From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 00:07:25 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:07:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione/Emma Watson (Re: The Romance (was HBP)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Miles > But if you know what the philosopher's stone is, you know it's closely > connected to wizardry and magic, at least in modern fantasy literature. It > does not exist, it was a dream of ancient alchemists, and if a story deals > with an existing PS, it obviously is not a story taken from our world. > > So, the preconception behind changing the term was that "philosopher's > stone" is unknown to the average buyer of fantasy for kids and teenagers. > And I do hope this is an insult. Magpie: The original book is middle grade fiction, so I don't think it's insulting to want to let third graders who haven't yet heard of what the Philosopher's Stone is that the book's about magic. These are kids who quite possibly haven't read modern fantasy literature yet. This could be their first. There's plenty of kids who might know at that age, but removing that one extra barrier doesn't have to be insulting imo. They might only have a minute where the kid's passing over the titles and they want to grab him/her. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 00:38:44 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:38:44 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > The original book is middle grade fiction, so I don't think it's insulting to want to let third graders who haven't yet heard of what the Philosopher's Stone is that the book's about magic. These are kids who quite possibly haven't read modern fantasy literature yet. This could be their first. There's plenty of kids who might know at that age, but removing that one extra barrier doesn't have to be insulting imo. They might only have a minute where the kid's passing over the titles and they want to grab him/her. > > -m > Alla: I do understand what you are saying Magpie about wanting to grab right audience and fast, but still I think I have to agree with Miles again :-) I mean, the reason why they would want to grab the right audience with changing the word, the underlying assumption is that the audience may not know the definition, right? That they will not know that the philosopher stone is what it is and thus can mistakenly think that this is about philosophy, etc, right? And yeah, I do find it insulting. I mean, I grant you that I judge based on myself and when I learned what "philosopher stone" is and maybe I should not expect from all kids to know that. But it just seems one of those very basic definitions which really are IMO cornerstones of humanitarian education. I learned about it when I was either six or seven and no, I did not read fantasy at that age AT ALL. My first fantasy book was LOTR which I did not finish in translation when I was twenty something and read and loved when I came here, but every other fantasy book I read when I was living here. And I learned about it from the book for kids talking about medicine, very basic book by the way. Alla. From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 01:21:17 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:21:17 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: What do we know about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? In-Reply-To: References: <008701ca1209$c0ee0370$42ca0a50$@com> Message-ID: <00f001ca1246$5e729a20$1b57ce60$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister I have also just checked on the Pete Travers Rolling Stone review and cannot see a reference to the line. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My thought was that the reviewer was adding his memories of the book to the film, and I know Travers doesn't read the books. I didn't think we had all missed the line. I KNOW I read the review and it was an official, published one, now I want to go find it. Md __ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 01:40:15 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:40:15 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I think the point is that she's so happy on her wedding day that she's showering beauty on others. It's a sweet metaphor for her happiness as a bride using Veela magic as an excuse, imo, not a subtle example of goblin magic. The Ravenclaw tiara isn't known for doing anything magical, just being a Horcrux and being owned. > > I think the tiara's just a nice little detail and Aunt Muriel's line is just a character moment. She's taking credit for Fleur's beauty and responding as if Hermione's naturally impressed by the part of the outfit she provided rather than Fleur herself. I think you were mystified because you wouldn't expect somebody to be that self-centered.:-) > > -m > Richard: That is how I read that scene too. Fleur is spreading her beauty out because she is so happy, and Aunt Muriel is obsessed with her tiara. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 02:32:15 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:32:15 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > I do understand what you are saying Magpie about wanting to grab right audience and fast, but still I think I have to agree with Miles again :-) > > I mean, the reason why they would want to grab the right audience with changing the word, the underlying assumption is that the audience may not know the definition, right? Magpie: Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid. Sure it might imply thinking more highly of their intelligence if you assume they'll not only make the connection to alchemy and then make the second connection to wizards and sorcery, but you might lose a lot of intelligent kids who don't make the right connection. Even a kid who knows what the Philosopher Stone is wouldn't necessarily connect it with Wizardry, since that's an artificial connection. Just by title I'd probably assume it was a mystery story. Yeah, the title is totally more in-your-face, writing MAGIC in big letters on the title, but if HP hadn't been a huge sensation I wouldn't be surprised if that led to more book sales by putting the selling point in the title rather than the Maguffin. Peter Benchley wrote a book he was originally going to call something including the word Leviathan. The eventual title probably communicated more to the members of the audience who didn't recognize the word Leviathan, but I don't think it said they thought the audience were stupid just because they went for the more obvious JAWS. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 02:53:31 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:53:31 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > > > I do understand what you are saying Magpie about wanting to grab right audience and fast, but still I think I have to agree with Miles again :-) > > > > I mean, the reason why they would want to grab the right audience with changing the word, the underlying assumption is that the audience may not know the definition, right? > > Magpie: > Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid. Alla: No, not assuming that they are stupid, but assuming that they do not know what it is, but I now see more what you are saying in your next paragraph. Magpie: > Sure it might imply thinking more highly of their intelligence if you assume they'll not only make the connection to alchemy and then make the second connection to wizards and sorcery, but you might lose a lot of intelligent kids who don't make the right connection. Even a kid who knows what the Philosopher Stone is wouldn't necessarily connect it with Wizardry, since that's an artificial connection. Just by title I'd probably assume it was a mystery story. Alla: Ah, I see your point a little bit better now, you are saying that even kids who know what philosopher stone is may not connect it automatically to magic, sure, I can see that, however read on. Magpie: > Yeah, the title is totally more in-your-face, writing MAGIC in big letters on the title, but if HP hadn't been a huge sensation I wouldn't be surprised if that led to more book sales by putting the selling point in the title rather than the Maguffin. Alla: Right, it could have been, but again my sticking point is that author had enough faith in young kids' ability to know what it is AND make a right connection. I mean it is not like she wrote with different ages in mind for British kids before book sold in the USA. I wish american publishers had as much faith and not ask her to change title. Of course she just wanted badly to sell her first book, it however did sell just as well with original title, no? Magpie: > Peter Benchley wrote a book he was originally going to call something including the word Leviathan. The eventual title probably communicated more to the members of the audience who didn't recognize the word Leviathan, but I don't think it said they thought the audience were stupid just because they went for the more obvious JAWS. Alla: That's very interesting. I am sorry though, I really do think that was dumping down to audience, I mean it is to me not exactly the same since author picked a different title, not that author changed the title everywhere, just for american kids. Oh and while I know what Jaws is, I have not read this book and not planning on to, so again just reacting to your story. I know it is not completely horror, but adventure too, but am scared too easily and do not like large sharks :-) Funnily, if it was called Leviafan, I could have picked the book, I think Jaws IS the title that actually better prevents me from doing it lol. Alla From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 03:33:40 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:33:40 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie Magpie: Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid. -m >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that the "philosopher's stone" is obvious to Brits but unknown to people in the U.S. is insulting the population of the U.S. My daughters has never read The Sorcerer's Stone, she's read the Philosopher's Stone, however. We only own the UK version of the film as well. The worst thing is that "sorcerer" is not relevant to the Potter universe. If they'd have called it "The Wizard's Stone" it would have at least fit!!! By GOF they figured out that other than the odd phrase ("keep our peckers up!) they didn't need to Americanize the novels. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Englishlady at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 03:48:51 2009 From: Englishlady at gmail.com (Aryn Culbertson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:48:51 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> References: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: Unfortunately, have to jump in here. Being a Brit living in the States, I have to beg to differ w/you MD. It is necessary to Americanise the Books, unfortunately. And it is a crime really. I have a copy (multiple actually) of the American versions (both Hard & Soft copies), the UK (both Adult & Child, both Hard & Soft copies). And thankfully I also have dvds of the UK versions of the films. BUT, since the films are actually made by an American company (Warner Bros), they are made to an American Audience (since that is the main audience paying for the films). It is a shame also. Thankfully JK has kept Warner Bros to only main English Actors, but that is really the only true ideal throughout each film. Hopefully Mr. Yates (director) will be able to fit as much as possible of the 7th Book into the last films, and keep true to the book, but alas it also will more than likely be Americanise beyond what the book itself truly has been written. Ok, back to lurking. And also, just have to comment MD, the 3rd film was the worst of all the films on many levels, other than the acting of many of the actors. Cheeres... On 31/07/2009, Child Of Midian wrote: > > > > > > From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto: > HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com ] On > Behalf Of sistermagpie > > Magpie: > Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would > automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and > say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" > is the same as assuming they're stupid. > -m > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The idea that the "philosopher's stone" is obvious to Brits but unknown to > people in the U.S. is insulting the population of the U.S. My daughters has > never read The Sorcerer's Stone, she's read the Philosopher's Stone, > however. We only own the UK version of the film as well. > > The worst thing is that "sorcerer" is not relevant to the Potter universe. > If they'd have called it "The Wizard's Stone" it would have at least fit!!! > By GOF they figured out that other than the odd phrase ("keep our peckers > up!) they didn't need to Americanize the novels. > > md > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 04:05:14 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:05:14 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: <001401ca125d$47b51a30$d71f4e90$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aryn Culbertson have to beg to differ w/you MD. It is necessary to Americanise the Books, unfortunately. And it is a crime really. And also, just have to comment MD, the 3rd film was the worst of all the films on many levels, other than the acting of many of the actors. Cheeres... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>. You're argument lacks substance, you say you disagree but you don't back it up with any reason or explanation. I would really like to know why you disagree. I have read the British versions to my daughter when she was 8 & 9 and there were no issues understanding them. Also, I've read both versions and starting with GOF there's nearly no difference, it would seem they realized that Americanizing the novels wasn't required. I hold the 3rd film as my favorite. Absolutely the best made film regardless of cuts and changes. I've seen 99% of the people that don't like POA don't like the cuts / changes more than anything else. I don't know why you through that in there out of nowhere except that it kind of feels like you where saying "Hey, you're wrong about the books, and (spits at feet) POA sucked!" I don't get the point there at all. Cheers! md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 04:17:14 2009 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:17:14 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: > > md said: > The idea that the "philosopher's stone" is obvious to Brits but unknown to > people in the U.S. is insulting the population of the U.S. My daughters has > never read The Sorcerer's Stone, she's read the Philosopher's Stone, > however. We only own the UK version of the film as well. > > marion wonders: What is it that makes a version of the film *UK*? I mean other than the fact that you need a special DVD player or can only watch it on the computer? Is the packaging different? The movie itself is identical, isn't it? You've got me curious. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 04:45:36 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:45:36 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > > Yeah, the title is totally more in-your-face, writing MAGIC in big letters on the title, but if HP hadn't been a huge sensation I wouldn't be surprised if that led to more book sales by putting the selling point in the title rather than the Maguffin. > > Alla: > > Right, it could have been, but again my sticking point is that author had enough faith in young kids' ability to know what it is AND make a right connection. I mean it is not like she wrote with different ages in mind for British kids before book sold in the USA. I wish american publishers had as much faith and not ask her to change title. Of course she just wanted badly to sell her first book, it however did sell just as well with original title, no? Magpie: Or not. I mean, JKR probably wasn't naming the book with the same marketing ideas in mind. She sold the book on the ms, not on the title. Obviously it sold just fine as PS in the UK, but then, the actual sales were so crazy that the title wound up being completely irrelevent. There really was no reason to change it. But if I imagine the book not having those crazy sales, even if I prefer the Philosopher's Stone title, I wouldn't think it was ridiculous to want to make the title more obvious just in case it could get a few more readers. The people selling the thing probably wouldn't stand on an intellectual principle even if the author might. > > Magpie: > > Peter Benchley wrote a book he was originally going to call something including the word Leviathan. The eventual title probably communicated more to the members of the audience who didn't recognize the word Leviathan, but I don't think it said they thought the audience were stupid just because they went for the more obvious JAWS. > > Alla: > > That's very interesting. I am sorry though, I really do think that was dumping down to audience, I mean it is to me not exactly the same since author picked a different title, not that author changed the title everywhere, just for american kids. Magpie: But why assume that Leviathan is better just because it's got more syllables or gets used less? Jaws is better not because it's a more recognizable word, imo, but because it evokes the right feeling where Leviathan doesn't. (Not to mention, there's probably already a dozen Leviathan books out there. Jaws would, I think, be far more likely to make somebody take a look because it was so unusual: Jaws? Who calls a book Jaws? Add that picture of the shark on the cover and...I think it's one classic title! Leviathan, by contrast, is imo trying far too hard.) Jaws is far more fitting because it gets to the more primitive, gut of the story You're not afraid of the fancier word that means something in the deep, you're afraid of being eaten by the big teeth. It's the same thinking that drove John Williams to write the awesome theme music. When Spielberg first heard it he said, "Are you kidding me? Two notes?" And Williams was like, yeah, because it's that primitive and single minded! So yeah, for that title I think Jaws was genius. Very often in writing the simpler word is better. Not that this has anything to do with HP where the only real advantage of Sorcerer is maybe the alliteration, of course. It's a whole different set of issues. Just wanted to say that sometimes the simpler word is the correct choice, even if fewer people know the longer word. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 04:50:06 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:50:06 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: > Magpie: > Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would > automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and > say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" > is the same as assuming they're stupid. > -m > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Child of Midian > The idea that the "philosopher's stone" is obvious to Brits but unknown to > people in the U.S. is insulting the population of the U.S. My daughters has > never read The Sorcerer's Stone, she's read the Philosopher's Stone, > however. We only own the UK version of the film as well. Magpie: Except that's *not* the assumption. And Philosopher's Stone isn't obvious if by obvious we mean "this is a book about wizards." The Philosopher's Stone isn't exclusively linked to wizards, especially not child wizards learning magic at a school. And I, too, only own a copy of Philosopher's Stone. I prefer it as a title. -m From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 04:51:23 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:51:23 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: <001f01ca1263$b92ac290$2b8047b0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of marion11111 marion wonders: What is it that makes a version of the film *UK*? I mean other than the fact that you need a special DVD player or can only watch it on the computer? Is the packaging different? The movie itself is identical, isn't it? You've got me curious. >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's region 1 NTSC!!! I buy from Amazon Canada. The only difference is they only say "philosopher's stone" and the title is different. To me, the correct title and version. My other 4 Blu-Rays and DVD's are U.S. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 06:04:42 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 02:04:42 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <000901ca1258$dd5eccc0$981c6640$@com> Message-ID: <003001ca126d$f6548570$e2fd9050$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie Magpie: Except that's *not* the assumption. And Philosopher's Stone isn't obvious if by obvious we mean "this is a book about wizards." The Philosopher's Stone isn't exclusively linked to wizards, especially not child wizards learning magic at a school. And I, too, only own a copy of Philosopher's Stone. I prefer it as a title. -m >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, the title is "Harry Potter: Year 1" and "Harry Potter" is what links people to the books, not the sub-title. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 1 06:31:26 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:31:26 -0000 Subject: What do we know about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? In-Reply-To: <00f001ca1246$5e729a20$1b57ce60$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: Geoff: > I have also just checked on the Pete Travers Rolling Stone review and cannot > > see a reference to the line. md: > My thought was that the reviewer was adding his memories of the book to the > film, and I know Travers doesn't read the books. I didn't think we had all > missed the line. I KNOW I read the review and it was an official, published > one, now I want to go find it. Geoff: Try Googling "Time magazine review half blood prince". That's how I got there. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 13:43:23 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:43:23 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > Right, it could have been, but again my sticking point is that author had enough faith in young kids' ability to know what it is AND make a right connection. I mean it is not like she wrote with different ages in mind for British kids before book sold in the USA. I wish American publishers had as much faith and not ask her to change title. Of course she just wanted badly to sell her first book, it however did sell just as well with original title, no? Magpie: Or not. I mean, JKR probably wasn't naming the book with the same marketing ideas in mind. She sold the book on the ms, not on the title. Alla: I am sorry, I do not quite understand what you are saying here, or maybe I was unclear upthread. Of course JKR probably was not naming the book with the same marketing ideas in mind. My point is that I do not *like* the marketing idea that American publishers came up with that's all. I think it is insulting, even if their intentions were to get more readers, I thought we agree that the obvious part of it is the assumption that kids do not know what philosopher stone is and even those who may know will not make this connection. I mean it is obvious to me that author preferred her original title, since she did not change it for Britain. I was also trying to say that I totally do not blame new writer who just wants for her book to sell if she went along and changed title for Americans, I just think that the fact that she did NOT change title for British kids speaks loud and clear about what her preferences are. I think what I am also saying I feel that American publishers here intruded on author's territory, that they had no right to make the creative decision like that. I mean, I know they did have that right, but I am just saying that this feels obnoxious to me if that makes sense. Of course she did not sell the book on title, we are discussing the publishers strategies though, right? They were going to make title to be first catching point and they felt that the one that author chose was wrong, not catchy enough, or whatever. I am just saying that I wish they would not do that. Oh and to go back to the beginning, you said that you heard rumors, right that the title was changed for the reasons you stated? So if those are just rumors it is quite possible that title was changed because they thought that American kids will not even know what Philosopher stone is? Or do you know for sure? Not that I think it matters much, because I think these two reasons are similar, since underlying assumption IMO is pretty much the same, but I am curious. Magpie: Obviously it sold just fine as PS in the UK, but then, the actual sales were so crazy that the title wound up being completely irrelevant. There really was no reason to change it. But if I imagine the book not having those crazy sales, even if I prefer the Philosopher's Stone title, I wouldn't think it was ridiculous to want to make the title more obvious just in case it could get a few more readers. The people selling the thing probably wouldn't stand on an intellectual principle even if the author might. Alla: But that's my thing. Whether or not the actual sales would have been so crazy, what I dislike is the fact that they decided that the title will be more obvious *their way*. I mean, I know the book sold a lot with word of the mouth, however before word of the mouth started to spread, kids had to pick it up. How do we know that British kids did not initially pick it up at least in part because they found the Philosopher stone title to be catchy, fun, mysterious, etc? How do we know that this title was not perfectly marketable? I think I view the request from the author to change the title as too much of being an author as well, if that makes sense and that annoys me. Magpie: Jaws is far more fitting because it gets to the more primitive, gut of the story You're not afraid of the fancier word that means something in the deep, you're afraid of being eaten by the big teeth. It's the same thinking that drove John Williams to write the awesome theme music. When Spielberg first heard it he said, "Are you kidding me? Two notes?" And Williams was like, yeah, because it's that primitive and single minded! So yeah, for that title I think Jaws was genius. Very often in writing the simpler word is better. Alla: Ah, please disregard my previous reply, I thought there are at least some references , some allusions to Leviafan in the book, if not than sure, Jaws is better for primitive horror, etc. Author did well then, but again *author* did that, right? To me it is completely different. Magpie: Not that this has anything to do with HP where the only real advantage of Sorcerer is maybe the alliteration, of course. It's a whole different set of issues. Just wanted to say that sometimes the simpler word is the correct choice, even if fewer people know the longer word. Alla: Sure, but that was author's choice. As I wrote above, I know what JKR's first choice of the title was and I do dislike that because of American publishers request she was forced to go with her second choice and I do dislike what it implies about what American kids know and don't know. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 14:07:05 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:07:05 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <003001ca126d$f6548570$e2fd9050$@com> Message-ID: md: > Exactly, the title is "Harry Potter: Year 1" and "Harry Potter" is what > links people to the books, not the sub-title. Magpie: But when the first book was going to be sold Harry Potter was just a name with no connection to magic or wizardry. -m From brian at rescueddoggies.com Sat Aug 1 14:39:19 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:39:19 -0300 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione Message-ID: <4A745397.5060306@rescueddoggies.com> As a Brit who has also lived in the US for a while, I have to say that Philosopher's Stone would have meant nothing more to ME than it would to an American kid. But let's face it, American publishers (and Hollywood is worse) try to Americanise EVERYTHING and it is frankly offensive to most of the rest of the world. JKR admitted herself that she shouldn't have allowed them to change the title, but she wasn't as rich or powerful then! As the books became more and more succesful, she refused more and more changes, allowing only those which she was convinced were necessary to make the story understandable to an American child. I wonder why American publishers felt they had to dumb down the title, yet in South America, with generally poorer levels of education, it wasn't deemed to be necessary? Brian brigrove on fanfiction.net, author of The Harmony Bond From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 14:57:55 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:57:55 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > I mean it is obvious to me that author preferred her original title, since she did not change it for Britain. I was also trying to say that I totally do not blame new writer who just wants for her book to sell if she went along and changed title for Americans, I just think that the fact that she did NOT change title for British kids speaks loud and clear about what her preferences are. Magpie: She probably did. But only self-publishing is about the author's self-expression over all. The publisher is in the business of marketing and selling books so I can understand why they think they should have the right to make suggestions. Do you have a problem with editors editing the manuscript as well? Alla: Oh and to go back to the beginning, you said that you heard rumors, right that the title was changed for the reasons you stated? So if those are just rumors it is quite possible that title was changed because they thought that American kids will not even know what Philosopher stone is? Or do you know for sure? Magpie: That's the story from Arthur Levine's mouth. He's the one who suggested School of Magic. > Alla: > > But that's my thing. Whether or not the actual sales would have been so crazy, what I dislike is the fact that they decided that the title will be more obvious *their way*. Magpie: Well, the Philosopher's Stone is an object sought by real life alchemists, right? So I would say that Sorcerer is a more obvious link to wizardry. They wanted some reference to magic in the title. Nobody's trying to turn base metals into stone in the book, and there are no alchemists. Alla: How do we know that this title was not perfectly marketable? Magpie: We don't. Marketers just have to gamble, really. Just as they would have tried to market Trimalchio, Pansy and Anhedonia, but I'm not shedding any tears over the loss of those titles. (Not that Hollywood doesn't have a history of replacing good titles with bland ones--but writers don't have any say there.) Iirc, the studio planned a marketing campaign for Anhedonia embracing the fact that it would probably be the first time a lot of people were hearing the word. But I'm glad the studio kept asking him to consider a title change no matter how adamant he was at first. Alla: > > Author did well then, but again *author* did that, right? To me it is completely different. Magpie: I checked to make sure, and here's what actually happened afaik. Peter Benchley had a number of working titles, including The Great White and A Silence in the Water, but none of them seemed right. He asked his father for help and presented the editor with a lot of suggestions. The editor didn't like any of them. The editor suggested Jaws of the Leviathan (I was remembering this from an interview and must have remembered this part wrong). Peter Benchley pointed out that a Leviathan was a mammal. But he and the editor could both agree on the word Jaws. The editor said "At least it's short." Benchley told the title to his father, who said "What does it mean?" And Peter said "I have no idea, but at least it's short." So I'd say the editor seemed to play a bigger part in the title than the author, though the author had some say, just as JKR had a say in Sorcerer's Stone. I wouldn't consider the editor to be overstepping anything there. He earned his pay well that day. I don't consider a title being the first one or even any one that the author came up with reason alone for putting it on the book. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 15:02:39 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:02:39 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <4A745397.5060306@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: Brian: > But let's face it, American publishers (and Hollywood is worse) try to > Americanise EVERYTHING and it is frankly offensive to most of the rest > of the world. Magpie: "Sorcerer" isn't any more American a word than Philosopher. Whatever the logic behind the title change, the books remained set in Britain the way they always were. Or to refer to another recently published YA book, this one published first in America, it's still set in the UK with mostly UK words. