[HPFGU-Movie] Digest Number 1239

[GulPlum]

At 21:45 23/06/05 , artsylynda at aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 6/23/2005 12:59:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>GulPlum  (Richard) said:
>I was therefore a bit surprised to find that (presumably on  the insistence
>of Dan's parents), principal photography for GoF wasn't  started last summer
>instead of waiting until the start of the school term.  The same goes for
>OotP, starting in the new year, rather than this  summer.
>
>I *think* Dan is meant to be taking his GCSEs next year
>
>He took some "huge exams" in January of this year, according to the
>newsletter he sent fans (which was posted on DanRadcliffe.com 
>and  DanRadcliffe.co.uk) -- wouldn't those have been the GCSEs?

It's possible, because GCSE (and A Level) exams usually have two sessions, 
in May-June (as per OotP) and February. However, the February sessions are 
*usually* reserved for those re-taking failed exams from the previous 
summer session. On the other hand, as I said before, there is no age limit 
on when pupils can take their exams (and it's possible to split them over 
several sessions), and thus it's possible that Dan took GCSEs in those 
subjects he feels best at early and will take the rest either in the 
current session, or next February or June (I did something similar myself 
almost 30 years ago). One of the good things about the British education 
system (which in some respects is also one of the bad things) is its 
flexibility.

The thing is, it's also possible that the exams he took in February were 
preparatory ones (the system has changed since my time, but 30 years ago, 
there was a session of "mock" exams after the Christmas break).

In summary, however, the best answer I can give is that anything could be 
read into the comments that are out there (I didn't know about the 
newsletter). I would expect that we'll get some kind of inkling as to Dan's 
future education plans later in the summer after the national GCSE exam 
results are announced (as I recall, second Thursday of August); that's when 
he'll know how he did, assuming that he took some in February and is taking 
more now.

>Why would Dan's parents insist on photography starting at a certain  time if
>he's not doing other projects -- unless they're trying to make sure 
>he  gets a
>certain amount of vacation time??  And how do you know this?  I  haven't seen
>any articles stating that, but I'm in the US and not privy to all  the
>articles you are in the UK, unless someone posts them online.

Please re-read what I wrote. Any connection between delays in production 
and Dan's plans are an *assumption* on my part. I know that the start of 
PoA (or was it GoF?) principal photography was delayed for a few months 
because he was starting at a new school and his parents wanted him to 
settle in.

I can think of no reason why the production team would *want* to delay 
starting OotP until after the new year: whilst British weather is far from 
certain at any time of year, you're pretty much guaranteed bad weather (and 
short days) in January, February and March. Why not take advantage of the 
longer, warmer days and more predictable weather during the summer? As far 
as I know, Leavesden has stood unoccupied since GoF wrapped principal 
photography several months ago, which would have given the designers, etc, 
time to do what they need to do for a summer shoot. Delaying the shoot by 
six months also delays release by six months. Instead of feasibly attaining 
a Christmas 2006 release, the best they can do is summer 2007.

So the question remains, why the delay, and who caused it? My own best bet 
is the movie's leading man, without whose presence not much can be done.

As for taking on another project, we can only speculate about how long 
negotiations were going on and when the decision was taken, but it was 
announced that OotP wouldn't start filming until after the new year well 
before GoF wrapped. I somehow doubt that serious conversations about the 
Australian project were already under way.

Which brings us back to the original point: if Dan's going to be in 
Australia for a few months, I expect it means that he won't be planning on 
going back to school in the news school year (except, perhaps, for sitting 
a few GCSEs in February).

>Thanks for the explanations of all the various things about age  limitations
>in the UK.  So if kids are allowed in pubs at age 14, why are  Third Years
>(13) allowed in the Three Broomsticks?  I'm thoroughly  confused.  Thanks for
>info!

Probably for the same reason that the age of "adulthood" in the wizarding 
world is 17 rather than 18: plot convenience. The wizarding certainly 
doesn't follow all aspects of the Muggle world (never mind the real one), 
so there's no reason for JKR not to adhere to our expectations of what 
happens when.