[HPFGU-Movie] Re: where was Harry's big scene?

[Sue Wartell]

I've interspersed my comments to save having to repeat Carol's comments.


Carol responds:



Unfortunately, we didn't see Trelawney rising from the Pensieve,

didn't hear the whole Prophecy (and the DEs heard it the same part

that LV had already heard, so LV has no reason to be angry with

Lucius), 



>>Sue now:

But that is actually a reason for him to be angry - he wanted to hear the REST of the prophecy, and now he can't.  He was sure there was more.



Carol again:

and there was nothing about the eavesdropper, which

eliminates the big reveal of the eavesdropper being Snape, as Harry

learns in HBP. Could lead to problems with both the HBP and DH movies.


>>Sue now:
I don't see it that way - I think finding out that Snape told Voldemort about the prophecy will have a tremendous impact on Harry, irrespective of whether he knew ahead of time that someone was eavesdropping on the prophecy. 


Carol again:

Same with eliminating Lily's bit part. She was cast; it must have been

filmed. Why let the editors cut it? And we also lose Harry's moment of

empathy with young Snape and his (temporary) disillusionment with his

arrogant, bullying father. Some things should not be cut.


>>Sue now:
I agree entirely!  Actually I'm very disappointed with the  loss of many of the details, and I would like to have seen all of these scenes, too.  What I am disagreeing with is the idea that it will cause heartburn in the film makers of the coming films.  They've had no trouble reconfiguring the grounds between movies, or substituting one Dumbledore for another (though they didn't have a choice there, of course.)  They changed Flitwick.  They've added and deleted bits of the buildings without any comment (shrunken heads in the Three Broomsticks???, and that long covered walkway/bridge at the school, for examples off the top of my head.)  Also worth noting is that things that are critical in the next picture will have to be shown in context in that picture.  So for the locket, for example, even if they had showed them trying to open it and failing in this film, they would have had to flash back to that scene, or have someone recount the story in the last
 film, if they even care about the fact that the trio saw it before.  Film makers seem to have a different set of conventions about sequels than novelists.  They seem much less interested in planting clues in one episode to be reaped in another episode.  (Just my observation, and I'm not a big film buff, so I may be basing my opinion on a sample size that is too small to be representative.)

I enjoy the movies, but they are not the same as the books - different media, different story-telling conventions, different timeframes for the action to unfold.  In general, I prefer books to movies.  And I think each of the Harry Potter movies should have been at least 30 min. longer than it was.  But that's not the way the filmmakers have chosen to tell the story.  I wish it were different, but so it goes.



 











       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]