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 15:14:46 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:14:46 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > She probably did. But only self-publishing is about the author's self-expression over all. The publisher is in the business of marketing and selling books so I can understand why they think they should have the right to make suggestions. Do you have a problem with editors editing the manuscript as well? Alla: Of course not! It is their job to edit the manuscript and author is free to take it or leave it, but when the product is finished and the condition upon selling the book is people who did not write it decide that they know better and tell the author to change the title, well, problem is probably not the right word, but yeah I dislike it. And yes, I know JKR was probably free to reject their request too, but just I do not really consider this to be a real choice, you know? If you do not change the title, we will not sell your book... I wonder what writer would really go with that, especially if this is their first one. > > Alla: > Oh and to go back to the beginning, you said that you heard rumors, right that the title was changed for the reasons you stated? So if those are just rumors it is quite possible that title was changed because they thought that American kids will not even know what Philosopher stone is? Or do you know for sure? > > Magpie: > That's the story from Arthur Levine's mouth. He's the one who suggested School of Magic. Alla: Ah, thank you. Well, if you ask me thank goodness for JKR not going with this title at least. > > > Alla: > > > > But that's my thing. Whether or not the actual sales would have been so crazy, what I dislike is the fact that they decided that the title will be more obvious *their way*. > > Magpie: > Well, the Philosopher's Stone is an object sought by real life alchemists, right? So I would say that Sorcerer is a more obvious link to wizardry. They wanted some reference to magic in the title. Nobody's trying to turn base metals into stone in the book, and there are no alchemists. Alla: What do you mean there are no alchemists in the book? Who is Flamel then? > > > Alla: > How do we know that this title was not perfectly marketable? > > Magpie: > We don't. Marketers just have to gamble, really. Alla: Right, and I do not like the reasons for their gambling, I do not like that they thought there was any need for it in the first place. > Alla: > > > > Author did well then, but again *author* did that, right? To me it is completely different. > > Magpie: > I checked to make sure, and here's what actually happened afaik. Peter Benchley had a number of working titles, including The Great White and A Silence in the Water, but none of them seemed right. He asked his father for help and presented the editor with a lot of suggestions. The editor didn't like any of them. The editor suggested Jaws of the Leviathan (I was remembering this from an interview and must have remembered this part wrong). Peter Benchley pointed out that a Leviathan was a mammal. But he and the editor could both agree on the word Jaws. The editor said "At least it's short." Benchley told the title to his father, who said "What does it mean?" And Peter said "I have no idea, but at least it's short." > > So I'd say the editor seemed to play a bigger part in the title than the author, though the author had some say, just as JKR had a say in Sorcerer's Stone. I wouldn't consider the editor to be overstepping anything there. He earned his pay well that day. I don't consider a title being the first one or even any one that the author came up with reason alone for putting it on the book. Alla: Sure appears that editor played a big part, thank you for looking this one up. But again, as Brian said, although I have not read this interview, JKR wishes she would not let them change the title, I think that alone to me means that they overstepped big time. And you know what the irony is? I WISH that with JKR getting more famous she would listen to editors more not less, because I do think that last volumes needed it, but hey, maybe the reason why JKR refused to listen more and more is because she had such an unpleasant experience of people stepping too much on her creative ideas in the early years? I am totally speculating here obviously, no nothing about it except this title change thing. Total speculation. Alla From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Sat Aug 1 15:38:29 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:38:29 +0200 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione References: Message-ID: >> Magpie: >> Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old >> would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the >> cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy >> who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid. > Magpie: > Except that's *not* the assumption. And Philosopher's Stone isn't > obvious if by obvious we mean "this is a book about wizards." The > Philosopher's Stone isn't exclusively linked to wizards, especially > not child wizards learning magic at a school. Miles Your assumption is, that the title of a book should make clear what kind of book it is, right? Or at least you defend this idea concerning Philosopher's Stone. I think it is a very crude way of imposing marketing criteria on works of literature. And I totally disagree with this way of thinking. Just think about books now considered as world literature. Would you consider it appropriate to rename Fahrenheit 451 because it does not indicate what kind of book it is? Or The Magic Mountain? Or Gone with the Wind? "The O'Hara Drama - A Family in the Civil War" would have been much better ;). The next point is, that books are usually not sold on big, disordered heaps, but in shelves according to genre and age range. So the said 9yo kid would find Harry Potter among books of Ray Bradbury, Marion Zimmer-Bradley and C.S. Lewis. And I really doubt kids are repelled by "Philosopher" on the back of a book if they find it on the fantasy shelve in their bookstore. So who is meant by changing the title in order to avoid misunderstandings? The shopkeepers? This would really be an insult. They didn't bother to change the title in the translations. For example, the first German translation came out in 1998, the same year the book was published in the USA. In German it is "HP und der Stein der Weisen", 'Stein der Weisen' being the German term for Philosopher's Stone. And this is the point: The term "Philosopher's Stone" exists, it is an important historical concept, "Sorcerer's Stone" does not exist. I don't think the problem is that the US publishers "americanised" the book. The problem is that they commercialised it without regarding correctness and logic. Miles From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 15:45:27 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:45:27 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > > Well, the Philosopher's Stone is an object sought by real life alchemists, right? So I would say that Sorcerer is a more obvious link to wizardry. They wanted some reference to magic in the title. Nobody's trying to turn base metals into stone in the book, and there are no alchemists. > > Alla: > > What do you mean there are no alchemists in the book? Who is Flamel then? Magpie: A wizard who exists off-page and whom we never meet.:-) The kids aren't studying alchemy. > > Alla: > And you know what the irony is? I WISH that with JKR getting more famous she would listen to editors more not less, because I do think that last volumes needed it, but hey, maybe the reason why JKR refused to listen more and more is because she had such an unpleasant experience of people stepping too much on her creative ideas in the early years? Magpie: Hopefully it didn't turn her off listening to editors in general (the books were a success in general, after all)--but I wouldn't be surprised if it made her more stubborn about sticking to her guns if she felt like it was the same kind of situation. To use a personal experience, I did a book where the editor had a ton of control and made a lot of decisions that drove me crazy and I hated it. I remember a little boy reading a book I did and I felt completely vindicated when he pointed to a line that I hated the most and made exactly the same objection to it that I did. But it didn't make me less open to editorial changes than I was before. That change was bad from the beginning and I always felt confident that it was a bad change. But with a good editor it's a gift to have their suggestions to consider. Arthur is a very good editor, though I think the title change was a lame request and PS works just as well. Grrr. I hated that book experience of mine. Festival of awful decisions by editor with all the control over the writer. (The artist may have had more freedom since she wanted the book as a vehicle for him, but if so she encouraged bad ideas there too!) -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 15:59:16 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:59:16 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Miles > Your assumption is, that the title of a book should make clear what kind of > book it is, right? Or at least you defend this idea concerning Philosopher's > Stone. Magpie: I'm not defending it as something that should have been done in this case, just saying that in this case the editor's stated intention was that he wanted the title to indicate that the book was about magic. I'm not at all making the case that every book (or any book) should be titled with a generic line that says what the book is about. Miles: Would you consider it > appropriate to rename Fahrenheit 451 because it does not indicate what kind > of book it is? Or The Magic Mountain? Or Gone with the Wind? "The O'Hara > Drama - A Family in the Civil War" would have been much better ;). Magpie: Like I said, no, not at all! I think every book should have the best title for it. Sometimes that means giving people an idea of what kind of book it is in terms of subject matter. GwtW went through a lot of titles before they settled on what they considered the best one. If a publisher hadn't given thought to that they might never have arrived at that title. I don't actually defend the title change as necessary or a particularly good idea. I just think an inordinate amount of fuss is made about it because the book is so popular. I don't get offended any time I notice a book or movie has a different title in the UK than it did in the US or vice versa. What I do defend is the idea that a good title is a good selling point--far more than things like assuming it's going to be shelved next to Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ray Bradbury (though the target audience for PS wouldn't have read those yet, I don't think) and that the word Philosopher isn't automatically repulsive. Basically, I just don't think the idea that editors look at titles the way they do is a dirty secret or shameful in any way. The decision here wasn't that great but I think good decisions have been made using the same process in the past and will be again in the future. -m From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 16:13:49 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:13:49 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <003001ca126d$f6548570$e2fd9050$@com> Message-ID: <003d01ca12c3$12ea0610$38be1230$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie Magpie: But when the first book was going to be sold Harry Potter was just a name with no connection to magic or wizardry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't matter, Harry Potter is the brand and in the end you market "Harry Potter" not the subtitle. In the youth market especially the book-cover is more important than the title. The title was changed to the Sorcerer's Stone because they felt American's associated Philosopher's with one who studies philosophy. However, when you open the book and there's no mention of Sorcery, your reaction may be "why did they name it that?" Also, if you look up Philosopher's Stone, you find a mythological object but if you look up Sorcerer's Stone you find nothing (except now it's the title of the Harry Potter book.) Regardless, HP is a series of books and marketing wise what you want to market is the name "Harry Potter" because that will carry through all the book titles. Yes, they chose Sorcerer's because they believed us ignorant American's would associate that with magic, with still doesn't explain why the more obvious "wizard's stone" was passed over, since the stone was made and used by wizards, not sorcerer's, who practiced magic, not sorcery, they picked a title of nonsensical nonsense. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 16:30:20 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:30:20 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <003d01ca12c3$12ea0610$38be1230$@com> Message-ID: md: > It doesn't matter, Harry Potter is the brand and in the end you market > "Harry Potter" not the subtitle. In the youth market especially the > book-cover is more important than the title. The title was changed to the > Sorcerer's Stone because they felt American's associated Philosopher's with > one who studies philosophy. However, when you open the book and there's no > mention of Sorcery, your reaction may be "why did they name it that?" Magpie: I would think most people would open the book and see plenty of sorcery. They'd also see an item called the sorcerer's stone. So the US publisher wanted the title and the cover art to both hit magic. There was no brand when the first book was published. They could have only been selling a single book. It wasn't a particularly good decision imo, but that's what it seems like they wanted to do. They know the youth market. It's their market. me: > Yes, they chose Sorcerer's because they believed us ignorant American's > would associate that with magic, with still doesn't explain why the more > obvious "wizard's stone" was passed over, since the stone was made and used > by wizards, not sorcerer's, who practiced magic, not sorcery, they picked a > title of nonsensical nonsense. Magpie: JKR is the one who came up with sorcerer's stone so she presumably doesn't think it's nonsensical. Neither do I--what's nonsensical about it? It's the name of the object Voldemort's looking for in the American edition. What's the big difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? I think sorcerer's stone sounds better, personally, than wizard's stone. So of those two choices I think JKR (in this case) made the right choice. Somebody looking up "Deathly Hallows" wouldn't have found anything either. It didn't need to be based on a real thing, it's just that in the case of the first book it was. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 17:09:48 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:09:48 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: I don't actually defend the title change as necessary or a particularly good idea. I just think an inordinate amount of fuss is made about it because the book is so popular. I don't get offended any time I notice a book or movie has a different title in the UK than it did in the US or vice versa. Alla: I think that because it is so popular we know about it so well, but believe me if I know that a book was renamed for UK readers, I would be just as annoyed. I am a bit more relaxed on movies whether it is from UK to US or vice versa, not because I think that it is a good idea, but because I feel that it is about commercialisation right away more than creative expression. I however still dislike it. I mean, seriously, unless it is the title of the book is so obscure that general public never heard about it (I know it is hard to determine objectively, but I still think one should try), really deal with it. Give audience some credit and assume they can figure it out. IMO of course. I am thinking now about something which has no relation to HP whatsoever so I am going to move it to OTC Magpie :) I have another question to ask you about editing anyway. Magpie: Basically, I just don't think the idea that editors look at titles the way they do is a dirty secret or shameful in any way. The decision here wasn't that great but I think good decisions have been made using the same process in the past and will be again in the future. Alla: Of course, both good and bad decisions had been made IMO. I am talking about one specific decision only. -m From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 17:24:14 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:24:14 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <003d01ca12c3$12ea0610$38be1230$@com> Message-ID: <005901ca12cc$e96a3300$bc3e9900$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie Magpie: JKR is the one who came up with sorcerer's stone so she presumably doesn't think it's nonsensical. Neither do I--what's nonsensical about it? It's the name of the object Voldemort's looking for in the American edition. What's the big difference between a sorcerer and a wizard? I think sorcerer's stone sounds better, personally, than wizard's stone. So of those two choices I think JKR (in this case) made the right choice. Somebody looking up "Deathly Hallows" wouldn't have found anything either. It didn't need to be based on a real thing, it's just that in the case of the first book it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard / read that JKR came up with the U.S. title (not saying it's not true, just saying this is the first I've heard of it) generally when you sell the rights to your book, especially foreign rights, you have no say in the title it's sold under in other countries - you may even find out you signed away (or are being expected to) rights to the title you came up with all-together in lieu of what some marketing VP comes up with. As for "Sorcerer" what doesn't make sense is why wizards, that don't call what they do sorcery and don't call themselves sorcerer's would name something sorcerer stone. When I read the book, unaware that there was a UK title, I wondered why they chose that title, it made no sense to me. So when I say what I say I say it from personal experience as a U.S. reader going "huh?" at the title of the book and stone. Either way, I really, really despise changing titles and narration to fit a different English audience. Part of the experience should be experiencing a British novel. Imagine if they re-wrote Dickens!!! As someone pointed out to me, years ago when this all started, The Philosopher's Stone is something steeped in deep mythology that turns up in other works, it's something you could say "what's a philosopher's stone?" when you see the title, go look it up and find out, the sorcerer's stone, OTOH was not ten years ago. It also insults the fact that JKR is obviously very well versed in mythology of all sorts as it permeates the pages of all the books, especially the early ones, and to find all of her references but the U.S. title are rooted in other sources makes little sense. Personally, I think from the title that it should have been "You're a sorcerer, Harry. And you'll be going to the finest school of sorcery in all of England, Hogwarts!" The culture JKR has created is not one that speaks of Sorcery or Sorcerers, so the terms, though they might fit our blanket concept of magic-users, or spell casters, don't fit JKR's world. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 17:49:32 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:49:32 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <005901ca12cc$e96a3300$bc3e9900$@com> Message-ID: md: > I've never heard / read that JKR came up with the U.S. title (not saying > it's not true, just saying this is the first I've heard of it) generally > when you sell the rights to your book, especially foreign rights, you have > no say in the title it's sold under in other countries - you may even find > out you signed away (or are being expected to) rights to the title you came > up with all-together in lieu of what some marketing VP comes up with. Magpie: According to Arthur Levine, he wanted to change the title to something with magic. He suggested "HP and the School of Magic" and JKR didn't like that. She thought about it and came up with SS. It's the editor/editorial that would discuss a different title if there is one, not a marketing exec in my experience. -m From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 1 18:06:57 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 14:06:57 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <005901ca12cc$e96a3300$bc3e9900$@com> Message-ID: <000a01ca12d2$e10f9f50$a32eddf0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie It's the editor/editorial that would discuss a different title if there is one, not a marketing exec in my experience. -m The editor, the person who chooses what books to publish, would be part of marketing. In fact, an editor would have marketing on the mind reading books, after all, it's about what will sell, not what is good. Even if someone in marketing said "we need to do something with this title" the editor, not the marketer would go to the writer. The marketing department would never contact the writer in such a way. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 18:31:35 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:31:35 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <000a01ca12d2$e10f9f50$a32eddf0$@com> Message-ID: md: > The editor, the person who chooses what books to publish, would be part of > marketing. In fact, an editor would have marketing on the mind reading > books, after all, it's about what will sell, not what is good. Even if > someone in marketing said "we need to do something with this title" the > editor, not the marketer would go to the writer. The marketing department > would never contact the writer in such a way. Magpie: If you consider it all marketing since the publisher's job is selling the book then yeah, they're all marketing. I was thinking of them as their different departments. A marketing vp who came across a big problem with a title they'd say something to the editor about it. It's just it's editorial that's generally in charge of creating the book and designing it with the title etc. I can't remember how many book lists I worked on when I was in kids' publishing, but I can't remember any UK titles that we ever thought of changing. (Most books we used the author's title all the way through that I remember.) I can remember, for instance, the sub-rights dept. asking editorial to please encourage this one artist who was always putting words in her illustrations to please put the words on a transparency that went on top of the art so that a different language could more easily be inserted in foreign markets. -m From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 19:45:47 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:45:47 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > According to Arthur Levine, he wanted to change the title > to something with magic. He suggested "HP and the School of Magic" zanooda: That's the way the French went :-). In French translation the book is called "Harry Potter a l'ecole des sorciers" - HP at the school of wizards/sorcerers :-). From agdisney at msn.com Sat Aug 1 20:57:16 2009 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:57:16 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > > My bet is he'll be injured in the wedding attack, on screen, > > defending someone > zanooda: > > Someone :-)? Bill will defend Fleur, of course :-). Greyback always attacks girls, right? Imagine, the DEs crash the wedding, there is a battle and Fenrir goes straight for the bride... :-). > Richard: Sounds like a very Hollywood-ish way to do it :) I bet it is something just like that. The way they protrayed Fleur in GoF would fit pretty well with her reacting like a bit of a helpless victim and require Bill to jump in front of her. Andie I have a question on the wedding in itself. In the book Bill met Fleur during the 3rd task at the Tri-Wizard Tournament. He got her a job at Gringotts so she can work on her English and he transferred back to England to be "near" her. In the movies - none of this happened. Bill & Molly were not at the 3rd task as Harry's family. Bill did not meet Fleur etc... I know there having a wedding but when did the bride & groom meet? How did they find each other? When did all this take place? Thanks for any help on this. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 1 20:50:09 2009 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:50:09 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <4A745397.5060306@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Brian wrote: > > Brigrove: As a Brit who has also lived in the US for a while, I have to say that > Philosopher's Stone would have meant nothing more to ME than it would to > an American kid. > > But let's face it, American publishers (and Hollywood is worse) try to > Americanise EVERYTHING and it is frankly offensive to most of the rest > of the world. Beatrice: I wondered this myself. When I first discovered the series and read the title, I remember thinking "is a sorcerer's stone like a philosopher's stone?" Lately, I have been hoping that they would republish these books in extended versions with the British idioms instead of Americanized versions. > Brigrove: I wonder why American publishers felt they had to dumb down the title, > yet in South America, with generally poorer levels of education, it > wasn't deemed to be necessary? Beatrice: I don't really have an answer here, but I wonder if it is not so much that publishers were "dumbing" things down as they may be used to different marketing strategies? Perhaps children are viewed as more powerful consumers in the US than they are elsewhere. Perhaps publishers in the US are used to children having disposable income/money and see children / teens as more apt to make their purchasing decisions independent of their parents, as opposed to children / teens whose parents are either more involved or make the purchases outright? Or perhaps those countries simply don't consider children as viable consumers? Of course dumbing things down for American readers is a huge possibility too. I wonder if things will change after the popularity of HP...after all they seriously seem to underestimate the strength of readership in America. From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Aug 1 22:16:11 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:16:11 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "coolbeans3131" wrote: > > > > > > Q: Are you looking forward to that without saying what it is? > > AR: Well, the only thing that I'll say is that for the first time shooting those films, I know what I'm doing and why. > > > > Q: Have you read ahead? > > AR: That's what I mean by that. > > > > Q: You've read the seventh book? > > AR: That's what I mean by that [laughs]. > > > > > Lizzy Mae >> > > LOL! I love Alan Rickman! Of all the actors, he had the hardest job of knowing how to play his character before the books had all come out. Given how popular both book and movie Snape are, I'm surprised how underutilized he's been in the films. I have very little faith that they won't ruin the memory sequence by watering it down too much! (as they did with his HBP revelation) > > Joann I could be wrong, but I heard that JKR more or less had all 7 books plotted out when she wrote the SS, and Alan Rickman had been told pretty much the plot of all 7 books when the SS was filmed so he would know the reasons behind Snape. I don't think it was book by book. However, I could be very wrong about that. I've come to appreciate Snape by the way Alan Rickman has portrayed him. I really like Alan Rickman Marianne From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Aug 1 22:21:04 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:21:04 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <001f01ca1263$b92ac290$2b8047b0$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > > > > > > From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of marion11111 > > > > > > marion wonders: > What is it that makes a version of the film *UK*? I mean other than the fact > that you need a special DVD player or can only watch it on the computer? Is > the packaging different? The movie itself is identical, isn't it? You've got > me curious. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > It's called a regionless DVD player. It will play all regions. I've been wanting one for a long time because there are many DVDs that are not region 1 I'd like to get. They used to be very expensive, but they have come down in price. Marianne From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Aug 1 22:29:48 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:29:48 -0600 Subject: GOF Yule Ball Message-ID: <5959776761074F01B8B6E9E7D0F17EC7@Marianne> I saw in a interview of the yule ball there was a brief clip where the cast is dancing oppisit of each other and the guys are flipping the sides of their jackets to show their shirts then flip them back over. I swear it was Tom Felton and it looked like he was having a good time doing it. I assume it was stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor. Or is this one of my I could have sworn I saw it, but it wasn't really there, moments. I've looked in the extras on the DVD but of course I can't find it. Marianne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 1 22:34:59 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:34:59 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Magpie: > > I don't actually defend the title change as necessary or a particularly good > idea. I just think an inordinate amount of fuss is made about it because the > book is so popular. I don't get offended any time I notice a book or movie has a > different title in the UK than it did in the US or vice versa. > > Alla: > > I think that because it is so popular we know about it so well, but believe me if I know that a book was renamed for UK readers, I would be just as annoyed. I am a bit more relaxed on movies whether it is from UK to US or vice versa, not because I think that it is a good idea, but because I feel that it is about commercialisation right away more than creative expression. I however still dislike it. > > I mean, seriously, unless it is the title of the book is so obscure that general public never heard about it (I know it is hard to determine objectively, but I still think one should try), really deal with it. Give audience some credit and assume they can figure it out. IMO of course. Geoff: Precisely. I found the suggestion that the title was changed because US readers would not make any sense of it was ludicrous, to put it mildly. Let's consider the matter. When the first UK book came out in 1997, perhaps a young reader might look at the title and wonder about it. But the first edition out was the children's paperback edition. On the cover was Harry with a wand and the Hogwarts Express. An attractive and tempting picture. Now surely any potential young reader with good reading skills and possessing the concentration to settle down to this volume would go on and read the synopsis on the back cover. That's what I do with any book I'm considering, and not only with fiction. As other writers have commented, the title is not always a dead giveaway to what the book is all about. As an example, one of my favorite books is fantasy aimed at younger readers: "The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" by Alan Garner. I must admit that, having a liking for that type of story, I first read it in my twenties. I saw it in the bookshop and my first reaction on seeing the title was "Huh?". So I glanced at the "blurb" on the back and though "Ah, this is about the legend of the knights of Alderley Edge"; regardless of the title, I knew something about this and so went ahead and bought the book. And again, which title is the most understandable at first glance: "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Silmarillion"? Some titles can be positively obscure but if a discerning reader bothers to read the rest of the cover, it should not prove to be a hindrance. From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Sat Aug 1 22:43:26 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 00:43:26 +0200 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione References: Message-ID: <78A024D2A9C64CE5890BF79A6C1670EF@miles> > Beatrice: I don't really have an answer here, but I wonder if it is > not so much that publishers were "dumbing" things down as they may be > used to different marketing strategies? Perhaps children are viewed > as more powerful consumers in the US than they are elsewhere. > Perhaps publishers in the US are used to children having disposable > income/money and see children / teens as more apt to make their > purchasing decisions independent of their parents, as opposed to > children / teens whose parents are either more involved or make the > purchases outright? Or perhaps those countries simply don't consider > children as viable consumers? Miles I doubt that there is a big difference in US or UK children having and spending their own money. If you'd consider the first HP books originally written for an audience of about 10-12 years, I really doubt that the average kid would decide about what books they buy and read without their parents - but the parents wouldn't decide without the kids. I can't say anything about the UK, but the German edition was published parallel to the US edition. German children have a considerable amount of own money and choose themselves what they do with it (along with their parents). The German publishing house is a leading publisher for children's books, and they know about marketing. They had no problems with using the "original" term, although "Stein der Weisen" is not directly connected to schools for magic. In 1998, "Harry Potter" didn't sell a single book as a trade name, it was still a insiders' tip. Anyway, I think it's not less an infamy to change the title of the book for the US market, than to publish the book in the UK only with the initials and without the full name of the author, to cover up that she is a woman. Miles From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Aug 1 23:38:09 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:38:09 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > Precisely. I found the suggestion that the title was changed because US > readers would not make any sense of it was ludicrous, to put it mildly. Magpie: Well, yeah. But that wasn't the suggestion of anyone at Scholastic. Of course US readers would make sense of it. They just wanted them to make the right sense of it. Geoff: An attractive and > tempting picture. Now surely any potential young reader with good reading > skills and possessing the concentration to settle down to this volume would > go on and read the synopsis on the back cover. That's what I do with any > book I'm considering, and not only with fiction. Magpie: Which goes along with the theme of the thread, which is making sure to treat every reader as the one with good reading skills and concentration who is also the type of person to look at every title, cover art and synopsis for every book. I've never worked in advertising but I suspect that attitude goes against the way they approach everything. Not every book title gets chosen on the basis of telling people about one specific thing in the book. With this book the US publishers wanted to do that so they did. -m From md at exit-reality.com Sun Aug 2 02:24:53 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:24:53 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <001f01ca1263$b92ac290$2b8047b0$@com> Message-ID: <001c01ca1318$6f450ea0$4dcf2be0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wildirishrose01us > > marion wonders: > What is it that makes a version of the film *UK*? I mean other than the fact > that you need a special DVD player or can only watch it on the computer? Is > the packaging different? The movie itself is identical, isn't it? You've got > me curious. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > It's called a regionless DVD player. It will play all regions. I've been wanting one for a long time because there are many DVDs that are not region 1 I'd like to get. Marianne //////////////////////////////////////// I don't have a region-less DVD player, I bought mine from Canada, where they see the UK versions but they are Region 1 because they are sold in Canada. Plus, I order from Amazon.ca and they ship to the U.S. in 2 - 3 weeks and the shipping's about the same as in the 48 states. