Various PoA answers

[susanbones2003]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Theresa" <anmsmom333 at c...> 
wrote:
> 
> ME:I would have to agree that HP and Star Wars are different but 
so 
> are Dan and Mark. (snip)
 I do  think Dan is a better actor than Mark though. There are so 
many scenes in the original 3rd Star Wars film that I watch now and 
> think "gosh Luke that was cheesy" and that is after he had acted 
in many other things including the first two films. 
> Theresa
> Who is jealous of the number of times Alice has seen POA having 
only 
> seen it twice myself. But it is coming to our IMAX here soon 
(July). 
> Yeah!

Jennifer here,
I didn't mean to make a one-to-one comparison of Mark and Dan. I was 
only referring to the phenomenon of being in a really big movie and 
being (for a while anyway) instantly recognizable around the world. 
Dan was a very heart-warming little chap in "David Copperfield." He 
made my daughter sob when he showed up at Aunt Sally's barefoot and 
raggedy. I have to wonder if the directors understand what he's 
capable of. I loved the bits where he showed strong emotion and I 
just felt in my gut he had much more in him that they weren't 
prepared to use. Harry should have gotten to struggle with the 
Patronus charm longer. That would have made much more of an impact 
when he finally got it right. It would have added so much depth to 
our understanding of the turmoil of wanting to be invincible but 
being afraid you'd never hear those voices again, voices you can't 
remember ever hearing before. So I give Dan credit. He made the 
movie come alive for those of us who love the story itself. The 
scenery and the style of film-making were fabulous but, and this is 
what I think is at the crux of all this debate, I think Cuaron made 
his movie using HP as useful source material. There were several 
instances when what he did was clever, but it wasn't HP. Now I love 
the film, but I really loved the original story and would have loved 
to see it more evident in the film but, as JKR said, it was his 
baby. I just couldn't understand such things as a "Tom" that looked 
more like the uncle on Addams family than the klndly toothless 
innkeeper I had heard about. I couldn't understand why we needed the 
comic relief of the shrunken heads. I thought the original scene was 
perfectly comic as it was. I couldn't understand motivations for 
things. Why did Fudge and McGonnagal seem to be rushing to explain 
the situation to Madam Rosemerta? I knew that this book wouldn't be 
easy to adapt, but I didn't know we'd have to sacrifice so much of 
the plot and plausability. I could go on but I won't. You may have 
heard all this before. I still love the movie and will see it again. 

Jennifer, who started out cheering for Dan and ended on a slight 
rant. Apologies....