan was shooting X-Man and 
Lord of the Rings at the same time!!  So Devon Murray could stay on doing 
both!  If he wants to!   

I say:
Key words: if he wants to. 

And McKellen is an adult, and an experienced theatre actor. He is a) used to long hard days and b) allowed to work more than 4hrs a day - not to mention c) no he wasn't - he did LOTR in New Zealand and X-Men in Hollywood, so although he did them close together, he wasn't literally doing one day on one set and one on another. Unless, of course, he was doing eleven hour flights every other day :)


He also said:
Why is Inspector Gadget going straight to home viewing instead of being in 
theatres???  Why is The never ending story in home viewing if its such a good 
film??  

I respond:
I'd imagine it's because the script sucks. You are making the mistake many people are making - that the sequels can only get worse because that's what sequels do. As a rule, yes, that's what sequels do - but we already know the plot of the next two movies, and we know it's solid. The tough thing is getting all the plot in there, not trying desperately to fill because the plot is too flimsy. (Step forward, Cruel Intentions 2...)

<<They made 4 never ending storys! >> 

REALLY?? I *loved* the Neverending Story!! Aw, now I wanna watch it...

<<Does anybody know about the 4th 
one???  Now they proably will make all 7 films but how good will it be if 
they recast everybody??? >> 

We'll never know until we watch them (although I'm betting not great. Again though, they haven't been great so far, so who knows?)

<<I am sure the Goblet will do good work but its not 
going to be the same without radcliffe being harry potter or the rest of the 
cast being there!  I am finding out people really don't care about the movies 
as much as they do about the books! >> 

Of course we don't. Duh.

<<Do you really think your going to get 
the fans, old young, teen guys and girls if they keep doing what there doing 
to the movies of Harry Potter???   >>

Hell yeah. In case you'd forgotten, Pottermania hit the headlines with serious determination when GoF was published in June 2000 - that's eighteen months earlier than the PS movie, Dec 2001. And compare the anticipation of waiting for the CoS DVD to waiting for June 21. Although people are still lookign forward to it, it's not the rabid, almost frenzied pre-ordering and party-at-midnight-at-the-book-store planning and booking-the-day-off-work-to-read-it-as-soon-as-I-buy-it stuff that's going on with OotP. On this newsgroup alone, we're dissecting every word of the two paragraphs. We're pulling to pieces the three covers. We're obsessed :D

<<Why do we have more desire to Destroy Pee-Wee's Play house but let the powers 
that be destroy Harry Potter or change it to their own interpretation of the 
books??? >> 

Oh, now you're just being silly! Interpreting the books their own way is what changing something to a new medium is all about. And you are using two different definitions of "destroy" - we wanted to get rid of PWPH (well, you guys did. I didn't really care.) TPTB do *not* want to get rid of HP - he's the reason they all bought boats last year...

<<Why have the same cast for Lord of the Rings but not Harry 
Potter???  Why is that a problem???  >>

Because LOTR was shot back to back. Harry is being shot, released, shot, released, shot...etc. The cast all signed up for 1 long movie cut into three parts - the HP cast didn't.

<<Do you really think that Elijah Wood is going to go far in his career??>> 

Probably. Orlando Bloom's had a bunch of offers off the back of Fellowship, he's now worked with Heath Ledger and Johnny Depp. I don't doubt Thewlis will get the same. And Elijah Wood was already an established star before LOTR - that's like saying "Do you think Liv Tyler is going to go far in her career?"

<<Like I said before the business of acting is a fickle business!  You never know if one or two of this actors from Harry Potter will be in a t.v series or another movie.  >>

Very true. But denying them that option by insisting they stay in HP? You gotta let them spread their wings! Maybe they won't make it - but they're allowed to try, aren't they?

<<In all likely hood will any of this actors really be famous and be able to go on behind Harry Potter??  I 
don't think so unless they really disappear for awhile and come back!  But 
even then its diffcult!  Not impossiable but diffcult.>>

Again, very true. That's why I think only one of the four principals will make it, probably Dan. (I'd've said Tom, but he's allegedly quitting acting altogether, not just HP) However, that's the kids I'm talking about - people only know them for HP, they've never done anything else. Hopefully you're talking about the same thing - if you're actually suggesting Alan Rickman or Gary Oldman or Maggie Smith will have trouble finding roles after Harry... 

:)

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]