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 03:50:26 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:50:26 -0000 Subject: GOF Yule Ball In-Reply-To: <5959776761074F01B8B6E9E7D0F17EC7@Marianne> Message-ID: > Marianne wrote: > > I saw in a interview of the yule ball there was a brief clip where the cast is dancing oppisit of each other and the guys are flipping the sides of their jackets to show their shirts then flip them back over. I swear it was Tom Felton and it looked like he was having a good time doing it. I assume it was stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor. Or is this one of my I could have sworn I saw it, but it wasn't really there, moments. > > I've looked in the extras on the DVD but of course I can't find it. > Richard: I remember seeing footage of the ball, where all the kids looked to be having a good time just being at a "dance". I am sure you could see Tom dancing with Emma, but I do not remember anything else. I am not sure if it was on the DVD or from a behind the scenes special or interview. It seemed like a "we had the cameras going while the kids were having fun in case there was something good to use, but no one was really in character" scenario. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 03:59:39 2009 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:59:39 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > marion wonders: > > What is it that makes a version of the film *UK*? I mean other than the fact > > that you need a special DVD player or can only watch it on the computer? Is > > the packaging different? The movie itself is identical, isn't it? You've got > > me curious. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > It's called a regionless DVD player. It will play all regions. I've been wanting one for a long time because there are many DVDs that are not region 1 I'd like to get. > > They used to be very expensive, but they have come down in price. > > Marianne > marion again: Thanks for this info Marianne. I've got some of the old Famous Five TV show on DVD and can only watch on my computer. Which has been fine since no one but me wants to see these anyway. I looked into these regionless players and they were outrageous at that time. From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 04:14:55 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:14:55 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > zanooda: > > > > Someone :-)? Bill will defend Fleur, of course :-). Greyback always attacks girls, right? Imagine, the DEs crash the wedding, there is a battle and Fenrir goes straight for the bride... :-). > > > > Richard: > > Sounds like a very Hollywood-ish way to do it :) > I bet it is something just like that. The way they protrayed Fleur in GoF would fit pretty well with her reacting like a bit of a helpless victim and require Bill to jump in front of her. > > > Andie > > I have a question on the wedding in itself. In the book Bill met Fleur during the 3rd task at the Tri-Wizard Tournament. He got her a job at Gringotts so she can work on her English and he transferred back to England to be "near" her. > > In the movies - none of this happened. Bill & Molly were not at the 3rd task as Harry's family. Bill did not meet Fleur etc... > > I know there having a wedding but when did the bride & groom meet? How did they find each other? When did all this take place? > > Thanks for any help on this. > Richard: It shouldn't be too hard to set the stage for the wedding with a few establishing scenes and conversations. Fleur is working at Gringotts to improve her English, whether or not Bill had anything to do with her getting the job. Bill came back to England to be near his family and the Order of the Phoenix during these dark days. He's a handsome risk taker, she's Fleur, put them together and instant chemistry :) They will probably have been engaged the same amount of time or a little less than the book, but she obviously wasn't staying at the Burrow to bond with the family since she was not with them in any of the scenes in HBP. From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 04:42:38 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:42:38 -0000 Subject: GOF Yule Ball In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > > Marianne wrote: > > > > I saw in a interview of the yule ball there was a brief clip where the cast is dancing oppisit of each other and the guys are flipping the sides of their jackets to show their shirts then flip them back over. I swear it was Tom Felton and it looked like he was having a good time doing it. I assume it was stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor. Or is this one of my I could have sworn I saw it, but it wasn't really there, moments. > > > > I've looked in the extras on the DVD but of course I can't find it. > > > > Richard: > > I remember seeing footage of the ball, where all the kids looked to be having a good time just being at a "dance". I am sure you could see Tom dancing with Emma, but I do not remember anything else. I am not sure if it was on the DVD or from a behind the scenes special or interview. It seemed like a "we had the cameras going while the kids were having fun in case there was something good to use, but no one was really in character" scenario. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avs39nu2wTc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACjGFpOc8I From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 07:03:46 2009 From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (Lizzie Mae Lilly) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:03:46 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" wrote: > > > > > > Q: Are you looking forward to that without saying what it is? > > > AR: Well, the only thing that I'll say is that for the first time shooting those films, I know what I'm doing and why. > > > > > > Q: Have you read ahead? > > > AR: That's what I mean by that. > > > > > > Q: You've read the seventh book? > > > AR: That's what I mean by that [laughs]. > > > > > > > > Lizzy Mae > >> > > I could be wrong, but I heard that JKR more or less had all 7 books plotted out when she wrote the SS, and Alan Rickman had been told pretty much the plot of all 7 books when the SS was filmed so he would know the reasons behind Snape. I don't think it was book by book. However, I could be very wrong about that. > > I've come to appreciate Snape by the way Alan Rickman has portrayed him. I really like Alan Rickman > > Marianne > >From what he says in the interview I quoted above it doesn't sound like he knew the whole plot from the beginning. I do know he took advantage of Jo's offer to talk to him about Snape, but from another interview after the publication of DH it doesn't appear that it was very detailed. In this interview (I'll do my best to find it) AR says he asked Jo for one thing about Snape that he should know. She told him that Snape loved Harry's mother. Lizzie From brian at rescueddoggies.com Sun Aug 2 03:54:57 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:54:57 -0300 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) Message-ID: <4A750E11.7070803@rescueddoggies.com> Greyback always attacks girls, right? That must be news to Remus. (and Tonks!) Brian brigrove From brian at rescueddoggies.com Sun Aug 2 03:51:25 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:51:25 -0300 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione Message-ID: <4A750D3D.6050000@rescueddoggies.com> given the amount of marketing directly aimed at children here in Argentina, far more than would probably be permitted in the UK or the USA, I'd say that not considering children as purchasers is unlikely to be the reason for keeping the original title. (translated of course) Brian brigrove From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 15:03:47 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:03:47 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: <4A750E11.7070803@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: > Brian wrote: > > Greyback always attacks girls, right? > > That must be news to Remus. (and Tonks!) > Richard: Did someone say Greyback always attacks girls? We all know that Greyback will attack anyone, but his preferred victims are children. We were talking about how the film makers would introduce Bill's injury, and one popular idea is that Bill will get wounded by Greyback at the wedding trying to protect Fleur. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 15:10:43 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:10:43 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lizzie Mae Lilly wrote: > > Here's the link for the interview I was thinking of earlier: > > http://rickman.tribe.net > > Scroll down and click on: > Alan Rickman interview transcript from the Sweeney . . . > > Here's the relevant quote: > > Q: Without any spoilers this film [HBP] does have some Snape's big moment. > AR: Well, that's a spoiler, isn't it? > > Q: Are you looking forward to that without saying what it is? > AR: Well, the only thing that I'll say is that for the first time shooting those films, I know what I'm doing and why. > > Q: Have you read ahead? > AR: That's what I mean by that. > > Q: You've read the seventh book? > AR: That's what I mean by that [laughs]. Carol responds: Thanks very much. Now the only question is why Michael Gambon said that AR hadn't read the books! BTW, someone (Alla?) asked on OT why some of us think it matters whether actors read the books. IMO, it matters because that way they understand the character as originally written, both the author's depiction and the reader's expectations and interpret his character based on that rather than merely on the script and direction. I'm quite sure that Rickman, for example, based Snape's sweeping walk, his gestures, and, especially, his tone of voice and facial expressions, on Book!Snape (as well as the snippet of information that JKR gave him regarding Snape's motivation). It seems to me, though I still haven't seen the film (not for lack of trying!), that the actress who plays Narcissa (name escapes me) could have benefited from reading the books--as could Gambon in GoF. (DD shaking and yelling at Harry! Honestly!) Carol, planning to see the film today if at goes well, even if it means going out in the horrible hot heat (deliberate redundancy) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 15:50:30 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:50:30 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Thanks very much. Now the only question is why Michael Gambon said that AR hadn't read the books! BTW, someone (Alla?) asked on OT why some of us think it matters whether actors read the books. IMO, it matters because that way they understand the character as originally written, both the author's depiction and the reader's expectations and interpret his character based on that rather than merely on the script and direction. I'm quite sure that Rickman, for example, based Snape's sweeping walk, his gestures, and, especially, his tone of voice and facial expressions, on Book!Snape (as well as the snippet of information that JKR gave him regarding Snape's motivation). It seems to me, though I still haven't seen the film (not for lack of trying!), that the actress who plays Narcissa (name escapes me) could have benefited from reading the books--as could Gambon in GoF. (DD shaking and yelling at Harry! Honestly!) > > Carol, planning to see the film today if at goes well, even if it means going out in the horrible hot heat (deliberate redundancy) > Alla: I disagree, but again disagree with the disclaimer - I do not think that it is bad for the actors to read the books which screenplay is based on. I however do not think it is anything of particular use either and of course I do not work in filmmaking industry, so I am basing my knowledge only on what I read. So say actor reads the book and as you said understand author's intentions, readers' expectations, etc and then he reads the screenplay and being a smart guy he is sees right away that these things come with direct contradiction with screenwriter's intention and producer's intention? Which ones do you think he would follow and should follow if he wants to keep his job? You wrote that Alan Rickman based Snape's walk and some other mannerisms of his based on the book Snape. I disagree. I mean, I agree that it is book Snape's mannerisms of course, but I think that screenwriter chose to adapt them in the play as they are in the book and that is why Rickman portrayed Snape that way, because it is in the play. Do you think that if Kloves and directors did not want them there that is what Snape would have done? Like when he smacks Ron and Harry in the study hall for example (in PoA?). I do not think book!Snape ever did anything of such, but screenwriter wanted him to do so and so he wrote it. Do not get me wrong, I think screenwriter has an obligation to read and reread the book and make sure that adaptation expresses at least the spirit of the story and the characters, and some time (well most of the time) when I watch the adaptations of the classics I want to reach out and shake the screenwriter and tell them - no, really, you can't write better than Jane Austen, no you cannot write better than Tolstoy, you cannot, cannot no matter how hard you try write better than Dostoevsky and NO, you cannot improve Beowulf, it is already ten times better than anything you can produce. But I do not think actors can do anything if they want to interpret the character in contradiction to what director wants, it is simply not their job. Oh sure, we can search and find that once in a million years director can listen to some star whom she wants in the movie real badly, but seriously, this does not happen almost ever from what I understand. Director can easily find somebody else to play the part. As to Narcissa, I know she did not work for many, but just as Dumbledore she actually worked for me really well, not her look, but her behavior. I also think the changing of the scene has something to do with book 7. They know that Narcissa was not faking anything, was not playing any part and thus her many tears, I don't know could have looked a bit ridiculous, to me anyway. Hers "He is just a boy" to me was more heart wrenching than many tears she could have shed. JMO, Alla From joeydebs at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 20:05:16 2009 From: joeydebs at yahoo.com (Debi) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:05:16 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Brian wrote: > > > > Greyback always attacks girls, right? > > > > That must be news to Remus. (and Tonks!) > > > > Richard: > > Did someone say Greyback always attacks girls? > We all know that Greyback will attack anyone, but his preferred victims are children. Debi: You're right, it just says his preferred victims are children - the girls could come from the connection to Jean Grenier who was a young boy accused of being a werewolf who supposedly claimed he would eat anything but preferred the flesh of young girls. From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 21:03:01 2009 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:03:01 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alla: I disagree, but again disagree with the disclaimer - I do not think that it is bad for the actors to read the books which screenplay is based on. I however do not think it is anything of particular use either and of course I do not work in filmmaking industry, so I am basing my knowledge only on what I read. Cassie: As an actress I'd say it is helpful to read the book if the movie/play/whatever is based off one. It helps you work on character development. Alla: So say actor reads the book and as you said understand author's intentions, readers' expectations, etc and then he reads the screenplay and being a smart guy he is sees right away that these things come with direct contradiction with screenwriter's intention and producer's intention? Which ones do you think he would follow and should follow if he wants to keep his job? But I do not think actors can do anything if they want to interpret the character in contradiction to what director wants, it is simply not their job. Oh sure, we can search and find that once in a million years director can listen to some star whom she wants in the movie real badly, but seriously, this does not happen almost ever from what I understand. Director can easily find somebody else to play the part. Cassie: I think any good director would welcome input from others. They don't have to agree with it or use it, but it doesn't hurt to take other ideas into consideration. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 21:35:26 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:35:26 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! Message-ID: I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would despite not enough Snape. The only serious problems that I think the filmmakers made for themselves with their alterations were the burning of the Burrow (no follow-up reactions by Ron and Ginny and no indication where the adult Weasleys will live now--and the Burrow will have to be restored for the wedding with some sort of tacked-on explanation--and the nonsense about Horcruxes being ordinary objects like Portkeys. How extraordinarily misleading and unhelpful). The scene with the Inferius pulling Harry into the water made me jump even though I was expecting it, but I thought it was too prolonged (and may well have ruined the story of Regulus in DH1--how can they tell it in a flashback sequence without duplicating the scene with Harry)? I actually think that given Rickman!Snape's expressions and the quick scene with him and DD in the tower before DD left that his true loyalties have been almost adequately foreshadowed. I'm glad, however, that I came to the film prepared for the deletions and alterations. Otherwise, I'd have been massively disappointed and wouldn't have enjoyed it at all. The person I saw it with had the "right" reactions, so it seems as if the cinematic adaptation worked. Carol, who will talk more about it later when she has more time From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 22:31:59 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:31:59 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: <4A750E11.7070803@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Brian wrote: > Greyback always attacks girls, right? > That must be news to Remus. (and Tonks!) zanooda: There is no need to understand everything so literally :-). I didn't mean that Greyback attacks "only" girls, he just prefers them, IMO. He didn't show any interest (bite-wise :-)) in Harry or Ron, only in Hermione. During the battle of Hogwarts he is also shown attempting to bite a girl (Lavender). Sure, he mauled Bill, and I'm sure he would do it to anyone, I just have a feeling that, given the choice, he would take more pleasure in biting a girl. That's why I think Greyback will go after Fleur at the wedding and Bill will protect her, it's just much more dramatic than him protecting someone else :-). It's a movie we are talking about after all :-). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 22:44:46 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:44:46 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > We all know that Greyback will attack anyone, but his > preferred victims are children. zanooda: Greyback attacks children because he wants to turn them into werewolves at the young age. Among adults, IMO, he prefers girls (meaning young women :-)). I take it he likes soft skin, which both children and women have. I suppose it's not much pleasure for him to bite some stubbly cheek, LOL. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 23:30:37 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:30:37 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > No, I'm pretty sure it's the magic of the tiara. After all, it's Goblin-made and Griphook seems to covet it (though not as much as he does the Sword of Gryffindor), and if Goblin-made armor possesses "special properties" (DH Am. ed. 298), it makes sense that the tiara would, too Here's the passage from the wedding: > > > > There are two possible readings: either Fleur has turned on the Veela Charm, which is causing the glow and the beautification, or it's the tiara. But when Fleur turns on the Veela Charm, as when she's trying to get Cedric to ask her to the Yule Ball and Ron idiotically asks her instead, *she's* the one being beautified. And happy though she is with Bill, her beauty never extends to him on any other occasion, and much as she loves him, his scars are visible when they're together. > > Magpie: > I think the point is that she's so happy on her wedding day that she's showering beauty on others. It's a sweet metaphor for her happiness as a bride using Veela magic as an excuse, imo, not a subtle example of goblin magic. The Ravenclaw tiara isn't known for doing anything magical, just being a Horcrux and being owned. > > I think the tiara's just a nice little detail and Aunt Muriel's line is just a character moment. She's taking credit for Fleur's beauty and responding as if Hermione's naturally impressed by the part of the outfit she provided rather than Fleur herself. I think you were mystified because you wouldn't expect somebody to be that self-centered.:-) > > -m > Carol responds: Ah, well. I read it differently. She seems to me to be literally giving off a silver radiance and literally beautifying everybody, including the horribly injured Bill, who (again literally) looks as if he'd never encountered Fenrir Greyback--unscarred and handsome--as no amount of happiness could make him. And there's really no reason for Auntie Muriel's comment regarding the tiara to appear at that specific moment if its magic isn't responsible. My reading has nothing to do with my being "mystified" by Auntie Muriel's being so self-centered. I was mystified about her reference to the tiara, not her personality, until I put two and two together--to my own satisfaction. I did and do think that JKR's hint about the tiara was a bit too subtle and might be overlooked by a number of readers, just as I overlooked it the first time around. As I said before, Fleur has been happy all this time but has never given off a *silvery* glow that beautified everybody else, and when she turns on the Veela charm, it enhances only her own already considerable attractiveness to men and boys. Carol, noting that the tiara was important enough to be foreshadowed in HBP, which is why I paid attention to it (that and the Ravenclaw diadem, which no one in the books except Luna remotely connects with the tiara) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 23:34:38 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:34:38 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Cassie: As an actress I'd say it is helpful to read the book if the movie/play/whatever is based off one. It helps you work on character development. Alla: I see your point if the adaptation has similar intentions as the original, even if adaptation cuts storylines, etc, but characters and plot remain for the most part the same. So again, please do not get me wrong, I do not think it is bad for Alan Rickman to read the books at all. Although even for him, what good does it do him that he reads about Snape delivering the Prophecy for example and guilt and remorse he feels because of it if , if it will not be touched upon in DH (of course we do not know yet one way or another). But I realized that I can come up with the example that illustrates my point much better. Have you seen Disney's version of Three Musketeers? Have you **read** Three Musketeers? If you did both, I am 99.99% sure that you will agree with me that Alexander Dumas would have turned in his grave if he saw this so called "adaptation". Because well, for those who did not do both or only read OR saw that silliness, well they have very little in common together besides action supposedly taking place in France and characters with the same names and occupations. I was thinking what good it would have done to the actor (whose name I do not remember) who played Cardinal Richelie (please forgive the spelling) if he read the book. Because see in the book he would have read about fascinating character, who despite being on different side of court intrigues than our musketeers are, still on the same side with them in the most important way that counts, he loved France just as much as they did. And NO, he was not trying to usurp the throne and kill the King. Ugh, I cannot express how much I hate this movie. And then he reads the screenplay. I am not sure how reading the book would have helped him work on character development. Only if in the future he would have wanted to play the role in the better adaptation LOL. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 2 23:57:42 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:57:42 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > > > I do understand what you are saying Magpie about wanting to grab right audience and fast, but still I think I have to agree with Miles again :-) > > > > I mean, the reason why they would want to grab the right audience with changing the word, the underlying assumption is that the audience may not know the definition, right? > > Magpie: > Yes--but I'm disagreeing with the idea that assuming a 9-year-old would automatically look at a book with "Philosopher's Stone" on the cover and say, "I'll check out this book to see if it's about a boy who can do magic" is the same as assuming they're stupid. > > Sure it might imply thinking more highly of their intelligence if you assume they'll not only make the connection to alchemy and then make the second connection to wizards and sorcery, but you might lose a lot of intelligent kids who don't make the right connection. Even a kid who knows what the Philosopher Stone is wouldn't necessarily connect it with Wizardry, since that's an artificial connection. Just by title I'd probably assume it was a mystery story. > > Yeah, the title is totally more in-your-face, writing MAGIC in big letters on the title, but if HP hadn't been a huge sensation I wouldn't be surprised if that led to more book sales by putting the selling point in the title rather than the Maguffin. Carol responds: I more or less agree with Magpie though I want to point out that the education children receive has little relation to their intelligence and a great deal to do with their culture. I'm willing to bet that most American third and fourth graders (in contrast to those in European countries) have not been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone, either because teachers think it's too advanced for them (or insufficiently interesting to them) or, more likely, because American education has other priorities, and what history and science is taught in those early grades is very practical (science) and American-oriented (history). When I was in fourth grade, for example, I learned about inclined planes and other simple machines (yawn!), the solar system (exciting new stuff for me in those days), and the Basic Seven food groups (giving away my age here). I never heard of a Philosopher's Stone until seventh grade, in or out of school, and I did a *lot* of recreational reading. These days, I'd be surprised if American kids are exposed to the concept before high school. So it's partly a cultural thing--not that kids are stupid (though the schools do seem to thing that they can't learn without being entertained), but that the publisher's simply didn't expect kids of that age to be familiar with--or interested in--the concept. "Sorcerer's Stone," OTOH, is nicely alliterative and suggests (obviously) sorcery--magic, fantasy, etc., sa opposed to philosophy, which few nine-year-old that I've encountered are interested in even if they've heard of it. However unfortunate it might be with regard to medieval alchemy and Nicholas Flamel (I doubt that many young readers from any country realized that he wasn't as imaginary as Grindelwald and Dumbledore), if it caught their attention and interested them in the books, it served and more than served its purpose. Anyway, the title doesn't insult anyone's intelligence, IMO. It merely reflects an accurate view of the educational level and interests of the average American third or fourth grader, again, IMO. And Hollywood had nothing to do with it. WB just gave the American version of the film the same title as the American version of the book. Carol, not "fussed" by this particular alteration, which for all we know, may have attracted a large number of children who would not have read the book otherwise From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 3 00:12:50 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:12:50 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds: I more or less agree with Magpie though I want to point out that the education children receive has little relation to their intelligence and a great deal to do with their culture. I'm willing to bet that most American third and fourth graders (in contrast to those in European countries) have not been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone, Anyway, the title doesn't insult anyone's intelligence, IMO. It merely reflects an accurate view of the educational level and interests of the average American third or fourth grader, again, IMO. And Hollywood had nothing to do with it. WB just gave the American version of the film the same title as the American version of the book. Carol, not "fussed" by this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The average child could look-up "philosopher's stone" and find out what it is, but they could look up "sorcerer's stone" and find out there's no such thing in mythology. For that reason as much as anything it was a bad call. I think the kid on the broom-stick FLYING on the cover kind of gives kids some idea. Trust me, they are seeing the picture on the cover long before reading the title. My thing is this, the philosopher's stone is an actual mythological object that, like many other of what JKR filled her books with where as this "sorcerer's" thing only exist only in the American version of that book. Also, the Philosopher's Stone is not something just every kid in the UK going to just know. Has nothing to do with "the educational level and interest of the average (???) American 3rd or 4th grader" because they have absolutely no idea what a Sorcerer's Stone is, because it didn't exist in literature before that book, unlike the Philosopher's Stone which they may have actually come across if they were raised in a house with lots of books and tons of fantasy and mythological literature. Oh! Like mine. md a little "fussed," whatever that means, by this. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 00:13:25 2009 From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (Lizzie Mae Lilly) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:13:25 -0000 Subject: GOF Yule Ball In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > > Richard: > > I remember seeing footage of the ball, where all the kids looked to be having a good time just being at a "dance". I am sure you could see Tom dancing with Emma, but I do not remember anything else. I am not sure if it was on the DVD or from a behind the scenes special or interview. It seemed like a "we had the cameras going while the kids were having fun in case there was something good to use, but no one was really in character" scenario. > During the filming of GoF Bonnie Wright stated on her webpage that she'd seen Profs Snape and McGonagall dancing the tango at the Yule Ball. Later this was removed from her page, and of course, SS and MM are never seen dancing together in the film. Actually I figure it was AR and Dame Maggie goofing off! Wish I could have seen it!! Lizzie From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 01:27:09 2009 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:27:09 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > The scene with the Inferius pulling Harry into the water made me jump > even though I was expecting it, but I thought it was too prolonged > (and may well have ruined the story of Regulus in DH1--how can they > tell it in a flashback sequence without duplicating the scene with > Harry)? Jen: Glad you liked the movie, Carol. I'm curious to read your impressions about the death sequence and the run across the grounds. I was somewhat disappointed in those particular scenes as a DD fan, so I'm curious what you thought about the scenes as a Snape fan. Re: Regulus and the Inferi in DH, I believe they will give that moment to Kreacher. I can imagine a very poignant moment as Kreacher watches Regulus dragged into the lake, listening to his last orders reverberating in the cave. At least that's how I'm imgaining the scene at the moment. After all, the story is Kreacher's. Jen, who jumped during the Inferi scene in her first viewing but was ready the second time around. From wildirishrose at fiber.net Mon Aug 3 01:33:51 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:33:51 -0000 Subject: GOF Yule Ball In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > > > > Marianne wrote: > > > > > > I saw in a interview of the yule ball there was a brief clip where the cast is dancing oppisit of each other and the guys are flipping the sides of their jackets to show their shirts then flip them back over. I swear it was Tom Felton and it looked like he was having a good time doing it. I assume it was stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor. Or is this one of my I could have sworn I saw it, but it wasn't really there, moments. > > > > > > I've looked in the extras on the DVD but of course I can't find it. > > > > > > > Richard: > > > > I remember seeing footage of the ball, where all the kids looked to be having a good time just being at a "dance". I am sure you could see Tom dancing with Emma, but I do not remember anything else. I am not sure if it was on the DVD or from a behind the scenes special or interview. It seemed like a "we had the cameras going while the kids were having fun in case there was something good to use, but no one was really in character" scenario. