Collection of short(ish) comments

[Richard]

A collection of replies to several threads, in no particular order. Please 
change the subject line to something more appropriate if responding.

At 22:39 19/01/2006 , Regina wrote:
>I'm disappointed that the movie's do not show more of what Harry is
>capable of. <snip>  In the GOF movie Harry was not shown shaking off the 
>imperious curse.  The movie also decided to show Cedric fight off Krum in the
>maze when indeed it was Harry who stupefied Krum.  Shouldn't more of these 
>hints be included in the movies?

On the contrary, as I've said before, one of the main ways in which 
Movie!Harry differs from Book!Harry is that the movies don't make any 
effort to show that Harry is, in most ways, an intensely average student. 
At the same time, they slightly *over*do his inherent magical abilities: 
his Expeliarmuses seem more powerful than others', he manages the Patronus 
with almost ease, his duel with Voldemort didn't appear to demand *too* 
much of him, we didn't see him practicing his Accio, etc., etc.

Showing him overcoming the Imperius would have been a bit much, especially 
as one of the points of the DADA lesson was to make it clear that he's the 
only one to have survived the AK. Having Cedric overcome Krum was there to 
show Harry being heroic, and having *him* notice that something's "off", 
rather than just blasting. It made a great deal of sense - it also gave 
Cedric something to do.


At 14:07 17/01/2006 , Jen D wrote:

>I didn't notice that no one else had glasses. I have noticed that
>Harry's glasses (the style) have changed. His first little glasses
>were wire and his current ones look more substantial.

As a "four-eyes" myself, I must admit that I noticed very early that no 
other pupil wears spectacles. Having came to the books on the back of the 
first movie, it surprised me to learn that Percy (to name but one) is 
specifically mentioned in the books as requiring specs, and (not 
surprising, as myopia is usually genetic in  the male line) so does Arthur 
Weasley. I was disappointed when Williams wasn't given them to wear when 
playing the character, especially as he wears specs himself (though not 
usually in public). And then it turns out that so does Chris Rankin.

As for Harry's own specs, I once thought they'd changed between CoS and PoA 
as well, but did some screencaps a while ago from the first three films and 
couldn't find any differences. And I haven't noticed any in comparing them 
to GoF either.

Incidentally, and this may be news to some of the Americans, the people who 
make my own specs market an HP range for kids. They were engaged to design 
Harry's specs for the movies, and as part of the deal got the licence 
rights to market a range with the logo. The bizarre thing is that they make 
them in several shapes and colours, not only black-rimmed round ones...

http://www.danda.co.uk/opticians/kids_at_danda/harrypotter.asp


At 16:34 21/01/2006 , Crystal Williams wrote:

>The PoA was way to changed for me because I remeber when I came out of the 
>theather for PoA I couldn't be quiet with how much was chaged and how I 
>didn't like it to much. To me GoF was way better then PoA but like 
>everyone else said it did lack some emotional punch. I did really like the 
>graveyard scene but then again I agree it could be to early to say to much 
>about the GoF. I should have the movie by next week or something so then I 
>should be able to tell after watching a few more times and being able to 
>replay and stuff.

Much, much more was changed in GoF, so I'm a bit surprised at the 
continuing sentiment that PoA somehow "changed too much". Incidentally, 
just curious: how come you're expecting to have the movie "by  next week" 
(i.e. this week) when it's not due to come out for another six weeks? -:)


--
Richard, expecting to make a couple more "combination" posts in the coming week.