The Marauders' Map, was Harry and Sirius

[nicholas dean]

>Richard said:-
>Incidentally, I can't believe that it struck me only this moment that the
>ideal way/place to establish as succinctly (if not as obviously) as
>possible the related issue of the Map's authorship is not through
>expositionary dialogue at all: assuming that Snape's Pensieve scene makes
>it into OotP (and I can't see it not doing so), simply have WMPP use their
>noms-de-plume while sitting under the tree (which they sort-of do in the
>book anyway). Not only that, but perhaps have them using the map as well
>(just to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's).

My attention has been distracted from HPFGU-M recently by a 
discussion on another list on the subject of elements missing from 
the PoA and GoF movies, and whether or not the plotlines which do 
remain in the movies actually make sense. I mentioned the explanation 
of the identities of the writers of the Marauders' Map as an example 
of something  which was not crucial to the storyline, but which added 
immensely to the emotional satisfaction for the reader, and would 
have done the same for the movie audience. I believe it was Jen who 
said something similar on this list.

I appreciate Richard's point, above, but experience of PoA and GoF 
has shown that the directors are not keen to bring in elements which 
do not rightly belong in 'their' plots. There is some justification 
for this, since they have to condense the books so much that it would 
seem unnecessary to add irrelevant material. A scene such as you 
describe, Richard, would indeed serve the purpose of identifying MWP 
and P, but as this will be a flashback scene, the director of OoP 
will also have to ensure that it is clear that it is James, Sirius, 
Lupin and Pettigrew who are on screen....he may not want the added 
complication of their 'noms de guerre'. On the other hand, if we are 
to take GoF as a model, the director of OoP may have the same 
expectations as Newell; that pretty much everyone who will watch the 
movie will have read the book, so they don't have to be crystal clear 
about everything. As I said in my original review, I think this is a 
mistake.

On which subject; did anyone else see the article in the January 
issue of 'Empire'; 'Harry Potter and the what of huh'? where they run 
through some of the less-clear plot points of GoF for the benefit of 
those seeing the film without having read the book. Rather 
embarrasssing for the director, scriptwriter and story editor....

Glad to know that I was not the only one who thought the storytelling 
somewhat lacking...

Cheers,
Nicholas