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avs39nu2wTc > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACjGFpOc8I Thank you. Appreciate that. I love watching bloopers and behind the scene stuff. I found some Alan Rickman bloopers. It cracked me up to see him laughing. Marianne > From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 03:28:30 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:28:30 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen, who jumped during the Inferi scene in her first viewing but > was ready the second time around. zanooda: Did you watch it twice then :-)? In this case, maybe you can tell me what was the deal with Malfoy's cane, or staff or whatever it was :-). I mean the scene when Harry and Luna arrive at the school and Filch tries to stop Draco from bringing this object inside. I didn't understand what it was all about and I didn't manage to have a good look at the thing. Was it Lucius's snake-head cane? If not, what was the point of the scene? Maybe you noticed and understood more, having seen the movie twice :-)? From shepardrj at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 03:44:55 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:44:55 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Brian: > > > Greyback always attacks girls, right? > > > That must be news to Remus. (and Tonks!) > > > zanooda: > > There is no need to understand everything so literally :-). I didn't mean that Greyback attacks "only" girls, he just prefers them, IMO. He didn't show any interest (bite-wise :-)) in Harry or Ron, only in Hermione. During the battle of Hogwarts he is also shown attempting to bite a girl (Lavender). > > Sure, he mauled Bill, and I'm sure he would do it to anyone, I just have a feeling that, given the choice, he would take more pleasure in biting a girl. That's why I think Greyback will go after Fleur at the wedding and Bill will protect her, it's just much more dramatic than him protecting someone else :-). It's a movie we are talking about after all :-). > Richard: Exactly, it's a movie! If he went after the sweet Ginny, Harry would have to be the one to step in and then the wrong person would have scars :) From shepardrj at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 03:53:52 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:53:52 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Jen: > > > > Jen, who jumped during the Inferi scene in her first viewing but > > was ready the second time around. > > > zanooda: > > Did you watch it twice then :-)? In this case, maybe you can tell me what was the deal with Malfoy's cane, or staff or whatever it was :-). I mean the scene when Harry and Luna arrive at the school and Filch tries to stop Draco from bringing this object inside. > > I didn't understand what it was all about and I didn't manage to have a good look at the thing. Was it Lucius's snake-head cane? If not, what was the point of the scene? Maybe you noticed and understood more, having seen the movie twice :-)? > Richard: I think it was his father's cane. I think the point of the scene was to give the viewer the idea that Malfoy got in without actually being searched at all. And to establish the dynamic of Snape trying to help Malfoy and Malfoy not liking it. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Aug 3 04:18:03 2009 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:18:03 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > zanooda: > > Did you watch it twice then :-)? In this case, maybe you can tell me what was the deal with Malfoy's cane, or staff or whatever it was :-). I mean the scene when Harry and Luna arrive at the school and Filch tries to stop Draco from bringing this object inside. > > I didn't understand what it was all about and I didn't manage to >have a good look at the thing. Was it Lucius's snake-head cane? If > not, what was the point of the scene? Maybe you noticed and > understood more, having seen the movie twice :-)? > Jen: I'm not the best one to answer because I didn't notice the cane until the second viewing! However, I'm almost certain it was Lucius' cane. That was a nice sentiment on Draco's part, wanting to keep a part of Lucius with him. Also an apt metaphor that Draco was following in his father's footsteps. As for why Filch tried to confiscate the cane, all I could think about was why the heck Harry & Luna were unprotected while Filch fought with students over suspect objects. :D It's amazing the Chosen One made it out of this movie alive. ;) From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 05:24:43 2009 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 01:24:43 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alla: I see your point if the adaptation has similar intentions as the original, even if adaptation cuts storylines, etc, but characters and plot remain for the most part the same. So again, please do not get me wrong, I do not think it is bad for Alan Rickman to read the books at all. Although even for him, what good does it do him that he reads about Snape delivering the Prophecy for example and guilt and remorse he feels because of it if , if it will not be touched upon in DH (of course we do not know yet one way or another). Cassie: In that situation, maybe it wouldn't do him any good. On the other hand, sometimes actors use information for character development that is never touched upon in the actual production. Even if it's never revealed to the audience that Snape is the one who told LV about the prophecy, AR (as Snape) may still keep this in mind as he's playing the character. Of course, if the director tells AR he should have a completely different motivation, then his having learned about that information really doesn't matter. AR (or any actor for that matter) may even come up with his own reasons for doing things because of the way he interprets what he's read in both the book and the screenplay. Alla: But I realized that I can come up with the example that illustrates my point much better. Have you seen Disney's version of Three Musketeers? Have you **read** Three Musketeers? If you did both, I am 99.99% sure that you will agree with me that Alexander Dumas would have turned in his grave if he saw this so called "adaptation". Because well, for those who did not do both or only read OR saw that silliness, well they have very little in common together besides action supposedly taking place in France and characters with the same names and occupations. Cassie: I've read the book, eaten the candy bar, and have seen The Musketeers as portrayed in The Man in the Iron Mask, but no, I've never seen the disney version. Now I don't think I want to. Alla: I was thinking what good it would have done to the actor (whose name I do not remember) who played Cardinal Richelie (please forgive the spelling) if he read the book. And then he reads the screenplay. I am not sure how reading the book would have helped him work on character development. Only if in the future he would have wanted to play the role in the better adaptation LOL. Cassie: I see your point. Some adaptations can be so far off the mark it makes you wonder if the screenwriter and/or director even read the book. Mind you, I think some changes are good. Even as a diehard HP fan who wanted to see the films be completely faithful to the books, I have to admit there are changes that I've liked and even thought were better than what was written. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 19:59:48 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:59:48 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > > Jen, who jumped during the Inferi scene in her first viewing but > > was ready the second time around. > > > zanooda: > > Did you watch it twice then :-)? In this case, maybe you can tell me what was the deal with Malfoy's cane, or staff or whatever it was :-). I mean the scene when Harry and Luna arrive at the school and Filch tries to stop Draco from bringing this object inside. > > I didn't understand what it was all about and I didn't manage to have a good look at the thing. Was it Lucius's snake-head cane? If not, what was the point of the scene? Maybe you noticed and understood more, having seen the movie twice :-)? > bboyminn: I've only seen the movie once, but I assumed that the scene was the Directors way of establishing that Filch is checking everyone who come into the school. To help establish the idea of tightened security, though since it was never mentioned again, it seems kind of pointless. Since Lucius is in jail, I suspect Draco did try to bring his father's cane with him to school. I think that cane would be something of a status symbol. Though it would certainly seem ridiculously pretentious of Draco to be prancing around the school with the cane, so, I think, once at school, it remained in his room as a reminder of his father. And, also, though unintended, a reminder to Draco what was at stake if he failed in his mission. The one part of the movie that I thought was ridiculous was Ginny taking Harry to the Room of Requirements. What was that about? Does Harry have amnesia? Has he forgotten about the room over the summer? And why does the location of the room keep changing? And what was the deal with hiding the book. If I recall, Harry just hands the book over to Ginny, and doesn't really hid it at all. Where is the DIADEM? Don't we need that in the plot? Shouldn't Harry have at least seen something vaguely crown-like in the room to lay the clue that that is the location of the very important to the plot lost diadem of Ravenclaw. How are they going to get around that? I could see so many ways that the movie makers have painted themselves into a corner in this movie. Even with the last book in two movies, I can't see how they are reasonably going to overcome these problems. I can only assume HUGE key plot points are simply going to be overlooked. That seems sad. Still, I've given up on them getting it right. Now I just watch the movies and the are what they are. No sense getting stressed out over it ... even though I do. Steve/bluewizard From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 3 21:52:08 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:52:08 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201ca1484$a643f2f0$f2cbd8d0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve And what was the deal with hiding the book. If I recall, Harry just hands the book over to Ginny, and doesn't really hid it at all. Where is the DIADEM? Don't we need that in the plot? Shouldn't Harry have at least seen something vaguely crown-like in the room to lay the clue that that is the location of the very important to the plot lost diadem of Ravenclaw. How are they going to get around that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Here's your answers: In the book Harry hides the book in the room after attacking Malfoy in the toilet when Snape demands to see his books, he then takes Ron's book to Snape and it has Ron's name spelled funny in it because he was using a spell-check quill from Bill and George's shop that wasn't working. Here's how I believe they will play it in DH, H.R.H. will battle D.C.C. in the Room of Requirement and simply stumble across the diadem there, OR, they will use the fact that it's become Nevilles hiding place, he will tell Harry he saw something like what he's looking for in there. For whatever reason they wanted Harry / Ginny's kiss to be private and secret and they wanted to ADD Ginny to as many scenes as possible (good idea, since she's hardly in the book, I found the movie love-story much, much more believable, the one improvement over the book! IMO) rather than in the middle of the common room after the quiddich (damn! How do you people remember how to spell these made-up words?) match that's not in the film. Going to see the (again) movie tomorrow (just re-read the book in the last 48hrs) so my 10-yr old can finally see it (our 7-yr old won't go and my poor wife has to sit through G-Force with her). md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From thedossetts at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 23:31:59 2009 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:31:59 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Lizzie Mae Lilly wrote: > > > > Here's the link for the interview I was thinking of earlier: > > > > http://rickman.tribe.net > > > > > Carol responds: > Thanks very much. (snip) > > Carol, planning to see the film today if at goes well, even if it means going out in the horrible hot heat (deliberate redundancy) > Shouldn't that be a deliberate alliterative redundancy?? :o) To keep this on subject, did you get to the movie? What's your opinion????? ~Pat From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 3 23:36:56 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:36:56 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > The one part of the movie that I thought was ridiculous was > Ginny taking Harry to the Room of Requirements. What was that > about? Does Harry have amnesia? Has he forgotten about the > room over the summer? zanooda: I think it's not because Harry forgot where ROR is, it's just Ginny didn't want him to hide the book for himself, so that he wouldn't be tempted to take it back later :-). She didn't want him to know where she hid the book, so she made him close his eyes (and used the moment to kiss him). I don't like this change either :-). > Steve wrote: > How are they going to get around that? zanooda: No idea :-). Harry also doesn't know how the locket looks and knows nothing at all about the cup. I don't remember DD saying anything about Nagini either... . How is Harry supposed to find out all these things? From wildirishrose at fiber.net Mon Aug 3 23:39:10 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:39:10 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not Message-ID: One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. She tells Harry "Shoelace." Then she bends down and ties it for him. Oh please. I can't imagine the Ginny in the book doing such a thing. She's not going to bend down like that and tie anyone's shoelace, even if she does have feelings for the person. Marianne Too Many Freaks Not Enough Circuses From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 00:25:27 2009 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:25:27 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" wrote: > > One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. She tells Harry "Shoelace." Then she bends down and ties it for him. > > Oh please. I can't imagine the Ginny in the book doing such a thing. She's not going to bend down like that and tie anyone's shoelace, even if she does have feelings for the person. > > Marianne > Too Many Freaks > Not Enough Circuses Jen: I agree. I suppose that scene was meant to substitute for Ginny picking a maggot out of Harry's hair, lol. Domestic!Ginny, tying Harry's shoes & feeding him pies. From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 02:06:18 2009 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:06:18 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: md wrote: Here's how I believe they will play it in DH, H.R.H. will battle D.C.C. in the Room of Requirement and simply stumble across the diadem there, Cassie: Adding to that - remember what happened when Harry touched the ring? Maybe he'll grab hold of the diadem (for whatever reason) and something similar will happen, leading him to discover that that's the horcrux. I have a feeling that's how the other horcruxes will be identified. There was a stress on the whole "magic leaves behind traces" bit. ~Cassie - who hopes that Dumbledore left further instructions for Harry in his will or something~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 03:14:04 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:14:04 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Cassandra Wladyslava wrote: > - remember what happened when Harry touched the ring? zanooda: It seems to me that the movie-makers made a mistake here :-). DD had already used the sword on the ring, it was not a Horcrux anymore when Harry touched it. Why would Harry react to it like that? From juli17 at aol.com Tue Aug 4 03:44:40 2009 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:44:40 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> Message-ID: > > Carol responds: > I more or less agree with Magpie though I want to point out that the > education children receive has little relation to their intelligence and a > great deal to do with their culture. I'm willing to bet that most American > third and fourth graders (in contrast to those in European countries) have > not been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone, > Anyway, the title doesn't insult anyone's intelligence, IMO. It merely > reflects an accurate view of the educational level and interests of the > average American third or fourth grader, again, IMO. > > And Hollywood had nothing to do with it. WB just gave the American version > of the film the same title as the American version of the book. > > Carol, not "fussed" by this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The average child could look-up "philosopher's stone" and find out what it > is, but they could look up "sorcerer's stone" and find out there's no such > thing in mythology. For that reason as much as anything it was a bad call. I > think the kid on the broom-stick FLYING on the cover kind of gives kids some > idea. Trust me, they are seeing the picture on the cover long before reading > the title. > Julie: Nevertheless, publishing is about selling books. And in the U.S. the word "philosopher" is most immediately associated with those such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, etc. Meanwhile the word "sorcerer" immediately brings up visions of wizards, pointy hats, magic, and, yes, Mickey Mouse. Most especially so to children. The cover may feature a boy flying on a broom, but using that word "Sorcerer" in the title just adds to the attraction. Really, I can't see why Scholastic *wouldn't* make the change. They want kids to immediately imagine magic spells and fairy dust and sorcery, and they'll do whatever it takes to make it clear to their targeted reading public that this is exactly what they'll get when they buy the book. It's truth in advertising, as it were ;-) Julie, not fussed either From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 03:52:35 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:52:35 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" wrote: > One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the > shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. zanooda: Yeah, that was annoying :-). Interesting though that Daniel Radcliffe is diagnosed with dyspraxia and is unable to tie his shoes. It's a funny coincidence, IMO. If you didn't know, here is the link: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b24227_daniel_radcliffes_dyspraxia_diagnosis.html From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 4 03:57:53 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:57:53 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> Message-ID: <000901ca14b7$be9cfad0$3bd6f070$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of julie Julie: Nevertheless, publishing is about selling books. And in the U.S. the word "philosopher" is most immediately associated with those such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, etc. Meanwhile the word "sorcerer" immediately brings up visions of wizards, pointy hats, magic, and, yes, Mickey Mouse. Most especially so to children. The cover may feature a boy flying on a broom, but using that word "Sorcerer" in the title just adds to the attraction. Really, I can't see why Scholastic *wouldn't* make the change. They want kids to immediately imagine magic spells and fairy dust and sorcery, and they'll do whatever it takes to make it clear to their targeted reading public that this is exactly what they'll get when they buy the book. It's truth in advertising, as it were ;-) Julie, not fussed either .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. So what do the children in the UK think when they read the word "philosopher"? md Author who hates that marketing people reduce adults to a sixth-grader, sixth-graders to babies and educated individuals to illiterates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 4 04:33:27 2009 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:33:27 -0000 Subject: IMAX Message-ID: I just saw the movie in IMAX and 3D and I recommend it. When the movie started the "Harry Potter" logo started to jump out of the screen so much I ducked because I thought the letters were going to hit me in the head. Unfortunately only the first 20 minutes are in 3D, I'd have rather had the last 20 minutes in 3D. However even in 2D IMAX is excellent; in a regular theater I didn't notice that in the background of Author Weasley workshop there was a motorcycle, but I did in IMAX. Gee, I wonder if that motorcycle will have any significance in the future. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 4 06:40:49 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:40:49 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer's stone v Philosopher's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: Julie: > Nevertheless, publishing is about selling books. And in the > U.S. the word "philosopher" is most immediately associated > with those such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, etc. Meanwhile > the word "sorcerer" immediately brings up visions of wizards, > pointy hats, magic, and, yes, Mickey Mouse. Most especially > so to children. The cover may feature a boy flying on a > broom, but using that word "Sorcerer" in the title just adds > to the attraction. Geoff: The problem in the UK is that the word "sorcerer" caries something of a negative - and possibly sinister - connotation. "Wizard" is a more acceptable word. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 08:29:41 2009 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:29:41 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Marianne: > > One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. She tells Harry "Shoelace." Then she bends down and ties it for him. > Jen: I agree. I suppose that scene was meant to substitute for Ginny picking a maggot out of Harry's hair, lol. Domestic!Ginny, tying Harry's shoes & feeding him pies. Kemper now: That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it. Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word. There's some flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool. But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch. The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just odd. Tying a someones shoe, in her case, seems a maternal thing to do as well and this only adds to the ick. It's like the director wants Harry to have the Madonna and the whore, when all Harry wants is Ginny. Not sure if that makes any sense. I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the time. It's late and I'm making some bolognese for a camping trip; I have no grill skills, but I can turn on a Coleman stove. Kemper From shepardrj at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 15:25:18 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:25:18 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" wrote: > > > > One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. She tells Harry "Shoelace." Then she bends down and ties it for him. > > > > Oh please. I can't imagine the Ginny in the book doing such a thing. She's not going to bend down like that and tie anyone's shoelace, even if she does have feelings for the person. > > > > Marianne > > Too Many Freaks > > Not Enough Circuses > > Jen: I agree. I suppose that scene was meant to substitute for Ginny picking a maggot out of Harry's hair, lol. Domestic!Ginny, tying Harry's shoes & feeding him pies. > Richard: I think the "domestic" or to use a better word "caregiver" Ginny is purposeful and significant. Of course Ginny wants to snog Harry, but she also really cares about him. And in that family with seven men, who is the only woman around to teach her how to treat someone she "loves" - Molly the quintessential caregiver. Book Ginny would never tie anyone elses shoelaces, but I can believe her doing exactly something like that for Harry. Oh, and don't forget the bloody nose scene in the Great Hall. That is another one in the sequence of Ginny tending to Harry scenes. From shepardrj at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 15:46:20 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:46:20 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Marianne: > > > One thing about HBP movie that really irritated me was the shoelace scene between Harry and Ginny. She tells Harry "Shoelace." Then she bends down and ties it for him. > > > Jen: I agree. I suppose that scene was meant to substitute for Ginny picking a maggot out of Harry's hair, lol. Domestic!Ginny, tying Harry's shoes & feeding him pies. > > Kemper now: > That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it. Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word. There's some flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool. But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch. The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just odd. > > Tying a someones shoe, in her case, seems a maternal thing to do as well and this only adds to the ick. It's like the director wants Harry to have the Madonna and the whore, when all Harry wants is Ginny. > > Not sure if that makes any sense. I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the time. It's late and I'm making some bolognese for a camping trip; I have no grill skills, but I can turn on a Coleman stove. > Richard: I understand exactly what you are saying about the overt sensuality of the shoelace scene. I am not sure that I would say it was "icky" though. I suspect the director knew it would come across as sexually suggestive to some members of the audience, but would be completely missed by the kids. Honestly, I looked at it as Ginny doing something innocent and Harry probably having the same naughty thought all his fellow sixteen year old boys in the audience were having. I believe there were a number of instances in the book where Harry sees Ginny doing normal stuff and drifts off into daydream land. I addressed the "maternal" aspect of her behavior in a previous post, but I will restate the basic premise here. I think Ginny was purposefully shown exhibiting a few caregiver/maternal actions toward Harry. She does it in the book too, just not the exact same things. Kids learn from their parents. How does Molly express love? A girlfriend that "takes care of her boyfriend" is not exactly a rare thing :) From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 16:14:40 2009 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:14:40 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Kemper now: > That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it. Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word. There's some flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool. But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch. The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just odd. > > Tying a someones shoe, in her case, seems a maternal thing to do as well and this only adds to the ick. It's like the director wants Harry to have the Madonna and the whore, when all Harry wants is Ginny. > > Not sure if that makes any sense. I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the time. It's late and I'm making some bolognese for a camping trip; I have no grill skills, but I can turn on a Coleman stove. > > Kemper > marion: I'm glad someone else said something about this. I don't think it's *implied* eroticism. I think it's blatant! I had completely forgotten that scene since I can't stand Book!Ginny and tend to just ignore all Harry Ginny shipping, but my jaw dropped when she did that in the movie. And I wasn't the only one - there were snorts and giggles and even "ewwwww" sounds from all sides. You can argue that it's innocent because Ginny wouldn't have thought of it that way. Well, Ginny is a fictional character and that scene was written, filmed and directed by real life adult men who knew very well what they were doing. I suppose it's a way to show Harry's increasing sexual tension around Ginny (chest monster anyone?), but Honestly! it was just icky. I think maybe it was also supposed to be funny, but the giggles in the theater were giggles of discomfort and embarrassment. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 17:16:41 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:16:41 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > Kids learn from their parents. How does Molly express love? zanooda: And yet, I doubt that Molly would tie shoelaces for her grown-up sons, LOL! > A girlfriend that "takes care of her boyfriend" is not exactly > a rare thing :) zanooda: Sure, but couldn't she do something else? For example, Harry missed a button while buttoning his shirt and she helped him to get it right - this would have been much better, IMO. It still shows care, and it still has something to do with clothes, but it's something that is easier done with outside help, so it doesn't look so strange. I'll give you an example: I actually sometimes tie my husband's shoelaces, because he has back problems and it's often painful for him to bend down. However, if he had perfectly healthy back, I would never do it, because it would have felt weird, even for a married couple. So, unless Harry has the same disability as Dan, that scene looked very strange :-). I don't know about "icky", but it was annoying and embarrassing to watch - to submissive, IMO :-). From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Tue Aug 4 17:56:05 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:56:05 +0200 Subject: Ginny - Not References: Message-ID: >> Kemper now: >> That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it. >> Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word. There's some >> flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool. >> But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch. >> The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) >> Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just >> odd. > marion: > I'm glad someone else said something about this. I don't think it's > *implied* eroticism. I think it's blatant! I had completely > forgotten that scene since I can't stand Book!Ginny and tend to just > ignore all Harry Ginny shipping, but my jaw dropped when she did that > in the movie. And I wasn't the only one - there were snorts and > giggles and even "ewwwww" sounds from all sides. Miles I felt the same sexual tension - and I think it's well done and perfectly right to do it in the film. I think it was much more difficult for Rowling to imply sexuality in writing HBP without being explicit. My first read of lines like 'they spent many happy hours alone at the lake' implied offpage "sexual activities" of what kind ever, and I still read it that way - without anything being certain. And I can understand Rowling that she didn't describe much of Harry's and Ginny's time together, avoiding being too clear what they did and what not. The chest monster didn't roar after they were together, right? I think that it wouldn't be very realistic to show a 16yo pair that is not very aware of sexual possibilities. Whether they "did it" (Ron's words) or not - I'm happy we do not know. But in the film we see Ginny taking action to win Harry over, and what works better on 16yo boys than sex, or better: the promise of sex? Some days ago someone wrote about Ginny as being "innocent". I didn't answer then, but I think that's wrong. Ginny might be "innocent" in the technical meaning of "virginal" (we don't know), but neither in the books nor in the film we have any reasons to believe that she is not very aware of her own sexuality and her effect on boys. > marion: > I think maybe it was also supposed to > be funny, but the giggles in the theater were giggles of discomfort > and embarrassment. Miles But that does not make it a bad scene. From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 4 17:58:23 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:58:23 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007001ca152d$28fad800$7af08800$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zanooda2 zanooda: Sure, but couldn't she do something else? For example, Harry missed a button while buttoning his shirt and she helped him to get it right - this would have been much better, IMO. It still shows care, and it still has something to do with clothes, but it's something that is easier done with outside help, so it doesn't look so strange. I'll give you an example: I actually sometimes tie my husband's shoelaces, because he has back problems and it's often painful for him to bend down. However, if he had perfectly healthy back, I would never do it, because it would have felt weird, even for a married couple. So, unless Harry has the same disability as Dan, that scene looked very strange :-). I don't know about "icky", but it was annoying and embarrassing to watch - to submissive, IMO :-). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, I've seen teenage girls do some pretty strange things when they fall for a boy. I took at as "look, he's helpless without me, can't even tie his own shoes." md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 4 18:24:46 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:24:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007e01ca1530$d9081700$8b184500$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miles Miles I felt the same sexual tension - and I think it's well done and perfectly right to do it in the film. I think it was much more difficult for Rowling to imply sexuality in writing HBP without being explicit. My first read of lines like 'they spent many happy hours alone at the lake' implied offpage "sexual activities" of what kind ever, and I still read it that way - without anything being certain. >>>>>>>> Of course, in DH she says that Ginny kissed him like she'd never had before, which would imply they had previously not had that kind of relationship. However, that said, a 15 & 16 yr-old that don't have some kind of "wait until marriage" and or "sin" mentality (and I knew many who had that and did "it" anyway!!!) What I love is, that death and violence is okay for a YA book, but sex is not! md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shepardrj at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 20:07:33 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:07:33 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >> Kemper now: > >> That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it. > >> Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word. There's some > >> flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool. > >> But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch. > >> The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) > >> Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just > >> odd. > > > > marion: > > I'm glad someone else said something about this. I don't think it's > > *implied* eroticism. I think it's blatant! I had completely > > forgotten that scene since I can't stand Book!Ginny and tend to just > > ignore all Harry Ginny shipping, but my jaw dropped when she did that > > in the movie. And I wasn't the only one - there were snorts and > > giggles and even "ewwwww" sounds from all sides. > > Miles > I felt the same sexual tension - and I think it's well done and perfectly > right to do it in the film. > Richard: I liked the way they handled the Harry/Ginny relationship and the Ron/Hermione relationship in the HBP movie. The shoelace scene might have been done better a different way, but overall I think the movie plays out better than the book. > I think it was much more difficult for Rowling to imply sexuality in writing > HBP without being explicit. My first read of lines like 'they spent many > happy hours alone at the lake' implied offpage "sexual activities" of what > kind ever, and I still read it that way - without anything being certain. > And I can understand Rowling that she didn't describe much of Harry's and > Ginny's time together, avoiding being too clear what they did and what not. > The chest monster didn't roar after they were together, right? > Richard: I think Ginny and Harry were just hanging out and snogging during those weeks at school. Considering Harry's own innocence in the romance department, I suspect he was very happy just to be able to hold her hand :) I think the beginning of DH confirms my take on the level of intensity their relationship was at before Dumbeldore's funeral. Ginny is going to give Harry something special for his birthday, something to remember her by even if he runs into velas on his journeys. And what she gives him is an amazing, hold-on-tight-and-hope-you-don't-pass-out kiss. Now it is possible she intended to go farther and her gift was going to be even more intimate, but Ron burst into the room. Considering that it was morning and the house was full of people, I do not really believe Ginny planned to do anything more than to give Harry an earth shattering kiss. Which implies that they had never done anything more than that before, and she was probably holding back in their previous makeout session as well. > But in the film we see Ginny taking action to win Harry over, and what works better on 16yo boys than sex, or better: the promise of sex? > > Some days ago someone wrote about Ginny as being "innocent". I didn't answer then, but I think that's wrong. Ginny might be "innocent" in the technical meaning of "virginal" (we don't know), but neither in the books nor in the film we have any reasons to believe that she is not very aware of her own sexuality and her effect on boys. > Richard: Very good points. I defintely think both Ginny and Harry are still pretty inexperienced throughout the books/movies. But Ginny has been out there playing the field a little and knows that she is attractive and knows how to flirt. