[HPFGU-Movie] Re: The Importance of Being Flint

[LeeMunLim03 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/27/03 6:38:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
suzloua at hotmail.com writes:

> 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...


First response they could!!!

> 
> 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.


Me too but remember the director also wants to be faithful to the loyal 
fanbase as well.

> 
> 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.


True but it seems its becoming more and more a kids film!!  Which is 
baaaaaadddddd !!!

> 
> 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?
You are 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? 


No two separate things!  They cancelled t.v series becuase he want to a porn 
theatre and jerked off!  The other charge was he was out and they didnt have 
a warrent to come into his house and found questionable material!


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.

Yes the parents made the T.V series go under since Pual Ruebens got horny and 
jerked off in public!  Like other people havent done that and regretted it!!  
We have to condome him for it since he is doing a Kids t.v show!! 


 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. 

In all honesty your right I proably will but the Goblet and the Order of the 
Phoneix is questiable sorry dont know how to spell!


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. 
> 

Too True.

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. 

Very true which I am learning now.

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.


No but I still want the same cast!!!  I think the Goblet will do better then 
the rest but by that time the movies will have sucked (tom the innkeeper is 
being played by someone else now!!)


 (which I don't think woudl be SUCH a bad thing - PS and CoS sucked compared 
to 
> the books, but they weren't unwatchable)


You thought the movies sucked!!  I loved the movies and  I thought the 
chamber wasnt going to be a good one but it was excellent!!

> 
> 
> 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.


Well for that question I think using Kenneth Branagh us a bad example since 
his in only one film!  I agree it very debatable about the younger cast 
memebers!

> 
> 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?


I dont think they are different but I think its like  Luke Skyewalker can't 
spell it!  Okay now in the middle of filming lets change the cast since  
Radcliffe and company are leaving and there really not happy anymore.  
Remember this is a business!  Your not always going to be happy in what you 
do!  I don't think the kids  are our personal property but just think what 
would happen if Rupert, Dan or Emma decided to quit???

It irks me that people think Harry Potter is going be be hot if they recast 
every roll!!

> 
> " 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. 

No its not but on the other hand do you really think the last film is going 
to be as hot as the first and 2nd one???  If they care about there fans they 
will still.  

Obvisuosly yes, maybe not you personally.

 
> 
> 
> <<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.


Yes I do agree on that with 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).

Fandom his its place!  I think it would be unwise not to keep at least 
hogwarts alive!  Harry its debateable!  Well here on the impact matter!  Fans 
do have a voice but it seems to me that people just want the films to be made 
without any intgrety (Can't  spell it).  Well will have to see about Harry 
Potter future since its so much up in the air now.



> 
> <<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). 


Oh sorry English wasnt my favorite subject

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 ;)


Well I think it does becuase Harry Potter is a runaway train but if they hear 
enough voices they will bend over backwards for us!!  Since  people think 
there isnt going to be much we can do okay I am resigned to the fact Harry 
Potter is going to sh(t in a  hand basket! 
> 
> 
> 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 :)


I think he was since a article said he was shooting X-Men one day and off the 
to the Lord of the Rings the next!!  Its stressful being in the entertainment 
business.

> 
> 
> 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...)


Well I do admit that sequels can do good but I am very worried about Harry 
Potter and company!!  If the recast Tom the innkeeper is Dudley next???

> 
> <<They made 4 never ending storys! >>
> 
> REALLY?? I *loved* the Neverending Story!! Aw, now I wanna watch it...


My point is made!!!  

 







I loved it too but when they recast everybody it just got like why are they 
waste our time and there's!!  Now I will admit Harry Potter is very different 
but when your making a film of this proportions you want the same cast 
regardless!!!   

> 
> <<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?)


My other point made!!!  yes thats the question who know???

> 
> <<I 
> 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.


It hurts!!!  It really hurts!!

> 
> <<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, 


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?)


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



Yes and I am obessed too but with the movies I don't know!!  Like someone 
else said the movies and books are going to be very different and as you said 




> 
> <<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...


I think there more interested in the money not our the loyal fanbase

> 
> <<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.


Well they should of done it that way but didnt!!

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


why then is Elijah wood still recognized as a child actor???  He was a 
nominaee for a kids award and his now 23 or 24 maybe younger but an adult! 
> 
> 
> 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?


Yes I do agree with you on that but I would stay in Harry Potter until the 
end!!  Why does the director think or Steve Kloves think having the same cast 
will be not good!!!!!!  There in school for god sakes!!  Its like they want 
them not to grow up!!  I liked National Lapoons Vacation but it wasnt the 
same without the orignal cast and it wasnt as good!!  

> 
> <<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... 


True but remember there growing up and changing too the kids!  You really 
think Dan is going to make it??  Its going to be interesting seeing where all 
their careers go!!  As for the adults Gary Oldman I think is very verstile 
actor and I think he is not as pivotal as the rest of the older cast Rickman 
and Smith.  I think for the Adults your proably right but you never know!!  
If Harry Potter gets to be real big I think the adults will be stuck as well 
but again you never know!!

> 
> :)
> 
> Susan

Kyle Longbottom 

Hufflepuff Prefect 


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