Another teaser analysis (with photos)

[julie]

Carol wrote:
> 
> The analysis is slightly flawed, IMO. For example, the writer seems 
to
> accept the implication of the teaser that the "most important" 
memory
> is that of Tom in the orphanage whereas we know from the book that 
the
> most important memory is Slughorn's. Either the movie has it wrong 
(in
> which case, why bother to cast Slughorn and a teenage Voldemort?) or
> the teaser has misleadingly conflated two different Pensieve scenes
> (easy to do with a Dumbledore who seldom or never changes his
> costume). Also, the analysis has mistakenly labeled the orphanage
> scene as taking place in fifties London when it actually takes place
> in 1938, a much more depressing era in every sense of the word.
> 
> I've noticed, too, that many reviewers of the trailer pick up a
> statement by the Herald Sun that the movie is "all about Voldemort."
> Wrong. Evidently, the reviewers think that child!Tom will have more
> than one scene and that Voldemort *directly* wreaked the havoc 
created
> in the background scenes (the impression created by Tom's words and
> the glimpse of the adult Voldemort in the teaser). They seem unaware
> of the raging hormones and love potions and the much more important
> Draco/Snape subplot (again, only indirectly about Voldemort), not to
> mention the HBP's Potions book and Quidditch. Only the Pensieve 
scenes
> are "all about Voldemort," who doesn't even appear in his current 
form
> in the book though, of course, he's a sinister presence in the
> background. I wonder if those reviewers mistakenly think that
> Voldemort is the Half-Blood Prince.
> 
> Carol, who thinks that reviewers should know by now that teasers
> seldom give away the main plot and are only intended to entice the 
reader


Julie:
I hope your analysis of this analysis is correct, Carol! I
am increasingly getting the feeling that the Half-Blood Prince
subplot will not be particularly central to the movie, more of
a sub-subplot related to the Love Potions shenanigans. The
movie producers want to attract the HP non-readers and more
general audience that goes for high concept plotting with
plenty of action. Voldemort is a lot scarier than Snape (at
least in the movies, where Snape has been toned down and
Voldemort has been presented more sparingly to better effect
--IMO). Showing lots of Pensieve scenes about his rise (or
fall, whichever way you see it) is bound to be considered
more interesting to the general viewer than showing the
nuances of the relationship between Harry and Snape (and
Harry and the Half-Blood Prince) that hasn't really been
developed in the movies. (I see Harry "hating" Snape in
the HBP movie--if he even does--as more of a general 
antipathy toward a mean teacher rather than an emotion
aimed directly at Snape's words/actions against Harry,
as many of those actions and the personal animosity that
prompted them have been left out of the previous movies--
for instance, the taunting between Snape and Sirius in OotP.
I'm not even sure how the movie can show Harry hating Snape
at the level he did in the book given the lack of presented
justification.)

I am sure Snape will still be the Half-Blood Prince, and
Draco will be struggling with the order to kill Dumbledore.
I'm just not sure the revelation of Snape as the Half-Blood
Prince or his killing of Dumbledore, will have the same 
meaning to the characters (or the audience) as it did in
the books. 


Julie, missing the complex character of Snape from the books
when watching the watered-down version presented in the movies,
Alan Rickman's fabulous vocal delivery notwithstanding.