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 4 20:14:59 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:14:59 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "marion11111" wrote: marion: > I'm glad someone else said something about this. I don't think it's *implied* eroticism. I think it's blatant! I had completely forgotten that scene since I can't stand Book!Ginny and tend to just ignore all Harry Ginny shipping, but my jaw dropped when she did that in the movie. Geoff: I have to agree with you. It must be a couple of years or so ago, I wrote on Main that I wasn't a fan of Harry and Ginny getting together. i've never liked her as a character and felt that she was becoming rather pushy and a bit like her mother. Molly is a great person but inclined to be a control freak when it comes to her (extended) family. Again, I didn't like the epilogue which suggested that Harry had got married not too far after the events of DH. I think he should have had a bit more "free" time before getting tied down by family life. I think this stems from the fact that I have often felt a kinship with Harry over his teen years. I grew up in a time when a two-thirds of UK schools were single sex and if you were keen on doing well in education, there wasn't a lot of space for girls. Like Harry, I had a Yule Ball experience which didn't help my confidence and I finally married when I was 31. But that's just one man's experience, to misquote Steve. From shepardrj at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 20:16:16 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:16:16 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Richard: > > > > Kids learn from their parents. How does Molly express love? > > > zanooda: > > And yet, I doubt that Molly would tie shoelaces for her grown-up sons, LOL! > Richard: You know what I meant! I was responding to the idea that it was completely out of character for Ginny. I was simply trying to explain why I thought it was the kind of thing I could definitely believe Ginny would do for a boy/man she really cared about. But not just the shoelace thing, the bloody nose, Christmas sweets, and all. > > A girlfriend that "takes care of her boyfriend" is not exactly > > a rare thing :) > > > zanooda: > > Sure, but couldn't she do something else? For example, Harry missed a button while buttoning his shirt and she helped him to get it right - this would have been much better, IMO. It still shows care, and it still has something to do with clothes, but it's something that is easier done with outside help, so it doesn't look so strange. > > I'll give you an example: I actually sometimes tie my husband's shoelaces, because he has back problems and it's often painful for him to bend down. However, if he had perfectly healthy back, I would never do it, because it would have felt weird, even for a married couple. So, unless Harry has the same disability as Dan, that scene looked very strange :-). I don't know about "icky", but it was annoying and embarrassing to watch - to submissive, IMO :-). > Richard: Well, you do have to remember that the scene in question is before they get together. Ginny is working on getting Harry to admit his feelings and ask her out. So maybe Ginny knew exactly what she was doing and what Harry might think about when she did it. Maybe she is trying to drive him so crazy that he will finally lose his composure and just kiss her full force right in front of everyone :) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Aug 4 20:53:23 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:53:23 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: <007e01ca1530$d9081700$8b184500$@com> Message-ID: md: > What I love is, that death and violence is okay for a YA book, but sex is > not! Magpie: In general, both are okay for a YA book. It's more like Harry Potter had violence from the beginning but sex was never going to be there. Though actually there's probably not that much of a difference. The violence in HP isn't usually very realistic, so it kind of matches the vague "Harry didn't want Ron to know about the dreams he was having about Ginny lately..." versions of sex. I don't know if Ron says anything about "doing it" in the movie, but he wouldn't say that in the books. -m From ckc at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 5 01:15:23 2009 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:15:23 -0400 Subject: the series in general In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, I've been using the series as part of a character development course in my summer school session. We've watched one movie each week, and next week will do a field trip to see the new movie. Today, we watched Order of the Phoenix. Just after the ministry battle, after Sirius dies, and Harry offers to help Luna find her shoes, she says her mother once told her that oftentimes, things that go missing can come back to you, but in a way you don't expect. I remember thinking -- remember, this movie was out before the 7th book came out -- that perhaps Sirius would be one of those things that came back in a way Harry didn't expect. Of course now we know that didn't happen. Am I alone in thinking this is one of Rowling's missteps? Sirius returning would have been such a lovely thing. But I don't recall off-hand if this statement was made in the book. I know certain "liberties" were taken with the book to make the movie -- such as Sirius calling Harry "James" during the battle. Anyone recall? Also...did anyone check out A Very Potter Musical on youtube? I recommended it weeks ago, but no one commented on it. CK From ckc at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 5 01:15:22 2009 From: ckc at rochester.rr.com (CK Campbell) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:15:22 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> Message-ID: <5CC208AC54504D8B94F311C20CD17202@ckc> > Really, I can't see why Scholastic *wouldn't* make the > change. They want kids to immediately imagine magic spells > and fairy dust and sorcery, and they'll do whatever it takes > to make it clear to their targeted reading public that this > is exactly what they'll get when they buy the book. It's > truth in advertising, as it were ;-) What was more annoying to me than the title change was the change in language within the book, as if we in America couldn't figure out that a jumper was a sweater or that pudding was dessert. CK From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 5 01:39:35 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:39:35 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: References: <007e01ca1530$d9081700$8b184500$@com> Message-ID: <005501ca156d$96a6c1d0$c3f44570$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie I don't know if Ron says anything about "doing it" in the movie, but he wouldn't say that in the books. -m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Harry and Ginny go to the Room Of Requirement to dump the HBP's book, while Ginny is hiding it (not like the book, at all!!!) she has Harry close his eyes so he can't see where she puts it, she then kisses him. Afterwards Harry's walking about with this shit-eating-grin on his face and Ron comes up behind and says "So, did you and Ginny do it? Hide the book, I mean." md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 5 01:44:56 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:44:56 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <5CC208AC54504D8B94F311C20CD17202@ckc> References: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> <5CC208AC54504D8B94F311C20CD17202@ckc> Message-ID: <005f01ca156e$56407090$02c151b0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of CK Campbell What was more annoying to me than the title change was the change in language within the book, as if we in America couldn't figure out that a jumper was a sweater or that pudding was dessert. CK >>>>>>>>>>>> I figured things out, but I never heard "sneakers" called "trainers" or sweaters called "jumpers." But, now I know. It's also interesting that in the UK pumpkin is largely considered inedible (according to a professor of mine who is married to and lived for a time in Great Britain.) Yet, they are always drinking pumpkin juice. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 04:39:00 2009 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:39:00 -0000 Subject: the series in general In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "CK Campbell" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I've been using the series as part of a character development course in my > summer school session. We've watched one movie each week, and next week > will do a field trip to see the new movie. > > Today, we watched Order of the Phoenix. Just after the ministry battle, > after Sirius dies, and Harry offers to help Luna find her shoes, she says > her mother once told her that oftentimes, things that go missing can come > back to you, but in a way you don't expect. I remember thinking -- > remember, this movie was out before the 7th book came out -- that perhaps > Sirius would be one of those things that came back in a way Harry didn't > expect. Of course now we know that didn't happen. Am I alone in thinking > this is one of Rowling's missteps? Sirius returning would have been such a > lovely thing. Montavilla47: Sirius does come back in DH, but just for a moment when Harry is walking to his doom. What was weird about Sirius's death was that it was more ambiguous than it needed to be. I've noticed a funny little unstated rule in movies: If you don't see someone die, then they probably aren't dead and will come back at a moment when the Hero is utterly at the mercy of the Villain and the only thing that can save him is someone suddenly appearing to put a bullet in the Villain's back. So, when Sirius died in that weird falling behind the veil thing, it was natural for readers to wonder if he might not show up later on. After all, it's a magical world. If you can fall one way through a mysterious death veil, what's to say you can't fall through the other way later on? CK: > But I don't recall off-hand if this statement was made in the book. I know > certain "liberties" were taken with the book to make the movie -- such as > Sirius calling Harry "James" during the battle. Anyone recall? Montavilla47: No. Luna mentions that her things are usually returned to her before the end of the year, and it's just inconvenient because she wanted to pack early. Her mother didn't give her any pearls of wisdom in the book that I recall. CK: > Also...did anyone check out A Very Potter Musical on youtube? I recommended > it weeks ago, but no one commented on it. Montavilla47: Yes! Sorry about not commenting. My bandwidth is so lame that it took me a couple days to watch it all. It was absolutely brilliant! Especially Draco. And Quirrel. And Voldemort. I also thought that they managed to combine events in a very fun and effective way. For one thing, they cut out the Elder Wand completely. And I loved when Harry admitted that it would be a waste of time to go running around Horcrux-hunting. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 5 06:41:23 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:41:23 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <005f01ca156e$56407090$02c151b0$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: CK: > What was more annoying to me than the title change was the change in > language within the book, as if we in America couldn't figure out that a > jumper was a sweater or that pudding was dessert. md: > I figured things out, but I never heard "sneakers" called "trainers" or > sweaters called "jumpers." But, now I know. > It's also interesting that in the UK pumpkin is largely considered inedible > (according to a professor of mine who is married to and lived for a time in > Great Britain.) Yet, they are always drinking pumpkin juice. Geoff: As I've commented before, sweaters/jumpers and pudding/afters/dessert are used interchangeably in everyday UK English. I took a while to work out what sneakers were. I'm not sure that they are considered inedible. i think it is that they are so rarely seen in the shops that people really don't know what to do with them. They only seem to appear around Hallowe'en time. From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 5 06:57:38 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 02:57:38 -0400 Subject: Beazor Revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001ca159a$04d7aa30$0e86fe90$@com> Just saw the film again today with my daughter (her first viewing) and paid particular attention to certain things that have been brought up here. As for the Beazor issue (the "shove a beazor down his throat" being in the book but not in the film,) Though Harry does walk in to the end of the first-year's potion class, Slughorn only says something along the lines of "I'll tell you more about beaor's tomorrow" and not what it is or what it does. In fact, it only made me feel more like it should have been fresh in Slughorn's mind and not Harry's when Ron was poisoned. I also decided that the Burrow attack will never make sense, never fit but had a very strong emotional impact (Ginny runs through fire for him!!!) and Ron sitting out the final scene will never sit right or even make any sense what-so-ever. I did, however, note that Snape had Harry at wand-point for a moment before lower it and telling Harry to wait. I almost think the right idea to change it, if you HAVE to change it, would have been for Snape to petrify Harry before killing DD. But, on second, closer viewing Harry standing under there, maybe thinking DD and Snape were about to take out the Death Eater's together works a little better. I also realized that Hermione states she searched for the HBP but didn't find anything, why including that but not having anything come out of it was pointless. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From brian at rescueddoggies.com Wed Aug 5 13:32:57 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:32:57 -0300 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione Message-ID: <4A798A09.4060907@rescueddoggies.com> Here I have to defend the publishers for not wanting to use "jumper" I've had American readers have a go at me for making a male character wear a jumper. They thought it meant dress. (One complained I was making him "gay", though why cross-dressing would have meant gay, he didn't explain.) Where words have totally different meanings in the USA compared to the UK, I think it is fair to change the word due to confusion. That why I ended up co-writing a page on confusion between the US and the UK www.thesiteofbrian.com/cultural/ Brian From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Aug 5 13:39:59 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:39:59 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: <005501ca156d$96a6c1d0$c3f44570$@com> Message-ID: md: > Afterwards Harry's walking about with this shit-eating-grin on his face and > Ron comes up behind and says "So, did you and Ginny do it? Hide the book, I > mean." Magpie: Ah! Movie then. Book!Ron would turn purple if he accidentally put "Ginny" and "do it" into the same sentence. -m From shepardrj at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 15:23:29 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:23:29 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > md: > > > Afterwards Harry's walking about with this shit-eating-grin on his face and > > Ron comes up behind and says "So, did you and Ginny do it? Hide the book, I > > mean." > > Magpie: > Ah! Movie then. Book!Ron would turn purple if he accidentally put "Ginny" and "do it" into the same sentence. > > -m > Richard: In the movie it is pretty clear that Ron has no idea that his question could have "that" meaning. He doesn't know that Harry likes Ginny. He doesn't know they just shared their first kiss. The audience gets to see Harry momentarily flustered, but Ron is clueless. They also had the scene with Ron and Harry in their dorm room and Ron asks Harry why he thinks Dean likes Ginny. The scene was very funny and covered the "I would hate any guy that dated my sister" problem Harry faces nicely. "Well... (the dramatic pause as he shuffles through Ginny compliments that would be safe for Ron to hear) she has very nice skin." "Are you saying Dean Thomas is dating my sister because he likes her skin." "I'm just saying it might be a contributing factor." "Hermione has nice skin." hehehehe From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 15:26:15 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:26:15 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury (Re: The Problems with the DH movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > > We all know that Greyback will attack anyone, but his > > preferred victims are children. > > > zanooda: > > Greyback attacks children because he wants to turn them into werewolves at the young age. Among adults, IMO, he prefers girls (meaning young women :-)). I take it he likes soft skin, which both children and women have. I suppose it's not much pleasure for him to bite some stubbly cheek, LOL. > Carol responds: On the other hand, as I said in a post that appears to have gotten lost, he killed the Montgomery sisters' five-year-old brother. Of course, that might have been done to punish the family for some "crime" against Voldemort. I agree that the scene where he hopes to snack on Hermione gives the impression that he prefers girls (soft flesh, etc.). It makes him seem horribly lascivious, a kind of sexual predator. But he had no objection to having Dumbledore for "afters" (and probably would have done so had Snape's AK not sent DD over the battlements). As for why he chose Bill when someone like Ginny was available, maybe the Felix Felicis protected Ginny (or she hadn't arrived yet? I can't remember). Or maybe, he was jealous of the pretty boy and wanted to ruin his looks. It's hard to fathom the mind of a psychotic werewolf who, in any case, does what JKR wants him to do. Carol, who agrees that Greyback prefers what he calls "delicious" prey, perhaps with the helplessness of children as an added attraction, but thinks his motivation may be slightly more complicated than that From brian at rescueddoggies.com Wed Aug 5 13:34:08 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:34:08 -0300 Subject: Ginny - Not----------------- YA? Message-ID: <4A798A50.1080900@rescueddoggies.com> Showing my ignorance here... What's a YA book? Brian From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 5 15:35:54 2009 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:35:54 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not----------------- YA? In-Reply-To: <4A798A50.1080900@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: Brian: > Showing my ignorance here... What's a YA book? Stands for "Young Adult," Brian. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who works in a library, so she'd better know this one :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 16:07:46 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:07:46 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > I see your point if the adaptation has similar intentions as the original, even if adaptation cuts storylines, etc, but characters and plot remain for the most part the same. So again, please do not get me wrong, I do not think it is bad for Alan Rickman to read the books at all. Although even for him, what good does it do him that he reads about Snape delivering the Prophecy for example and guilt and remorse he feels because of it if , if it will not be touched upon in DH (of course we do not know yet one way or another). Carol responds: Even if Snape as eavesdropper plays no role in the films, knowing that he was and knowing the extent of his remorse could help Rickman play the role. It would also help to know, for example, that Book!Snape revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge in a futile attempt to convince him that Voldemort is back and that he went off on a dangerous mission that we later learn is a return to Voldemort on DD's orders. Those things help Rickman as actor to understand the character he's playing, one whose personality is at odds with his loyalties, which must remain ambiguous (but who can't appear wholly evil or the revelation would make no sense), even though they don't appear in the films. Rickman said in an interview that HBP was the first film he'd made with full knowledge of his motivation, which accounts for the facial expressions during the Unbreakable Vow scene. I don't think he could have played that scene (or the too-brief duel with Harry after DD's death) nearly as effectively had he not read the whole series, especially the last three or four books. And Rickman also says something somewhere about the way Snape walks, which he tried to teach the boy who played Teen!Snape in OoP, though we don't get to see him walking. (Teen!Snape didn't walk that way, but I think that Rickman wanted continuity in the character.) That sweeping walk comes straight from the books. Good directors do listen to the actors, especially highly gifted veteran actors who understand their character and his or her motivation. (They even gave Jason Isaacs a snake-headed cane at his request because he thought it fit the character even though that wasn't in the book.) I agree that Book!Snape would never have hit students on the head with books; he wouldn't have needed to. But Rickman seems to have enjoyed the chance to get in a bit of physical comedy--and Film!Snape probably enjoyed the chance to take out a bit of his frustration on Potter and Weasley (just as film!Hermione hits Ron with a book in HBP). But that scene doesn't seriously undermine Snape as a character (unlike Dumbledore yelling at and shaking Harry, which Gambon would have known was contrary to DD's character had he read the books. The thing is, WB is trying, in general, to produce an adaptation that's faithful to the spirit of the books, which requires the characters, especially the important characters, to share the personality and motivation (and preferably, mannerisms, accents, vocal inflections, and facial expressions) of their book equivalents. The Disney version of "Three Musketeers" that you cited had no such goal. It was meant only as light entertainment, so loosely based on the books that the author would not have recognized his own characters. Consider for a moment the performances of Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the LOTR films, and John Noble, who played Denethor. Lee read the books multiple times (and had no qualms about talking to Peter Jackson about how he thought a scene should be played). John Noble never so much as read the scenes involving Denethor. Lee was, IMO, spot on in his characterization. Noble was sickeningly off, completely missing the proud and tough old warrior who wrongly thought himself a match for Sauron. Part of it was the way his scenes were written (those grapes; his death) but part was his (IMO) complete misunderstanding of the character--because he'd never read the books. I think he might have requested--and received--some alterations had he done so. (Jackson and his team were willing to experiment. They filmed several variations of the scene with Frodo and Gollum on the Cracks of Doom, including one that matched the book, and chose the one they thought worked best dramatically--unfortunate choice, IMO, but at least the actors knew that it wasn't the canonical version and were part of the creative process of changing the book to the film.) Carol, who still thinks that actors owe it to themselves and to the audience to know their characters as originally written before they attempt to play them From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 16:16:18 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:16:18 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> Message-ID: Carol, inaccurately quoted by md: > Carol, not "fussed" by this Carol again: What I actually said was "Carol, not "fussed" by this particular alteration, which for all we know, may have attracted a large number of children who would not have read the book otherwise > md > > a little "fussed," whatever that means, by this. Carol responds: I was quoting Harry, who is fond of saying that he's not "fussed" by something that doesn't bother him. Carol, who put "fussed" in quotation marks expecting fellow posters to catch the allusion From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 16:44:02 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:44:02 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen wrote: > Glad you liked the movie, Carol. I'm curious to read your impressions about the death sequence and the run across the grounds. I was somewhat disappointed in those particular scenes as a DD fan, so I'm curious what you thought about the scenes as a Snape fan. Carol responds: I was expecting them to be altered and was trying to watch them with an open mind (and not think too much about getting to the restroom at the end of a long film!) so I wasn't as angry and crushed as I would have been if I hadn't read the spoilers. I actually think that Snape's revelation that he was the HBP after Harry tried to hit him with Sectumsempra worked fairly well within the context of the film; it wasn't as melodramatic as JKR's "I, the Half-Blood Prince!" which would have been hard to deliver with a straight face. I still think it was a bad choice not to have Harry Petrified, but I think I understand why they did it. They want to intensify his sense of betrayal by Snape and his own guilt, as if it's his fault that DD died. The one part that didn't really work for me (aside from how everyone knew to go to the Astronomy Tower) was Dumbledore practically inviting Draco to Disarm him, which he most certainly would not have done because he didn't want Draco to be master of the Elder Wand. Rickman did a brilliant job with the lines he was given (thank goodness for the brief scene with DD before he and Harry leave for the cave in which Snape gets to say that DD takes too much for granted and maybe he doesn't want to do it anymore). And I was glad that they left in "Fight back, you coward!" and Snape telling Bellatrix not to kill Harry (instead of stopping Carrow from Crucioing him) because "he's for the Dark Lord"). I had hoped to get the reactions of other film goers, but everyone in the half-full theater was unnaturally quiet. One thing, though. I don't know whether it was because I was thoroughly prepared or because the scene was less effective as filmed than as written or because my feelings for Dumbledore have changed dramatically since DH, but I wasn't moved at all by his death and only slightly by the wand-raising scene. I kept thinking, "The locket, the locket. RAB!") I didn't feel any compassion for Snape or Harry, either. I just wanted to see how they ended the film. I did think it was odd to see Ron sitting by himself while Harry and Hermione talked, but I actually felt that his reaction was more natural than theirs. He was stunned and shocked, unable to chatter about RAB (or whatever--I don't remember the details), in marked contrast to Hermione (and Harry). I don't think it was clear that Fawkes was leaving forever, and there was no sense at all (IIRC) of the Phoenix song expressing their grief through beautiful music. My sense right now is that if I hadn't read the books, I would have liked the film but found some parts confusing. At this point, though, I need to see it again. I still think it has significant gaps and has caused problems for the filmmakers through the addition of the Burrow scene and that stupid remark by DD that a Horcrux could be anything. (If only Gambon had read the books!) Jen: > Re: Regulus and the Inferi in DH, I believe they will give that moment to Kreacher. I can imagine a very poignant moment as Kreacher watches Regulus dragged into the lake, listening to his last orders reverberating in the cave. At least that's how I'm imgaining the scene at the moment. After all, the story is Kreacher's. Carol responds: True. That could be very poignant, and you're right about the PoV. But I still think they overdid the scene with Harry and the Inferi in the HBP film, just as they did with the dragon in GoF. Carol, who at this point would call HBP a good film but not a great one From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 5 16:51:05 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:51:05 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <001201ca13cf$23768b90$6a63a2b0$@com> Message-ID: <00cb01ca15ec$ecab60c0$c6022240$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds: I was quoting Harry, who is fond of saying that he's not "fussed" by something that doesn't bother him. Carol, who put "fussed" in quotation marks expecting fellow posters to catch the allusion .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. It was me just casually kidding around. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 17:34:31 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:34:31 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: zanooda: > > I think it's not because Harry forgot where ROR is, it's just Ginny didn't want him to hide the book for himself, so that he wouldn't be tempted to take it back later :-). She didn't want him to know where she hid the book, so she made him close his eyes (and used the moment to kiss him). I don't like this change either :-). > > Steve: > > > How are they going to get around that? > zanooda: > > No idea :-). Harry also doesn't know how the locket looks and knows nothing at all about the cup. I don't remember DD saying anything about Nagini either... . How is Harry supposed to find out all these things? Carol responds: They'll just have to have Ginny with Luna and Harry in the Ravenclaw common room in DH2. As for the Horcruxes (and I agree that the filmmakers left too many plotholes there), I think they'll have to cause him to react to the other Horcruxes, including Nagini, as he did to the ring (which, in the film, is still a Horcrux when Harry encounters it). I can't remember exactly what happens, but it seems to be some kind of interaction between Harry's scar and the ring, but it seemed to tell DD that Harry's scar was a Horcrux--which he should have known already. Carol, who really needs to see the film again From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 18:02:28 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:02:28 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I think they'll have to cause him to react to the other > Horcruxes, including Nagini, as he did to the ring > (which, in the film, is still a Horcrux when Harry encounters it). zanooda: I thought the Ring was not a Horcrux anymore, like in the book... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 18:19:55 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:19:55 -0000 Subject: Sorcerer stone v Philosopher Stone WAS: Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I more or less agree with Magpie though I want to point out that the education children receive has little relation to their intelligence and a great deal to do with their culture. I'm willing to bet that most American third and fourth graders (in contrast to those in European countries) have not been exposed to the concept of the Philosopher's Stone, Anyway, the title doesn't insult anyone's intelligence, IMO. It merely reflects an accurate view of the educational level and interests of the average American third or fourth grader, again, IMO. > > > > Carol, not "fussed" by this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > The average child could look-up "philosopher's stone" and find out what it is, but they could look up "sorcerer's stone" and find out there's no such thing in mythology. For that reason as much as anything it was a bad call. I think the kid on the broom-stick FLYING on the cover kind of gives kids some idea. Trust me, they are seeingt he picture on the cover long before reading the title. > > > Julie: > Nevertheless, publishing is about selling books. And in the U.S. the word "philosopher" is most immediately associated with those such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, etc. Meanwhile the word "sorcerer" immediately brings up visions of wizards, pointy hats, magic, and, yes, Mickey Mouse. Most especially so to children. The cover may feature a boy flying on a broom, but using that word "Sorcerer" in the title just adds to the attraction. > > Really, I can't see why Scholastic *wouldn't* make the change. > > Julie, not fussed either > Carol responds: I'm not sure that it's clear from my post as quoted, but I agree with you. I just want to point out that the >>>>>>>>>> portion of this post is md's, not mine. (The attribution is confusing.) Also, as previously noted, md altered the signature line of my post without indicating that it was altered.) Carol, just making sure that she doesn't sound like she's contradicting herself From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 18:36:28 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:36:28 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: zanooda wrote: > > Sure, but couldn't she do something else? For example, Harry missed a button while buttoning his shirt and she helped him to get it right - this would have been much better, IMO. It still shows care, and it still has something to do with clothes, but it's something that is easier done with outside help, so it doesn't look so strange. > > I'll give you an example: I actually sometimes tie my husband's shoelaces, because he has back problems and it's often painful for him to bend down. However, if he had perfectly healthy back, I would never do it, because it would have felt weird, even for a married couple. So, unless Harry has the same disability as Dan, that scene looked very strange :-). I don't know about "icky", but it was annoying and embarrassing to watch - to submissive, IMO :-). > Carol responds: I agree. It never occurred to me that the scene had sexual overtones (unlike Cormac McLaggen licking his fingers). But "submissive," yes. And it also suggested an astounding degree of ineptitude on Harry's part--poor widdle Hawwy can't tie his ickle shoewaces. No doubt that particular mothering skill will come in handy when Ginny has sixteen-year-old sons. Now that I know about Dan Radcliffe's dyspraxia, though, I suspect it was an in joke at Dan's expense and that both he and Ginny were being good sports. (I think it's in bad taste, myself, along with "Equus" jokes.) Anyway, the scene with Ginny removing a maggot from Harry's hair mentioned by someone in this thread would duplicate a similar scene in GoF where the much older and more worldly Madame Maxime removes something (not a maggot, presumably!) from Hagrid's beard and makes a show of eating it. (Ugh!) And since Kreacher's Christmas present of maggots makes no appearance in the HBP film, they couldn't have used that scene, anyway. Carol, whose main reaction to the scene was that Ginny wouldn't act like a Geisha and Harry wouldn't have let her if she tried From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 18:43:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:43:34 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not In-Reply-To: <007e01ca1530$d9081700$8b184500$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > What I love is, that death and violence is okay for a YA book, but sex is not! Carol responds: Possibly because most parents aren't afraid that their kids will go out and commit murder and mayhem but many are afraid that their daughters will get pregnant (or their sons will get a girl pregnant and have to support the child though perhaps that's not as widespread a fear). Carol, who understands perfectly why sex in a YA book is usually left to the imagination, at least in a fantasy world like JKR's From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 19:01:49 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:01:49 -0000 Subject: Ginny - Not----------------- YA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > > Showing my ignorance here... What's a YA book? > SSS responded: > Stands for "Young Adult," Brian. