Shorthand in Film(was dark films, but morphed)

[susanbones2003]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> Jen:
> > I can't speak for Lizzie but alot of people really find 
his "Hitler"
> > look quite repulsive. Cuaron intoduced the new Flitwick look and
> > therefore has "alot to answer for." And no need to go over the DD
> > thing again! I am sure if Flitwick had been a more central 
character
> > that had been established in the first two films (ala the 
inemitable
> > Mr. Rickman) and had not died, no director would have messed with
> > his character's look. Who would have dared mess with Rickman 
after
> > he delivered his first speech in such quietly menacing tones????
> 
> > >
> kchuplis:
> 
> Huh. I guess you can tell that didn't bug me. I think a charm just 
went
> wrong in his class ;)

Jen here again,
It's interesting, what bugs people about the adaptations and the 
choices made. Some things don't ruffle my feathers that really 
bother others. People will swear the 3rd film was the most artful, 
the most delightful, the most whimisical and the most daring and 
adventurous. Then there are others who will never see that film 
again, knowing there were so many wonderful things deleted, the 
Shrieking Shack was a truncated, speed-demon of a scene, that Cuaron 
spent so much time on his whimsy, time that could have been spent 
actually telling the story JKR wrote. It's funny but I don't think 
there is really any accounting for it. I think I gave up having any 
preconceived ideas about what the films will look like, contain, how 
they will end. That seems to be the best way to go at it, knowing 
the unlike the books, they are group efforts!
Jen D.