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, > who works in a library, so she'd better know this one :) > Carol adds: With "young adult" defined very optimistically or euphemistically as ages twelve and older, or something like that, right, SSS? carol, suspecting that the exact ages may depend on the publisher From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 19:08:35 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:08:35 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I think they'll have to cause him to react to the other Horcruxes, including Nagini, as he did to the ring > > (which, in the film, is still a Horcrux when Harry encounters it). > > > zanooda: > > I thought the Ring was not a Horcrux anymore, like in the book... > Carol responds; There was no mention of DD destroying it (it didn't appear to be broken, and, IIRC, we couldn't even see the stone), but the ring acted in some way that made Harry seem temporarily possessed. it clearly had *not* lost its powers, and DD didn't wear it to Slughorn's house as in the book. (I don't recall any distinction being made between its being a Horcrux and the curse that blackened DD's hand, either--and no indication that Snape's "timely action" had saved DD's life). Carol, who thinks that the Horcruxes were perhaps the most inadequately developed aspect of HBP From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 5 21:52:56 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:52:56 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012d01ca1617$1747a2b0$45d6e810$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds; There was no mention of DD destroying it (it didn't appear to be broken, and, IIRC, we couldn't even see the stone), but the ring acted in some way that made Harry seem temporarily possessed. it clearly had *not* lost its powers, and DD didn't wear it to Slughorn's house as in the book. (I don't recall any distinction being made between its being a Horcrux and the curse that blackened DD's hand, either--and no indication that Snape's "timely action" had saved DD's life). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. DD did infer that he destroyed the horcrux, that is, after all, how his hand got messed up and he doesn't imply to Harry that he received the wound destroying the horcrux. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shepardrj at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 16:24:16 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:24:16 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasly (Re: Ginny - Not) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > > I have to agree with you. It must be a couple of years or so ago, I wrote > on Main that I wasn't a fan of Harry and Ginny getting together. i've never > liked her as a character and felt that she was becoming rather pushy and > a bit like her mother. Molly is a great person but inclined to be a control > freak when it comes to her (extended) family. > Richard: Hmmmm, I guess I always thought Molly's worrying and controlling were justified. Early on she is a little pushy and controlling, but in a way that I think makes sense for a stay-at-home mother of seven. Later when Voldemort resurfaces and the danger magnifies, she gets worse. But considering the dangers I again think it is a reasonable way for her character to react. Her two brothers were killed by Voldemort the first time around. She is very aware of how bad the bad guys are, and knows that a lot of the good guys (especailly her chidren) are not careful enough. I did not see Ginny as becoming controlling. She doesn't freak out when he says he has to go off to find the horcruxes and confront Voldemort. She is a little pushy, but Harry (like most of the boys in the books/movies) is sort of dense and needs a girl like Ginny. > Again, I didn't like the epilogue which suggested that Harry had got married > not too far after the events of DH. I think he should have had a bit more "free" > time before getting tied down by family life. I think this stems from the fact > that I have often felt a kinship with Harry over his teen years. I grew up in a > time when a two-thirds of UK schools were single sex and if you were keen > on doing well in education, there wasn't a lot of space for girls. Like Harry, I > had a Yule Ball experience which didn't help my confidence and I finally married > when I was 31. > Richard: Considering Harry's lack of a family, I thought it was natural for him to want to create his own fairly quickly after Voldemort was dealt with. From md at exit-reality.com Thu Aug 6 16:30:47 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:30:47 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Molly Weasly (Re: Ginny - Not) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003d01ca16b3$41090e30$c31b2a90$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Shepard Richard: Considering Harry's lack of a family, I thought it was natural for him to want to create his own fairly quickly after Voldemort was dealt with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>.. I saw it as being like when the soldiers returned home from WWII and caused the "baby boom." md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 18:30:55 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:30:55 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: <012d01ca1617$1747a2b0$45d6e810$@com> Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > There was no mention of DD destroying [the ring] (it didn't appear to be broken, and, IIRC, we couldn't even see the stone), but the ring acted in some way that made Harry seem temporarily possessed. It clearly had *not* lost its powers, and DD didn't wear it to Slughorn's house as in the book. (I don't recall any distinction being made between its being a Horcrux and the curse that blackened DD's hand, either--and no indication that Snape's "timely action" had saved DD's life). md responded: > DD did infer that he destroyed the horcrux, that is, after all, how his hand got messed up and he doesn't imply to Harry that he received the wound destroying the horcrux. Carol again: I don't remember DD's implying that he'd destroyed the ring Horcrux. Can you refresh my memory? I also can't remember exactly how Harry reacted, only my impression (and that of the person I was with) that the ring sensed Harry's presence--or the soul bit in his scar--as it would not have done if it hadn't *still* been a Horcrux (in the film, that is). I do remember his holding up the destroyed diary and saying that it had been a Horcrux (one down; six or seven to go). But I don't recall any indication that the ring Horcrux is destroyed, or any connection between it and the curse that blackened DD's hand. As we know from the books, it wasn't the Horcrux but a curse on the ring (removed by Snape) that blackened DD's hand, and he put it on not because it was a Horcrux (which would have been stupid in the extreme) but because it was a Hallow, as we find out in DH (more reason why we need "the Prince's Tale"!). Obviously, the film can't reveal that information, but I don't think it even indicated that the stone in the ring was broken or that Snape played any part in saving DD from the curse. In fact, IIRC, the curse on the ring wasn't mentioned at all (and the blackened hand very underplayed). Carol, for whom that part of the film is just a blur From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 6 22:04:43 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:04:43 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I also can't remember exactly how Harry reacted, only my > impression (and that of the person I was with) that the > ring sensed Harry's presence zanooda: He moves his neck and head in a strange way, kind of like LV does. Harry used to do it in OotP too, iirc. I guess it shows the link between him and LV or, in this case, between him and other Horcruxes. > Carol: > I don't recall any indication that the ring Horcrux is > destroyed zanooda: Neither do I, but I usually don't remember much after one viewing. Maybe md does, he watched it more than once :-). But wouldn't it be strange if the Ring was still a Horcrux? What, one more for poor Movie!Harry to destroy :-)? From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 02:06:37 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:06:37 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: <012d01ca1617$1747a2b0$45d6e810$@com> Message-ID: <006201ca1703$b2577fe0$17067fa0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol As we know from the books, it wasn't the Horcrux but a curse on the ring (removed by Snape) that blackened DD's hand, and he put it on not because it was a Horcrux (which would have been stupid in the extreme) but because it was a Hallow, as we find out in DH (more reason why we need "the Prince's Tale"!). Obviously, the film can't reveal that information, but I don't think it even indicated that the stone in the ring was broken or that Snape played any part in saving DD from the curse. In fact, IIRC, the curse on the ring wasn't mentioned at all (and the blackened hand very underplayed). .<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The ring is a Hallow and a horcrux, and DD does say in the film that it's to down and he knows where a third one is. I didn't take notes, so I can't tell you exactly how it transpires, but right before the tower scene with Snape and DD, before the cave, they are in DD's office, he does both say the rings a horcrux and holds up his hand as to say that destroying it did that to him. I still think your hopes for "the princes tale" are in vain. They will simply use the Rosetta Stone (Her-my-oh-ninny) or some other vessel to explain things. I don't believe for a second that during the films film act they are going to take a loooooooooooooooooooooooong break to show all those memories, at least, I have serious doubts. However!!! I think a better device would be to open the film with the Snape - Lilly flashbacks, cut to Snape present collecting the memories out of the pensive and putting them in a vile. Then, latter, at the end he can hand the vile, plus the DD memory to Harry and we don't have to watch all the memories at one point, plus, I think it would be an excellent, dramatic way to start the film. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 02:13:01 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:13:01 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301ca1704$973966f0$c5ac34d0$@com> zanooda: Neither do I, but I usually don't remember much after one viewing. Maybe md does, he watched it more than once :-). But wouldn't it be strange if the Ring was still a Horcrux? What, one more for poor Movie!Harry to destroy :-)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm (I'm certain they put that in there to show that the Harry / Voldy connection was still alive for DH. But the point of the scene is, DD is holding up his hand and obviously showing it to Harry as he states how difficult / dangerous it was to destroy. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 02:18:34 2009 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:18:34 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: <000301ca1704$973966f0$c5ac34d0$@com> References: <000301ca1704$973966f0$c5ac34d0$@com> Message-ID: md DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm (I'm certain they put that in there to show that the Harry / Voldy connection was still alive for DH. But the point of the scene is, DD is holding up his hand and obviously showing it to Harry as he states how difficult / dangerous it was to destroy. sherry now: Yes, I heard this too. But I didn't the first time I saw the movie. The sound was better the second time, and I was able to hear more of the dialog. I definitely heard Gambon say that destroying the Horcrux in the ring is what caused the damage to his hand. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was an Aha! moment for me. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 02:39:13 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:39:13 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: <006201ca1703$b2577fe0$17067fa0$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > The ring is a Hallow and a horcrux, Carol responds: Yes, of course. That's what I said, too (only, of course, Harry doesn't know about the Hallows in either the film or book versions of HBP). md: > and DD does say in the film that it's to down and he knows where a third one is. I didn't take notes, so I can't tell you exactly how it transpires, but right before the tower scene with Snape and DD, before the cave, they are in DD's office, he does both say the rings a horcrux and holds up his hand as to say that destroying it did that to him. Carol: Right. So it makes no sense that the ring reacts to Harry as if it were still a Horcrux. But it does act that way in the film. (And, of course, it's just *wrong* that a Horcrux would destroy someone's hand unless it had a protective curse on it--and even more wrong that "a Horcrux could be anything." I wish they'd stick with the story on points like those.) md: > I still think your hopes for "the princes tale" are in vain. They will simply use the Rosetta Stone (Her-my-oh-ninny) or some other vessel to explain things. Carol responds: Hermione thinks that Snape is a murderer and a traitor. She has no clue about Lily or Dumbledore's ordering Snape to kill him. The only people who know that are the dying Snape and the dead Dumbledore. md: > I don't believe for a second that during the films film act they are going to take a loooooooooooooooooooooooong break to show all those memories, at least, I have serious doubts. > > However!!! I think a better device would be to open the film with the Snape - Lilly flashbacks, cut to Snape present collecting the memories out of the pensive and putting them in a vile. Then, latter, at the end he can hand the vile, plus the DD memory to Harry and we don't have to watch all the memories at one point, plus, I think it would be an excellent, dramatic way to start the film. > Carol responds: And spoil the chance to show Snape doing a last spectacular bit of wandless magic just before he dies? I very much doubt that the filmmakers will do it your way. They need the Big Reveal that Snape loves Lily and killed DD on his orders near the end of the film, where it will have the most impact. And Harry needs to see that near-last memory indicating that he has to let himself be killed almost right before he goes into the forest with his "resurrected" loved ones. they'll work the scene for the utmost emotional impact as an interlude between battle scenes, I'm willing to bet. Otherwise, it would just be Nagini attacking Snape and the dying Snape requesting Harry, who still hates him and thinks he killed DD, to look into his eyes. Without the memories, which indicate that Snape has something to tell him from beyond the grave, Harry has no reason whatever to look into Snape's eyes. Of course they won't show *all* the memories, only the key ones, very much curtailed and possibly altered. No one is expecting a half-hour excursion into the Pensieve, just five exciting and revealing minutes. It's necessary to the plot, and it might well be the best part of the film. And, of course, Albus Severus's name will make no sense without Snape's memories, which are a whole and can't be presented piecemeal. Carol, noting that JKR sees Snape as a key character and told Rickman that Snape loved Lily--she's not going to let them ruin the film by leaving that out From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 02:43:43 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:43:43 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: <000301ca1704$973966f0$c5ac34d0$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm (I'm certain they put that in there to show that the Harry > / Voldy connection was still alive for DH. But the point of the scene is, DD is holding up his hand and obviously showing it to Harry as he states how difficult / dangerous it was to destroy. Carol responds: Not to be obstinate or anything, but the ring does not appear to be destroyed. We don't even see the stone. And a destroyed Horcrux could not or at least should not cause a "Voldy spasm." If the Horcrux soul bit is destroyed, there's nothing to connect with the soul bit in Harry. Carol, who thought that the point of that scene was to tell DD, belatedly, that Harry's scar is a Horcrux (communicating with the as-yet undestroyed ring Horcrux) From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 03:20:25 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:20:25 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: References: <006201ca1703$b2577fe0$17067fa0$@com> Message-ID: <001a01ca170e$01ae1f90$050a5eb0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol: Right. So it makes no sense that the ring reacts to Harry as if it were still a Horcrux. But it does act that way in the film. (And, of course, it's just *wrong* that a Horcrux would destroy someone's hand unless it had a protective curse on it--and even more wrong that "a Horcrux could be anything." I wish they'd stick with the story on points like those.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD states after Harry touches the ring that it still has power. This does make sense in setting up the Hallows, because the ring may no longer be a horcrux, but it's still a hallow. It may not be in the book, but DD asserting that it's so powerful that even with the horcrux destroyed it's a powerful magical item is not a far stretch. My presumption is that they don't want to first explain to a film audience that the ring has no power because the horcrux was destroyed and then say, oh! But it has power because it is a Hallow. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 7 06:28:53 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:28:53 -0000 Subject: The epilogue in HP8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > Of course they won't show *all* the memories, only the key ones, very much curtailed and possibly altered. No one is expecting a half-hour excursion into the Pensieve, just five exciting and revealing minutes. It's necessary to the plot, and it might well be the best part of the film. And, of course, Albus Severus's name will make no sense without Snape's memories, which are a whole and can't be presented piecemeal. Geoff: I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't include the epilogue. It would probably take the edge off a dramatic ending and they would need extra actors for the children (and possibly the older guys) for what might just be a few minutes tying up loose ends after the emotional roller-coaster of the final battle. From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 13:33:06 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:33:06 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] The epilogue in HP8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004d01ca1763$991e9580$cb5bc080$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister Geoff: I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't include the epilogue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. I won't miss it, however the actors (at least Radcliffe) have stated they have not cast older actors to play them, so I'm presuming they are at least planning to film it. md ___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From no.limberger at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 14:14:01 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 07:14:01 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90908070714x6f6f5ef0qf8af89d8aa2e076c@mail.gmail.com> >Alla wrote: >But I do not think actors can do anything if they want to interpret >the character in contradiction to what director wants, it is simply >not their job. >Oh sure, we can search and find that once in a million years >director can listen to some star whom she wants in the movie >real badly, but seriously, this does not happen almost ever >from what I understand. >Director can easily find somebody else to play the part. No.Limberger responds: It's an actor's job to understand all of the nuances of a particular character in order to bring the character to life. If a director has an actor portray a character in such a way that it contradicts the original material that defines the character, that, in my opinion, is a sign of a bad movie. >From what I have observed, the portrayals of the characters by the various actors in all of the HP movies to date have been very good and very accurate as far capturing the essence & personality of the characters that JKR created. As far as replacing a particular actor, that could be extremely difficult to do when a number of scenes have already been filmed. This would require redoing any scenes that had been completed along with all of the additional production costs. -- "Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 14:26:22 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:26:22 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90908070714x6f6f5ef0qf8af89d8aa2e076c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > No.Limberger responds: > It's an actor's job to understand all of the nuances of a particular > character in order to bring the character to life. If a director has > an actor portray a character in such a way that it contradicts the > original material that defines the character, that, in my opinion, > is a sign of a bad movie. Alla: And in my opinion too, however I would never blame the actor for portraying the character in such a way that it contradicts the original material IF this is what director wanted from him/her. Do I think that Dumbledore shaking Harry in GoF is one of the most idiotic scenes ever written by playwriter and accepted by the director? You bet I do. Do I blame Gabon for this scene? Not at all. I blame Kloves first and foremost and I blame the director. Do I think they would have changed the scene if Gambon read the books and said oh no, Dumbledore would have never acted like that? No, I would never believe that. In my opinion of course. Do I think that Beowulf in the recent movie is a mockery of the character? Oh yes, it however never came to my mind to say - oh if only actor had read the book, he would have take care to tell the director that please, my character is not portrayed in the books as liar and a cheat, kindly change the play asap, you know? JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 14:41:26 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:41:26 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > Good directors do listen to the actors, especially highly gifted veteran actors who understand their character and his or her motivation. (They even gave Jason Isaacs a snake-headed cane at his request because he thought it fit the character even though that wasn't in the book.) I agree that Book!Snape would never have hit students on the head with books; he wouldn't have needed to. But Rickman seems to have enjoyed the chance to get in a bit of physical comedy--and Film!Snape probably enjoyed the chance to take out a bit of his frustration on Potter and Weasley (just as film!Hermione hits Ron with a book in HBP). But that scene doesn't seriously undermine Snape as a character (unlike Dumbledore yelling at and shaking Harry, which Gambon would have known was contrary to DD's character had he read the books. > > The thing is, WB is trying, in general, to produce an adaptation that's faithful to the spirit of the books, which requires the characters, especially the important characters, to share the personality and motivation (and preferably, mannerisms, accents, vocal inflections, and facial expressions) of their book equivalents. The Disney version of "Three Musketeers" that you cited had no such goal. It was meant only as light entertainment, so loosely based on the books that the author would not have recognized his own characters. > > Consider for a moment the performances of Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the LOTR films, and John Noble, who played Denethor. Lee read the books multiple times (and had no qualms about talking to Peter Jackson about how he thought a scene should be played). John Noble never so much as read the scenes involving Denethor. Lee was, IMO, spot on in his characterization. Noble was sickeningly off, completely missing the proud and tough old warrior who wrongly thought himself a match for Sauron. Part of it was the way his scenes were written (those grapes; his death) but part was his (IMO) complete misunderstanding of the character--because he'd never read the books. I think he might have requested--and received--some alterations had he done so. (Jackson and his team were willing to experiment. They filmed several variations of the scene with Frodo and Gollum on the Cracks of Doom, including one that matched the book, and chose the one they thought worked best dramatically--unfortunate choice, IMO, but at least the actors knew that it wasn't the canonical version and were part of the creative process of changing the book to the film.) Alla: Yeah, I know Jackson and LOTR is one of the two exceptions which I was thinking about. Jackson specifically wanted to produce the work as close as possible to the books and their spirit and yes many actors read the books and yes indeed he would even listen to them. Are you aware of any other examples? And no, I do not think that giving Jackson Isaac a cane counts, at least this is not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about director changing a *scene* per actor's request, not giving actor an accessory that he wanted. In one of the russian miniseries that I recently watched I have read that one of the actors picked a kipa (spelling?) that he felt suited the spirit of his character and of course he was allowed, but it is not like he asked to change his dialog, etc. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 15:27:01 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:27:01 -0000 Subject: The epilogue in HP8 In-Reply-To: <004d01ca1763$991e9580$cb5bc080$@com> Message-ID: Geoff wrote: > I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't include the epilogue. md responded: > I won't miss it, however the actors (at least Radcliffe) have stated they have not cast older actors to play them, so I'm presuming they are at least planning to film it. Carol responds: A while back, someone (me?) posted a link to an article about the decision to use the current actors for HRH, Ginny, and Draco, aged Benjamin-Button style. So, yes, they're filming it (or will do so soon). Admittedly, the epilogue is a bit anticlimactic even in the book, but I'm looking forward to meeting Albus Severus and hearing Harry praise Snape's courage. It brought tears to my eyes when I first read it. Carol, wondering whether a search for "Benjamin Button" would produce that post but too lazy to try From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 15:59:32 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:59:32 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > And in my opinion too, however I would never blame the actor for portraying the character in such a way that it contradicts the original material IF this is what director wanted from him/her. > > Do I think that Dumbledore shaking Harry in GoF is one of the most idiotic scenes ever written by playwriter and accepted by the director? You bet I do. Do I blame Gabon for this scene? Not at all. I blame Kloves first and foremost and I blame the director. Do I think they would have changed the scene if Gambon read the books and said oh no, Dumbledore would have never acted like that? No, I would never believe that. In my opinion of course. Carol responds: It seems that actors can and often do suggest changes in a script, but how and why they ask for changes may determine whether they're acted on or not. Here's an article by a scriptwriter informing actors about how to request a change and get the writer and director to listen: http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2009/07/actors-how-to-give-notes-to-writers.html Personally, I think that if a respected and established actor like Gambon or Rickman requested a change, the writer and director would listen. If, for example, Gambon had read the book and pointed out that in the book, Gambon didn't shake Harry or yell at him because he had faith in him (and doesn't want his students manhandled, as we see in OoP when Umbridge shakes Marietta), the director would at least have explained why he wanted it that way and maybe filmed the scene in alternate versions (his way and Gambon's/JKR's way) to see which worked better. From there, it would be up to the director and script editor, but at least the actor's view of his own character would be considered. Actors aren't slaves to a director's will, at least not in most cases. IIRC, Dan Radcliffe or Emma Watson(?) said that Yates asked them about their characters. After all, they've been playing those roles for years and he's a relative newcomer. Carol, who thinks that any director worth his paycheck will listen to his actors and that not doing so will ruin the rapport on the set From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 16:19:50 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:19:50 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Good directors do listen to the actors, especially highly gifted veteran actors who understand their character and his or her motivation. > > The thing is, WB is trying, in general, to produce an adaptation that's faithful to the spirit of the books, which requires the characters, especially the important characters, to share the personality and motivation (and preferably, mannerisms, accents, vocal inflections, and facial expressions) of their book equivalents. > > > > Consider for a moment the performances of Christopher Lee, who played Saruman in the LOTR films, and John Noble, who played Denethor. Lee read the books multiple times (and had no qualms about talking to Peter Jackson about how he thought a scene should be played). John Noble never so much as read the scenes involving Denethor. Lee was, IMO, spot on in his characterization. Noble was sickeningly off, completely missing the proud and tough old warrior who wrongly thought himself a match for Sauron. Part of it was the way his scenes were written (those grapes; his death) but part was his (IMO) complete misunderstanding of the character--because he'd never read the books. I think he might have requested--and received--some alterations had he done so. (Jackson and his team were willing to experiment. They filmed several variations of the scene with Frodo and Gollum on the Cracks of Doom, including one that matched the book, and chose the one they thought worked best dramatically--unfortunate choice, IMO, but at least the actors knew that it wasn't the canonical version and were part of the creative process of changing the book to the film.) > > > > Alla: > > Yeah, I know Jackson and LOTR is one of the two exceptions which I was thinking about. Jackson specifically wanted to produce the work as close as possible to the books and their spirit and yes many actors read the books and yes indeed he would even listen to them. > > Are you aware of any other examples? Carol responds: Not specific examples offhand (I'm sure I've read them but don't remember where), but I did find this quote from Peter Jackson in an article from "Features" magazine: ". . . A lot of revision to the scripts continued through the shoot. We would rewrite scenes, lose scenes, change scenes throughout the 15 months. It was very complicated. Yet, it's creatively exciting, a strength and perhaps weakness to roll with the punches and get input from all of the actors. Once they took over their characters, they would make suggestions and that would lead to other opportunities to improve the script. The script process was truly organic." http://www.dga.org/news/v26_5/feat_peterjackson.php3 I've also read somewhere that Christopher Lee, who reads the books once a year and is thoroughly familiar with them, made a number of suggestions, some of which were acted upon, for scenes involving other actors. And I know that a similar creative process was used in the filming of the 1998 TV movie "Moby Dick," for which all the major actors read the book. (The writer and director still made changes to the original book, of course, but they did so as a team with the actors, not as dictators or puppetmasters, and like Jackson's team, they continued to revise the script as they filmed.) Carol, who will add more links if she finds any good ones From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Aug 7 16:31:34 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:31:34 -0000 Subject: The epilogue in HP8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > A while back, someone (me?) posted a link to an article about the decision to use the current actors for HRH, Ginny, and Draco, aged Benjamin-Button style. So, yes, they're filming it (or will do so soon). Admittedly, the epilogue is a bit anticlimactic even in the book, but I'm looking forward to meeting Albus Severus and hearing Harry praise Snape's courage. It brought tears to my eyes when I first read it. > > Carol, wondering whether a search for "Benjamin Button" would produce that post but too lazy to try Magpie: One wonders how much aging they would need. BB spans infancy to old age, right? These are actors who will be in their early 20s having to be in their later 30s. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 16:32:37 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:32:37 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > I've also read somewhere that Christopher Lee, who reads the books once a year and is thoroughly familiar with them, made a number of suggestions, some of which were acted upon, for scenes involving other actors. And I know that a similar creative process was used in the filming of the 1998 TV movie "Moby Dick," for which all the major actors read the book. (The writer and director still made changes to the original book, of course, but they did so as a team with the actors, not as dictators or puppetmasters, and like Jackson's team, they continued to revise the script as they filmed.) > > Carol, who will add more links if she finds any good ones Carol again: Found this tidbit about sixteen paragraphs from the bottom of the Trivia section of Christopher Lee's IMDb page: "As a veritable J.R.R. Tolkien expert and the only member of the cast who had met Tolkien himself, he often visited the Production department on the sets of the various "Lord of the Rings" movies to give advice and tips on the various attributes of the films." http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000489/bio Carol, who now pictures Saruman as Christopher Lee Although info from the IMDb isn't always accurate, I know I've read the same thing elsewhere. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 16:40:57 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:40:57 -0000 Subject: AR has read the books, well, at least DH! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > one of the actors picked a kipa (spelling?) zanooda: Did you mean kippah :-)? If yes, they mostly call it "yarmulke" here... :-). From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 17:03:26 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:03:26 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: The epilogue in HP8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a101ca1780$faff0470$f0fd0d50$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie Magpie: One wonders how much aging they would need. BB spans infancy to old age, right? These are actors who will be in their early 20s having to be in their later 30s. -m >>>>>>>>>>>>> BB is about someone who ages backwards, so the newborn looks about 80 years old, then gets younger every year and eventually becomes a normal newborn and dies. I, personally am 36 and really, with the exception of some lines around the eyes and shorter hair I don't look that much different than I did at 18. It's important to remember that late thirties is not middle age as it was 40 years ago, many people look much younger into their 50s and 60s than they used to. The main thing, really, would be to de-soften facial features, I think skin tone more than anything changes from say 20 to 40, but I think minimal aging would be best. If they look like they have aging make-up on (think horrible back-to-the-future make-up!!!) it will be distracting. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 19:04:47 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:04:47 -0000 Subject: Aging HRH and Draco (Was: The epilogue in HP8) In-Reply-To: <00a101ca1780$faff0470$f0fd0d50$@com> Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > One wonders how much aging they would need. BB spans infancy to old age, right? These are actors who will be in their early 20s having to be in their later 30s. md responded: > BB is about someone who ages backwards, so the newborn looks about 80 years old, then gets younger every year and eventually becomes a normal newborn and dies. > > I, personally am 36 and really, with the exception of some lines around the eyes and shorter hair I don't look that much different than I did at 18. The main thing, really, would be to de-soften facial features, I think skin tone more than anything changes from say 20 to 40, but I think minimal aging would be best. If they look like they have aging make-up on (think horrible back-to-the-future make-up!!!) it will be distracting. Carol responds: Well, if they go by the book, Draco, at least, will have a receding hairline! I remember by twenty-year high school reunion. The women were mostly unrecognizable because of makeup and completely different hairstyles, but most of the men were recognizable, and most of them shared two characteristics, a bit of a beer belly (think Ludo Bagman) and receding or thinning hair. Quite a few also had mustaches, which weren't allowed in high schools in my day, so they looked different in that respect. I'd say add lines around the mouth and eyes and maybe one or two lines in the forehead for Harry, who probably wouldn't have crow's feet because he wears glasses (I don't for that reason, and I'm a lot older than 36!) Ron's and Ginny's hair would probably be a bit darker, too. That happens a lot to redheads (and blonds). Anyway, all they'd need to do is to run one of those age progression programs like the one used for missing kids (some of whom are now adults) and progress their ages to 36 or so and then have the makeup department replicate that look. I agree that it shouldn't be overdone, and 36-year-olds can still look young(ish). Carol, curious to know what anyone who's had to "card" teenagers trying to buy cigarettes or liquor or get into an R-rated movie looks for to guesstimate ages From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 7 19:57:42 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:57:42 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Aging HRH and Draco (Was: The epilogue in HP8) In-Reply-To: References: <00a101ca1780$faff0470$f0fd0d50$@com> Message-ID: <00d201ca1799$533c0d00$f9b42700$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol I agree that it shouldn't be overdone, and 36-year-olds can still look young(ish). Carol, curious to know what anyone who's had to "card" teenagers trying to buy cigarettes or liquor or get into an R-rated movie looks for to guesstimate ages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get carded all the time, drives me nuts because I'm only 4 years from forty. Not that I want to look old, but. I can say that my brother, who is forty, looks easy ten years older. But, I've not smoked, I don't drink daily and I haven't done any drugs in fifteen years, I also have a professional career whereas he and my father (who just passed away at 62) both worked manual labor, out-doors jobs all their lives. Also, wizards live extra-long lives when they are not killed by something, so they should look older later in life. They also have magical remedies for receding hair, etc. So I would say they should not look very old, just not teen-aged anymore. And when DD says Harry needs a shave in HBP, it's completely lost as he has no sign of any stubble, and being of darker hair he would. md _ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Aug 8 03:18:05 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:18:05 -0600 Subject: My Funny At The Movie Message-ID: <9068B7CBF9BB4DD38B93C9B4C3AEAD2F@Marianne> My funny at the movie. Thanks to my son, and me if you really want to know, I've now seen seen HBP 4 times. The only other movie I've ever seen more than that in a theatre was Star Wars episode 4 when it came out in 77. I saw it 6 times. I'm sure I've already wrote that. Even though we know it's coming, my son and I have always is a bit startled when the inferi reaches out and grabs Harry. Anyway, the inferi grabs Harry and of course me and my son are startled. The pre-teen girl to the side of us jumps in her seat and squeals out loud. What is suposed to be a tense moment turns funny as the entire theater heard her and burst into laughter. I saw the girl slide down low into her seat. Marianne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Aug 8 06:36:35 2009 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:36:35 -0000 Subject: Aging HRH and Draco (Was: The epilogue in HP8) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Carol, curious to know what anyone who's had to "card" teenagers trying to buy cigarettes or liquor or get into an R-rated movie looks for to guesstimate ages > Marianne: I've got carded several times at Wendover and Las Vegas. One time I was 25 and 7 months pregnant with my second son, and I was carded. I said "You've got to be kidding, right?" They weren't. So I showed them my ID. How on earth could I have ever looked under 21 in the condition I was in. I cashier at Wal-Mart and I've carded people that are about 17ish all the way through their 30's. Most laugh and are good natured about it. A few are down right insulted. When I card the younger ones, I tell them "You guys are looking younger and younger or I'm getting old because you don't look 21 to me." A lot of the younger looking ones have their ID out and ready to give to me. I laugh and tell them "You know how it is, don't you?" They are 25 years old, and they look 17. I have my "regulars" come through my line and I just check them through. I know who they are and don't bother with the formalities. Marianne From md at exit-reality.com Sun Aug 9 04:52:16 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:52:16 -0400 Subject: HP ultimate editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca18ad$30a1cf40$91e56dc0$@com> Just got a newsletter from WB with cover art for SS/PS and COS "ultimate edition" DVD & Blu-Ray. Can anyone say "deleted scenes edited back in?" There's no official info, just a promise of more next month (Yeah, in time for Christmas.) Dip. Dip. Dip. Dip. Dip. Dip. WB. Dip. Dip. Dip. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 10 16:54:37 2009 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:54:37 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - The Cane and the Room. In-Reply-To: <000301ca1704$973966f0$c5ac34d0$@com> Message-ID: zanooda: > Neither do I, but I usually don't remember much after one viewing. > Maybe md does, he watched it more than once :-). But wouldn't it be > strange if the Ring was still a Horcrux? What, one more for poor > Movie!Harry to destroy :-)? md: > DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says > something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then > Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm (I'm certain they put > that in there to show that the Harry / Voldy connection was still > alive for DH. But the point of the scene is, DD is holding up his > hand and obviously showing it to Harry as he states how difficult / > dangerous it was to destroy. SSSusan: Absolutely love the phrase "Voldy Spasm" to describe what happened in that scene. I've now seen this... ahem... 4 times, the most recent time in IMAX, and I agree with those who are saying that DD made it relatively clear to Harry that the ring was how he sustained the damage to his hand. I think it was Carol who wondered about the enchantments vs. the horcrux itself which caused the damage. To me, I don't see it as an issue whether DD implied it was from the destruction of the horcrux or from enchantments placed upon the ring -- I think that's getting a little nitpicky to worry about which was implied. ;) I just took it as *the process* of destroying the horcrux which caused it. I also thought the Voldy Spasm wasn't meant at all to imply that the ring was still a horcrux. I saw it as more of a "residual" kind of thing -- the ring had contained a soul bit and, even though destroyed now, might still have had some kind of minor "connection" to the horcrux residing within Harry. I *loved* that scene, even though it sort of creeped me out, as DD seemed to realize for the first time what's inside of Harry. Gambon really shone, imo, as DD this time. Am I the only one who thought the ring appeared to have been SEPARATED from the stone? I can't remember if it was the first time we saw it -- when DD tossed it in the drawer inside the hole in the diary -- or when he showed it to Harry, but I thought the stone was missing? Which would, imo, make it extra clear that DD had already destroyed the horcrux. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I could've sworn that. Siriusly Snapey Susan From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 11 04:00:50 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:50 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HP ultimate editions In-Reply-To: <000601ca18ad$30a1cf40$91e56dc0$@com> References: <000601ca18ad$30a1cf40$91e56dc0$@com> Message-ID: <001e01ca1a38$556b8140$004283c0$@com> Pi n. Drop. Where'd you all go? md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Child Of Midian Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:52 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HP ultimate editions Just got a newsletter from WB with cover art for SS/PS and COS "ultimate edition" DVD & Blu-Ray. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From captainjackswomen at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 04:08:18 2009 From: captainjackswomen at yahoo.com (Lady of Imladris) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HP ultimate editions In-Reply-To: <001e01ca1a38$556b8140$004283c0$@com> Message-ID: <846228.44163.qm@web59807.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Out spending money lol Love,Red --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Child Of Midian wrote: From: Child Of Midian Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] HP ultimate editions To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 9:00 PM Pi n. Drop. Where'd you all go? md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Child Of Midian Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:52 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HP ultimate editions ? Just got a newsletter from WB with cover art for SS/PS and COS "ultimate edition" DVD & Blu-Ray. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Remember to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Any questions or problems - contact the List Elves at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 06:43:38 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:43:38 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > zanooda: > > .... But wouldn't it be strange if the Ring was still a Horcrux? What, one more for poor Movie!Harry to destroy :-)? > > md: > > DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says > > something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then > > Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm ... > > > SSSusan: > Absolutely love the phrase "Voldy Spasm" to describe what happened in that scene. > > I've now seen this... ahem... 4 times, the most recent time in IMAX, and I agree with those who are saying that DD made it relatively clear to Harry that the ring was how he sustained the damage to his hand. ... > > Maybe I'm imagining things, but I could've sworn that. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: Let's talk about that Ring, not from a magical perspective, but from a physical perspective. I can't believe the person who designed that ring has any knowledge of the Harry Potter books at all. But even if the designer didn't, the producers and directors surely had. How could they come up with that pathetic ring, and expect it to fulfill its role in the continuing plot? My grandfather has a rather common black onyx ring with a square stone that would have been better than the ring they created. Sure it was a cool looking ring, but where are the markings? How can the plot proceed without the marks. There isn't even any place on that odd shaped stone for the marks. I mean really couldn't they have done better than that? The final book has been out for a while now, they should know what is and isn't significant. I can understand the compressing the plot and eliminating things that are not essential. But, really, isn't the Ring rather essential to the resolution of the plot? All I can say is, what were they thinking? Steve/bboyminn From rmieure at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 17:56:28 2009 From: rmieure at yahoo.com (Robin Mieure) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <985294.76750.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ > zanooda: > > .... But wouldn't it be strange if the Ring was still a Horcrux? What, one more for poor Movie!Harry to destroy :-)? > > md: > > DD addresses the ring, holds up his hand to Harry and says > > something along the lines of "it wasn't easy to destroy." Then > > Harry touches the ring, has his Voldy Spasm ... > > > SSSusan: > Absolutely love the phrase "Voldy Spasm" to describe what happened in that scene. > > I've now seen this... ahem... 4 times, the most recent time in IMAX, and I agree with those who are saying that DD made it relatively clear to Harry that the ring was how he sustained the damage to his hand. ... > > Maybe I'm imagining things, but I could've sworn that. > I don't normally respond to discussions, but read the threads and discuss them with co-workers. As I work at a theater, I have been able to view the latest HP movie a dozen times, give or take. My co-workers and I have discussed the ring and my theory is that the little bit of Voldy that was in Harry recognizes the ring. It's Voldy's tie to his heritage and was one of his horcruxes. It would have been made well before that little bit of Voldy had been planted in Harry. And if that bit in Harry has the ability to keep Voldy tied to life then why not all the memories that he, Voldy, had as well? I think it was that bit recognizing the ring that brought about the "Voldy Spasm." Just my opinion, :p Robin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 11 20:13:59 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:13:59 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <985294.76750.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <985294.76750.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301ca1ac0$47febbc0$d7fc3340$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robin Mieur I don't normally respond to discussions, but read the threads and discuss them with co-workers. As I work at a theater, I have been able to view the latest HP movie a dozen times, give or take. My co-workers and I have discussed the ring and my theory is that the little bit of Voldy that was in Harry recognizes the ring. It's Voldy's tie to his heritage and was one of his horcruxes. It would have been made well before that little bit of Voldy had been planted in Harry. And if that bit in Harry has the ability to keep Voldy tied to life then why not all the memories that he, Voldy, had as well? I think it was that bit recognizing the ring that brought about the "Voldy Spasm." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. It could be argued that the Voldy Spasm makes sense in that the ring, above all other horcruxes, belongs to the heir of Slytheren, (sp?) and that it being such a powerful object and it being so connected to Voldy even without the Horcrux it could cause Harry to react. Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three brothers in the Hallows story? md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 22:25:29 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:25:29 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <000301ca1ac0$47febbc0$d7fc3340$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > It could be argued that the Voldy Spasm makes sense in that the ring, above all other horcruxes, belongs to the heir of Slytheren, (sp?) and that it being such a powerful object and it being so connected to Voldy even without the Horcrux it could cause Harry to react. Carol responds: I don't quite follow your reasoning here. I'd say that the diary was the Horcrux most clearly connected with the Heir of Slytherin. True, the ring was inherited by the Gaunts (descendants of Slytherin) and he would have considered it rightfully his own, but the same can be said of Slytherin's locket, a seemingly more valuable object with connections to a Hogwarts founder. And the ring came by way of the Peverells, not Slytherin himself (a different line into which a Slytherin descendant must have intermarried). As for the powers of the ring, Riddle probably didn't realize that it had any, any more than the Gaunts did. (They only valued it because of the proof of Pure-Blood andestors.) He certainly didn't know it was a Hallow; in fact, it was clear from his behavior that he didn't know the legend of the three brothers or he'd probably have joined the Hallows hunt to become Master of Death (whatever that means, exactly) with no need to split his soul into Horcruxes. Carol, who still thinks that the scene makes no sense, however dramatic it may appear From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 23:10:18 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:10:18 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Let's talk about that Ring, not from a magical perspective, > but from a physical perspective. I can't believe the person > who designed that ring has any knowledge of the Harry Potter > books at all. zanooda: I didn't like the ring either. I don't know what exactly you expected, but I thought the stone would be like in the book - "heavy black stone". After all, according to the tale, it was just a pebble from that river bank, nothing more... > Steve: > How could they come up with that pathetic ring zanooda: Steve, I don't know what you are complaining about, LOL. The book says the ring was ugly, and here you go :-). Just kidding, of course :-). > Steve: > Sure it was a cool looking ring, but where are the markings? zanooda: I didn't notice any markings in the movie either, but do you know all these companies, like Noble Collection, who sell replicas of the props from movies and stuff like this? They sell those Horcrux Rings (I know because they keep mailing me catalogs for some reason), and there are markings on them, only not on the surface, but inside (at least it looks like this). I don't know much about these companies, but, as they claim that this is "the authentic replica" of the movie ring, maybe the movie ring also has the markings, and we just didn't see them? Here is the picture of the ring that I found online: http://www.noblecollection.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=NN8177&catid=21 From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 11 23:12:00 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:12:00 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <000301ca1ac0$47febbc0$d7fc3340$@com> Message-ID: <000601ca1ad9$262bcab0$72836010$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds: I don't quite follow your reasoning here. I'd say that the diary was the Horcrux most clearly connected with the Heir of Slytherin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got the ring and locket momentarily mixed. However, the diary has nothing to do with Slytherin because it started with Riddle. But, if the ring is a hallow, the cloak is a hallow, the ring and cloak, Voldy and Harry all share a connection. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 23:14:08 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:14:08 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <000301ca1ac0$47febbc0$d7fc3340$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, > are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three > brothers in the Hallows story? zanooda: I think JKR said in an interview that they are related. Not cousins though, but distant relatives, because the three brothers lived very very long ago... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 06:36:34 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:36:34 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: md: > > Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, > > are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three > > brothers in the Hallows story? zanooda: > I think JKR said in an interview that they are related. Not cousins though, but distant > relatives, because the three brothers lived very very long ago... Geoff: Strictly speaking, if they are indeed descendants of brothers, then they *are* cousins umpteen times removed. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 06:56:29 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:56:29 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Child Of Midian" wrote: > > > Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, > > are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three > > brothers in the Hallows story? > > > zanooda: > > I think JKR said in an interview that they are related. Not cousins though, but distant relatives, because the three brothers lived very very long ago... > bboyminn: According to Hermione, the Perverell's were one of the first wizarding families to die out, so that would make easily 20 to 30 generations between the Three Brothers and Harry and Tom. That assumes 500 years ago, it could have been longer. So, while they may be in the same family tree, they are spread across extremely diverse branches of that family tree. Notice that neither the Gaunts or the Potters, are named Perverell, so there is not even a direct patriarchal line back to the Perverell's. If I want, I can trace my ancestry in England back to Gravesend, Kent, as far back as 1280. But I don't think I can rightly say I'm related to anyone in Gravesend. I can also trace my ancestry back to Lyman Hall, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but I suspect if I went to the Hall family in Georgia, I would not really be greeted as family. The path between us is their, but it is very convoluted. Yes, technically they are related, but the geneological distance between them is go great and the common genetics so very thin, that beyond it being a novelty, I don't think it carries any weight. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Aug 12 07:38:29 2009 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (David Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:38:29 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: zanooda: > > I didn't like the ring either. I don't know what exactly you > expected, but I thought the stone would be like in the book - "heavy black stone". > After all, according to the tale, it was just a pebble from that river bank, nothing more... Dave: I thought the Stone should be round (at least roughly), since in the Hallows symbol, the Stone is represented by a circle. bboyminn: > According to Hermione, the Perverell's were one of the first > wizarding families to die out, so that would make easily 20 to > 30 generations between the Three Brothers and Harry and Tom. Dave: Plus we have NO evidence that Tom is directly descended from any of the Three Brothers, the way Harry is from Ignotus. The Gaunts may be descended from another member of the Peverell family, which would make Harry and Tom's kinship even more distant. Dave From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 12 16:03:35 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:03:35 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ab01ca1b66$72978ff0$57c6afd0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Yes, technically they are related, but the geneological distance between them is go great and the common genetics so very thin, that beyond it being a novelty, I don't think it carries any weight. Steve/bboyminn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was speaking to the magical connection in this *fantasy* world. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 12 16:06:29 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:06:29 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b001ca1b66$da8cb8b0$8fa62a10$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Hardenbrook Dave: Plus we have NO evidence that Tom is directly descended from any of the Three Brothers, the way Harry is from Ignotus. The Gaunts may be descended from another member of the Peverell family, which would make Harry and Tom's kinship even more distant. Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applying the logic that the author went through all the effort to put these connections into the book, since we are not studying real history we can presume things that might seem far-fetched in reality, but make perfect sense in an imagined world to say the author says A then B so it equals C. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 17:25:59 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:25:59 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <000601ca1ad9$262bcab0$72836010$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > I got the ring and locket momentarily mixed. However, the diary has nothing to do with Slytherin because it started with Riddle. Carol responds: How do you figure? The whole point of the diary, which contains the memory of Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for the murder of Moaning Myrtle, is Tom Riddle's proof that he's the Heir of Slytherin. that's what makes it valuable to Tom--it's the proof that he opened the Chamber of Secrets and released Slytherin's monster, which only Slytherin's true heir could do. The point is made repeatedly in Cos and again in HBP when Harry says that the diary is "nothing special" and Dumbledore contradicts him. Carol, noting that though Tom Riddle put the memory in the diary, the memory relates to the Chamber of Secrets, which started with Slytherin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 17:46:40 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:46:40 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: md: > > Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three brothers in the Hallows story? > > > zanooda: > > I think JKR said in an interview that they are related. Not cousins though, but distant relatives, because the three brothers lived very very long ago... > Carol responds: Ever looked at a genealogical chart of the descendants of Edward III? If we could take the descendants of his five surviving sons (one of whom was John of *Gaunt*) to the present day, including the various female lines and illegitimate lines, we'd have some idea of the relationship between the descendants of the Peverell brothers, who might go even further back. I've lost track of the descendants of my grandfather's various brothers, who would be (if they're members of my generation), my second cousins. If I go back four hundred years to my great x 8(?) grandfather, the descendants of his other children (if they're members of my generation) would be my ninth(?) cousins. Sure, we're related, but so distantly that it doesn't matter. At any rate, a chart of the descendants of the Peverell brothers' father would probably go back at least eight or ten generations and be nearly as complex as the Black Family tapestry (of which we see only a snippet on the Lexicon). BTW, I doubt that Antiochus Peverell, who was apparently murdered soon after he used the Elder Wand to win a battle and foolishly bragged about it, had any descendants, so we're talking about Cadmus, whose descendants married into the Gaunt family (the Gaunts apparently being descendants of Slytherin through a female line), and Ignotus, whose descendants married into the Potter family, at what point we don't know, but again it had to be through a female line or the last name would be Potter, not Peverell. Carol, noting that any two people on this list could be related as closely as Harry and Voldemort were From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 17:55:01 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:55:01 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn wrote: > > According to Hermione, the Perverell's were one of the first wizarding families to die out, so that would make easily 20 to 30 generations between the Three Brothers and Harry and Tom. > > That assumes 500 years ago, it could have been longer. So, while they may be in the same family tree, they are spread across extremely diverse branches of that family tree. Carol responds: Oops. You're right. I was thinking that eight generations would be four hundred years. That would make a generation fifty years rather than about twenty! But my point is the same as yours--the relationship is too distant to matter. Carol, thinking that the Black Family tapestry would require a lot more space than one hallway if it includes every descendant back to the Middle Ages From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 18:08:14 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:08:14 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <00b001ca1b66$da8cb8b0$8fa62a10$@com> Message-ID: Dave: > Plus we have NO evidence that Tom is directly descended from any of the Three Brothers, the way Harry is from Ignotus. The Gaunts may be descended from another member of the Peverell family, which would make Harry and Tom's kinship even more distant. Carol responds: We know that there were three brothers, one of whom was (according to legend) killed shortly after "receiving" (actually, creating) the Elder Wand. Dumbledore deduces that the Invisibility Cloak passed from father to son and mother to daughter (I suspect from father to daughter and mother to son on occasion, too). It stands to reason that the same thing would have happened with the ring. Once a female descendant (whether or not her maiden name was Peverell) married into the Gaunt or Potter lines, her children would be named Gaunt or Potter. There's no need to suspect another Peverell brother or sister who inherited the ring from their brother Cadmus. It's safe to assume that he passed the resurrection stone (perhaps not yet mounted into a ring) to one of his children just as Ignotus passed the Invisibility Cloak to one of his. At some point, the knowledge that the Resurrection Stone was a Hallow seems to have been lost. Marvolo Gaunt certainly didn't know it; to him, the ring was just part of his Pure-blood heritage. Something similar seems to have happened with the Invisibility Cloak, which for James Potter was merely an aid to mischief like the Marauder's Map. Only a few "believers" like Xenophilius Lovegood and the young Grindelwald and Dumbledore thought that the Hallows were anything more than a legend. Carol, who has strayed from the topic a bit but just followed her thoughts From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 12 18:09:44 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:09:44 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca1ad9$262bcab0$72836010$@com> Message-ID: <000901ca1b78$120b33f0$36219bd0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds: How do you figure? The whole point of the diary, which contains the memory of Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for the murder of Moaning Myrtle, is Tom Riddle's proof that he's the Heir of Slytherin. that's what makes it valuable to Tom--it's the proof that he opened the Chamber of Secrets and released Slytherin's monster, which only Slytherin's true heir could do. The point is made repeatedly in Cos and again in HBP when Harry says that the diary is "nothing special" and Dumbledore contradicts him. Carol, noting that though Tom Riddle put the memory in the diary, the memory relates to the Chamber of Secrets, which started with Slytherin >>>>>>>>>>> How I figure is in my post, Tom Riddle bought the diary, made it a magical object but it DID NOT BELONG TO NOR WAS IT HANDED DOWN through Slytherin's heir. Just because it proved it opened the chamber only showed that he was an heir of Slytherin's. My point, from two post back in this thread, was that the diary belonged to only Tom Riddle, it was not ever a Slytherin heirloom and had no magic power prior to Riddle making it a magical object. I don't know how that is so complicated. md ._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 12 18:11:45 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:11:45 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01ca1b78$5a226730$0e673590$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol, noting that any two people on this list could be related as closely as Harry and Voldemort were. >>>>>>>>\ Yes, but I was speaking to the idea of magical connection in a fantasy world taking into account the information that the author gives us. ms [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 12 22:29:51 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:29:51 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <000e01ca1b78$5a226730$0e673590$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: Carol: > noting that any two people on this list could be related as closely > as Harry and Voldemort were. md: > Yes, but I was speaking to the idea of magical connection in a fantasy world > taking into account the information that the author gives us. Geoff: But you didn't make that particularly clear in your earlier statement. I don't see that a family connection involving wizards should differ from a family connection in the real world. Presumably, a brother is a brother, an aunt is an aunt, a great-great nephew is a great-great nephew and a twenty-seventh cousin is a twenty-seventh cousin whether they are magical or not. From poohtwo2000 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 22:51:07 2009 From: poohtwo2000 at yahoo.com (poohtwo2000) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:51:07 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary Message-ID: My son pointed something out to me after seeing the movie for the third time. Didn't Harry give the diary back to Lucius at the end of Chamber with his dirty sock to free Dobby? How did it get back into Dumbledore's possession? Or is it just a bit of movie magic that we are supposed to overlook? Any thoughts. poohtwo2000 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 12 23:02:39 2009 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:02:39 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: poohtwo2000 wrote: > My son pointed something out to me after seeing the movie for the third time. Didn't Harry give the diary back to Lucius at the end of Chamber with his dirty sock to free Dobby? How did it get back into Dumbledore's possession? Or is it just a bit of movie magic that we are supposed to overlook? Any thoughts. SSSusan: *I*IRC, Lucius then tosses it to Dobby, who opens it, discovers the sock and *drops* the diary. I just assumed that Harry picked it up & took it back to DD's office. Siriusly Snapey Susan From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 23:06:42 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:06:42 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > BTW, I doubt that Antiochus Peverell, who was apparently > murdered soon after he used the Elder Wand to win a battle > and foolishly bragged about it, had any descendants, so > we're talking about Cadmus, whose descendants married into > Gaunt family (the Gaunts apparently being descendants of > Slytherin through a female line), and Ignotus zanooda: We don't know if Antioch wasn't married at the time of the story. He is the oldest brother, he could have a wife and children :-). Who couldn't have heirs (legal heirs, anyway), is Cadmus, who took his own life before getting married :-). But, of course, it's all just a story, so maybe real, not fairy-tale Antioch used the Wand for years before getting killed, real Cadmus never had any dead fiancee and got married, leaving the Stone to his children, and real Ignotus didn't spent his whole life in his Invisibility Cloak... :-). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 23:16:50 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:16:50 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > *I*IRC, Lucius then tosses it to Dobby, who opens it, > discovers the sock and *drops* the diary. I just > assumed that Harry picked it up & took it back to DD's office. zanooda: Yes, it's different in the book and in the movie. In the book Harry puts *the diary* inside his dirty sock and hands it to Lucius, who removes the diary from inside the sock and throws the sock away, to be caught by Dobby. In the movie, on the contrary, Harry puts *the sock* inside the diary and hands it to Lucius, who, for whatever reason, gives it to Dobby, who opens the diary, takes the sock and drops the diary. As we can see, in the book Lucius keeps the diary, while in the movie he doesn't, and it's quite possible, as you say, that Harry took the diary back to DD after Lucius left :-). From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 12 23:21:45 2009 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <985294.76750.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Robin: > I don't normally respond to discussions, but read the threads and discuss them with co-workers. As I work at a theater, I have been able to view the latest HP movie a dozen times, give or take. My co-workers and I have discussed the ring and my theory is that the little bit of Voldy that was in Harry recognizes the ring. It's Voldy's tie to his heritage and was one of his horcruxes. It would have been made well before that little bit of Voldy had been planted in Harry. And if that bit in Harry has the ability to keep Voldy tied to life then why not all the memories that he, Voldy, had as well? I think it was that bit recognizing the ring that brought about the "Voldy Spasm." > > Just my opinion, :p Robin SSSusan: I really like this notion! It's sort of the opposite of what I was positing previously (that got snipped out and I'm too lazy to go retrieve it right now when my computer's acting all wonky ;)). I was thinking there might be residual "stuff" in the ring that reacted to the horcrux in Harry, but I think you're suggesting that it could be that the horcrux in Harry actively recognized or "remembered" the ring. Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence, so it was recognizable to it. Not sure if I got that quite how you intended, but I do like the flip side of it better than what I'd been thinking. Siriusly Snapey Susan From md at exit-reality.com Thu Aug 13 01:31:35 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:31:35 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <000e01ca1b78$5a226730$0e673590$@com> Message-ID: <001801ca1bb5$d05d5ad0$71181070$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister Geoff: But you didn't make that particularly clear in your earlier statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Well, this would just be where we differ then. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Thu Aug 13 01:32:49 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:32:49 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001d01ca1bb5$fb785bc0$f2691340$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of poohtwo2000 My son pointed something out to me after seeing the movie for the third time. Didn't Harry give the diary back to Lucius at the end of Chamber with his dirty sock to free Dobby? How did it get back into Dumbledore's possession? Or is it just a bit of movie magic that we are supposed to overlook? Any thoughts. poohtwo2000 Dobby stayed with Harry, still holding the diary at the end, so presumably Harry handed it back to DD later. But Lucius certainly left without the diary. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From agdisney at msn.com Thu Aug 13 01:40:26 2009 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:40:26 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Riddle Diary My son pointed something out to me after seeing the movie for the third time. Didn't Harry give the diary back to Lucius at the end of Chamber with his dirty sock to free Dobby? How did it get back into Dumbledore's possession? Or is it just a bit of movie magic that we are supposed to overlook? Any thoughts. poohtwo2000 Andie: Harry shoves the diary into Lucius' hands then he throws it at Dobby. Once Dobby opens it & is "freed" he either keeps the book or Harry takes it back. Probably Harry takes it back since he only took it from DD to put the dirty sock in it. Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity a.. 2New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 13 04:47:06 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:47:06 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: <001d01ca1bb5$fb785bc0$f2691340$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > Dobby stayed with Harry, still holding the diary at the end zanooda: Dobby dropped the diary to the floor after taking out the sock :-). The last time we see it in CoS (the movie) it is on the floor. Harry probably just picked it up and returned it to DD, as you say :-). From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 13 06:41:41 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:41:41 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <001801ca1bb5$d05d5ad0$71181070$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: Geoff: > But you didn't make that particularly clear in your earlier statement. md: > Well, this would just be where we differ then. Geoff: Yes, but that's ducking the issue of why you suggest that familial relationships in a magical situation should be different to those in a non-magical one. Being a witch or wizard doesn't alter genealogical links. From md at exit-reality.com Thu Aug 13 15:33:37 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:33:37 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <001801ca1bb5$d05d5ad0$71181070$@com> Message-ID: <004201ca1c2b$6d5048f0$47f0dad0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister Geoff: Yes, but that's ducking the issue of why you suggest that familial relationships in a magical situation should be different to those in a non-magical one. Being a witch or wizard doesn't alter genealogical links. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not ducking anything, I've absolutely explained my comments, what's curious is why you seem so determined to argue it further when there's nothing new being added. You've answered your own question "a magical situation should be different to those in a non-magical one" I think I've made it clear that I believe adding the "magic" into the mix could allow a writer to make those distant connections that might not be possible in a non-magical world. Yes, I would say it's a perfectly logical leap to say that even the most distant of relatives in a magical world could feel the effects of magic from a common ancestral object. Now that I've explained that for the umpteenth time, could we let it go now? md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 13 21:25:08 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:25:08 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <004201ca1c2b$6d5048f0$47f0dad0$@com> Message-ID: >From previous posts: 16977 md: Here's what I don't recall from DH, if it was explained or not, are Voldy and Harry cousins if each are decedents of the three brothers in the Hallows story? ******* 16985 Steve/bboyminn Yes, technically they are related, but the geneological distance between them is go great and the common genetics so very thin, that beyond it being a novelty, I don't think it carries any weight. md: I was speaking to the magical connection in this *fantasy* world. ******* 16986 Dave: Plus we have NO evidence that Tom is directly descended from any of the Three Brothers, the way Harry is from Ignotus. The Gaunts may be descended from another member of the Peverell family, which would make Harry and Tom'skinship even more distant. md: Applying the logic that the author went through all the effort to put these connections into the book, since we are not studying real history we can presume things that might seem far-fetched in reality, but make perfect sense in an imagined world to say the author says A then B so it equals C. ******* 17004 Geoff: Yes, but that's ducking the issue of why you suggest that familial relationships in a magical situation should be different to those in a non-magical one. Being a witch or wizard doesn't alter genealogical links. md: I'm not ducking anything, I've absolutely explained my comments, what'scurious is why you seem so determined to argue it further when there's nothing new being added. You've answered your own question "a magical situation should be different to those in a non- magical one" I think I've made it clear that I believe adding the "magic" into the mix could allow a writer to make those distant connections that might not be possible in a non-magical world. Yes, I would say it's a perfectly logical leap to say that even the most distant of relatives in a magical world could feel the effects of magic from a common ancestral object. Now that I've explained that for the umpteenth time, could we let it go now? ******** Geoff: I've listed what I think are all your responses where the question of genealogy has arisen referring to the possibility of a link between Harry and Voldemort. To begin with, I think that "umpteen" is a bit of an exaggeration for four. In the non-magical world, connections over long periods of time and distance exist anyway. Look at some of the royal families. For example, the British Royal Family has connections leading back over a thousand years and the spread of descendants from Queen Victoria is quite mind-boggling. Your "absolute explanation" of your comments is very vague, which is why I, and some other contributors, have asked for more details, which is hardly "being determined to argue it further", and your rather brusque responses in some cases hardly help to clarify your thinking. From rmieure at yahoo.com Fri Aug 14 04:04:16 2009 From: rmieure at yahoo.com (Robin Mieure) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <418419.74091.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> SSSusan: > I was thinking there might be residual "stuff" in the ring that reacted to the horcrux in Harry, but I think you're suggesting that it could be that the horcrux in Harry actively recognized or "remembered" the ring. Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of > essence, so it was recognizable to it. Robin: SSS "Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence (Voldy :p), so it was recognizable to it." Exactly what I was thinking!! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 14 20:52:50 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:52:50 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <418419.74091.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: SSSusan wrote: > > I was thinking there might be residual "stuff" in the ring that reacted to the horcrux in Harry, but I think you're suggesting that it could be that the horcrux in Harry actively recognized or "remembered" the ring. Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence, so it was recognizable to it. > > > Robin: > SSS "Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence (Voldy :p), so it was recognizable to it." > Exactly what I was thinking!! > Carol responds: But if the Horcrux is destroyed, so is the soul bit, so there *is* no "residual stuff." In both the film and the book, Dumbledore can safely put on the ring. That means either Snape removed the curse and DD destroyed the soul bit (book) or DD destroyed the soul bit, which somehow injured his hand without the aid of any additional curse (and Snape gets stripped of credit for saving DD's life). Either way, the ring should have lost all its power to harm the wearer or interact with Harry's scar bit, though it remains a Hallow--which should cause no problems for Harry, who doesn't know it's a Hallow, or even for DD if he doesn't turn it over three times hoping to see Ariana. The Resurrection Stone would not react to Harry's scar. It has no connection with Voldemort, who hates and fears death and would not have used it if he could (unless he knew that the three Hallows together would make him Master of Death, which he didn't). In short, the ring should *not* have interacted with Harry or his scar if DD destroyed the Horcrux; the soul bit would have been utterly destroyed, as Harry will later learn, by the Sword of Gryffindor. As Hermione says, a soul bit can't exist if its container is destroyed. (Unfortunately, that ring looks intact.) Carol, who thinks that the scene is wrong, no two ways about it, znd will just confuse the viewers who don't know the book version of events From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 14 22:06:30 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:06:30 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <418419.74091.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000601ca1d2b$7a648e10$6f2daa30$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol In short, the ring should *not* have interacted with Harry or his scar if DD destroyed the Horcrux; the soul bit would have been utterly destroyed, as Harry will later learn, by the Sword of Gryffindor. As Hermione says, a soul bit can't exist if its container is destroyed. (Unfortunately, that ring looks intact.) Carol, who thinks that the scene is wrong, no two ways about it, znd will just confuse the viewers who don't know the book version of events >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does DD not say in HBP (book) that powerful magic leaves traces, that's how DD figures things out in the cave. I think for the sake of the film not having a narrator's voice the director and writer where looking for a way to remind film-only viewers that the Harry / Voldy connection could still be made was to say that traces of the magic Voldy used was still there so the film-viewers could be reminded since it's important going into DH. I think if you take away the books, just look at films, it doesn't seem odd at all. What I don't get is why wearing the ring did that to DD before he broke the horcrux, but wearing the locket doesn't actually harm HRH? md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Aug 14 22:50:55 2009 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:50:55 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. Message-ID: In a message dated 8/14/2009 5:17:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, md at exit-reality.com writes: What I don't get is why wearing the ring did that to DD before he broke the horcrux, but wearing the locket doesn't actually harm HRH? md Coming out of lurkerhood to make an observation. I think that the ring had a protective curse put on it because (unlike the locket) LV had hidden it in a relatively accessible place. . the old Gaunt homestead. . and that curse is what injured DD not the actual Horcrux. The locket, however, was in a very secure location and LV was trusting to his outer defenses (the location of the cave, the lake, the potion, inferi) to protect it so I don't think that the locket itself had any additional spell on it. The diadem didn't seem to be cursed either, once again LV trusted to the conceit that he alone knew all of Hogwart's secrets to protect it. The cup was cursed with the multiplying/burning curse but it was a curse that was placed on all of the items in the Lestrange's vault not just the cup. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 05:24:46 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:24:46 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <000601ca1d2b$7a648e10$6f2daa30$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > What I don't get is why wearing the ring did that to DD before he broke the horcrux, but wearing the locket doesn't actually harm HRH? Carol responds: They were protected in different ways, the ring by the curse that nearly killed Dumbledore (Snape must have removed it when he confined the curse to DD's hand or DD could not have worn the ring when he visited Slughorn). The locket, in contrast, is protected by the poison potion and the Inferi. It works more insidiously, like the diary, by reaching the mind of those who wear/use it. (How the cup, which was protected only by the dragon and the spells that the Goblins placed on their vaults, would have affected the user, we don't know. It clearly had no effect just to carry it.) The distinction between the protective curse on the ring and the soul bit inside it, which would have been wholly obliterated regardless of any traces of the magic used to create a Horcrux, is obscured in the film, and Snape's "timely action" in saving Dumbledore, touched on lightly by DD in the book HBP and clarified in DH, is omitted from the HBP film altogether. Carol, who still thinks that the film version makes no sense and wonders what nonreaders of the books make of it From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 15 06:07:40 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:07:40 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: <000601ca1d2b$7a648e10$6f2daa30$@com> Message-ID: <000601ca1d6e$b2331260$16993720$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol They were protected in different ways, the ring by the curse that nearly killed Dumbledore (Snape must have removed it when he confined the curse to DD's hand or DD could not have worn the ring when he visited Slughorn). The locket, in contrast, is protected by the poison potion and the Inferi. It works more insidiously, like the diary, by reaching the mind of those who wear/use it. (How the cup, which was protected only by the dragon and the spells that the Goblins placed on their vaults, would have affected the user, we don't know. It clearly had no effect just to carry it.) \>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ It never says the cup was always in Gringott's, I got the impression Bella put it in there with the sword, not seventeen years ago, that's why it was fresh on her mind when she saw the sword, because she was afraid if they had the sword they had the cup. So where he put the cup before then is unknown. The diary, as well, only reacted if you wrote in it. The Malfoy's had it for 12 years and never felt the need to try. The first time I read HBP I got the assumption that DD got the damage from trying to destroy the ring with just magic and it backfired, AND THAT MADE SENSE, then in DH we find out he got the curse from just wearing it, yet the other 4 horcruxes had no such powerful magic and that makes little sense. Anyway, not arguing your points, just saying. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sat Aug 15 07:52:26 2009 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:52:26 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. Message-ID: In a message dated 8/15/2009 1:08:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, md at exit-reality.com writes: It never says the cup was always in Gringott's, I got the impression Bella put it in there with the sword, not seventeen years ago, that's why it was fresh on her mind when she saw the sword, because she was afraid if they had the sword they had the cup. So where he put the cup before then is unknown. That is certainly a possibility. However, IMO Harry?s explanation to Ron and Hermione as to why LV would have wanted it kept in Gringott?s has the feeling of something that had already happened before he was vaporized pre PS. LV had no reason to remove the Cup from wherever he had hidden it to give to Bella to deposit in the vault with the fake sword because (unless he had only very recently made the Cup into a horcrux, which I doubt. As DD says in HBP: ? However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents house with the intention of killing you. . . . .I am sure that he was intending to make his final horcrux with your death.?) He had no idea anyone knew he had made the horcruxes let alone that three of them were destroyed and that HRH were on the trail of the remaining horcruxes. As far as Bellatrix? reaction is concerned, she could have just made the connection: ?wow LV gave me the sword to keep safe just like he gave me that cup 17+ years ago. They both must be very important? and when she sees the sword her mind leaps back to the Cup and she panics. Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rmieure at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 07:57:02 2009 From: rmieure at yahoo.com (Robin Mieure) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <161355.90233.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Carol To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:52:50 PM Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. SSSusan wrote: > > I was thinking there might be residual "stuff" in the ring that reacted to the horcrux in Harry, but I think you're suggesting that it could be that the horcrux in Harry actively recognized or "remembered" the ring. Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence, so it was recognizable to it. > > > Robin: > SSS "Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence (Voldy :p), so it was recognizable to it." > Exactly what I was thinking!! > Carol responds: But if the Horcrux is destroyed, so is the soul bit, so there *is* no "residual stuff." In both the film and the book, Dumbledore can safely put on the ring. That means either Snape removed the curse and DD destroyed the soul bit (book) or DD destroyed the soul bit, which somehow injured his hand without the aid of any additional curse (and Snape gets stripped of credit for saving DD's life). Robin: Carol I think you're right, however the bit of LV that was in H had to recognize the ring and it's importance. Even if DD destroyed the horcrux while becoming injured by the curse placed upon it, that bit of LV still must retain LV's memories. If not, then how can LV continue to exist in the physical plane? That bit has to act, in some way, like a back-up disc of LV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 19:38:03 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:38:03 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <161355.90233.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- Robin Mieure wrote: > > > Robin: > Carol I think you're right, however the bit of LV that was in H(Harry) had to recognize the ring and it's importance. Even if DD destroyed the horcrux while becoming injured by the curse placed upon it, that bit of LV still must retain LV's memories. If not, then how can LV continue to exist in the physical plane? That bit has to act, in some way, like a back-up disc of LV. > > bboyminn: Now this is an explanation I can buy. Still, it is annoying that we the viewers have to struggle so hard to make sense of something in the movie. Still, it is possible that what we are seeing is not the Ring reacting to Harry, but Harry reacting to the Ring, or at least that part of Voldemort in Harry reacting to the Ring. Yes, we see the Ring move, but that could be due to some unconscious magic on the part of Harry/Voldie. I wonder how hard the Produces and Director are sweating trying to resolve the plot in the final two movies? They certainly have painted themselves in to several corners. They've barely established the Hallows, though we really don't figure that out ourselves until the final book. Even more so, they have barely established the Horcruxes. Yes, it was touched on in the Riddle/Slughorn memory, but never expounded on, never explained sufficiently for us the movie only viewer to understand the significants of it. I'm mean, I've personally read the books several times, and I barely caught a hint of it in the movie. I'm still steamed about Harry and Ginny in the Room of Requirements hiding the Potions book. The Diadem in one of the keys to pulling the last half together. There should have at least been some hint of it in that scene. If nothing else, we should have seen it in the background even if its significants is never explained. And while we are at it, could we decide on the location of the Room of Requirements and leave it there? It hardly matters now with only one book left, but I find it annoying anyway. I'm just not sure how they are going to resolve Harry remembering were he had seen the Diadem if he has never seen the Diadem? Then there is Dobby, how are we suppose to feel that Dobby is a sympathetic character and mourn his death when it comes, when he is barely established as a character at all? Next, Bill and Fleur. I'm wondering if the wedding will NOT be Bill and Fleur, but Remus and Tonks, and Shell Cottage will be their home rather than Bill's in the final movie. That certainly saves a few lost plot points. But, for me, it takes some of the heart out of the story. Next, though certainly not the least, they burned the Burrow. How can they burn the Burrow and have a wedding there? Still, I can't let myself get too stressed out over it. I've decided the only thing to do for my sanity, it to simply take a 'they will do what they will do, and I'll just accept it' attitude. Steve/bluewizard From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 19:41:06 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:41:06 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: <161355.90233.qm@web52207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Carol earlier: > But if the Horcrux is destroyed, so is the soul bit, so there *is* no "residual stuff." In both the film and the book, Dumbledore can safely put on the ring. That means either Snape removed the curse and DD destroyed the soul bit (book) or DD destroyed the soul bit, which somehow injured his hand without the aid of any additional curse (and Snape gets stripped of credit for saving DD's life). > > > Robin: > Carol I think you're right, however the bit of LV that was in H had to recognize the ring and it's importance. Even if DD destroyed the horcrux while becoming injured by the curse placed upon it, that bit of LV still must retain LV's memories. If not, then how can LV continue to exist in the physical plane? That bit has to act, in some way, like a back-up disc of LV. Carol responds: Possibly, that's what the movie makers had in mind. However, neither Book!Harry nor his soul bit recognizes the ring when DD wears it at Slughorn's (temporary Muggle) house or when he sees it in the Pensieve visit to the Gaunts' hovel. And when he sees it again, he recognizes it only as Marvolo's ring, at which point DD tells him about the curse from which he was saved by Snape's "timely action" and about destroying the Horcrux, which we later find out he did with the Sword of Gryffindor. So, anyway, in the book there's no "back-up disc" and no trace of magic. I'm not sure what you mean about LV continuing to exist in the physical plane. The last part of his soul, what we might consider to be the "main soul," is in him but can exist even without a body as long as he has at least one Horcrux, including the accidental Horcrux in Harry's scar. Carol, who needs to go make lunch now! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 15 19:56:43 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:56:43 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > Possibly, that's what the movie makers had in mind. However, neither Book!Harry nor his soul bit recognizes the ring when DD wears it at Slughorn's (temporary Muggle) house or when he sees it in the Pensieve visit to the Gaunts' hovel. And when he sees it again, he recognizes it only as Marvolo's ring, at which point DD tells him about the curse from which he was saved by Snape's "timely action" and about destroying the Horcrux, which we later find out he did with the Sword of Gryffindor. > > ... > > Carol, who needs to go make lunch now! > bboyminn: OMG, you bring up another point, how is Harry suppose to recognize the Ring as a Horcrux when we never had the Gaunt Hovel Memory? I mean all the key associations are gone from the Movie. We have no backstory on destroying the Ring, which in turn establishes the connection between the power of the Sword and the nature of the Ring. They touched on the Diary, that could be sufficiently established, but it seems to me they blew the connections and ground work for all the other Horcruxes. Still...take it as it comes. Steve/bboyminn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 02:42:50 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:42:50 -0000 Subject: Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I'm just not sure how they are going to resolve Harry > remembering were he had seen the Diadem if he has never > seen the Diadem? zanooda: Maybe Ginny will go with Harry and Luna to the Ravenclaw common room and recognize the diadem... :-). > Steve: > Then there is Dobby, how are we suppose to feel that Dobby > is a sympathetic character and mourn his death when it comes, > when he is barely established as a character at all? zanooda: I think they'll have to show a lot of extra-stuff at the beginning of the movie, to remind us of the characters that we haven't seen for a long time (Dobby, Fleur) and introduce the new ones (Bill, Scrimgeour). As for Dobby, I personally would have shown him at the beginning of the movie working at the Hog's Head for Aberforth - it would be much easier than him suddenly appearing and saying: "Greetings, Harry Potter, Dobby was working at Hogwarts all these years, and Harry Potter didn't even know", LOL. > Steve: > Next, Bill and Fleur. I'm wondering if the wedding will > NOT be Bill and Fleur, but Remus and Tonks, and Shell Cottage > will be their home rather than Bill's in the final movie. zanooda: You don't visit this list often, do you, Steve :-)? We've been discussing all these pictures from Shell cottage scenes filming, with Bill and his scars... :-). And why would they cast Bill and Fleur actors at all if not for the wedding and Shell cottage :-)? > Steve: > Next, though certainly not the least, they burned the Burrow. > How can they burn the Burrow and have a wedding there? zanooda: But it was not shown to be burned to the ground, just some fire in the windows. They repaired it with magic, I suppose. There was an article on Leaky saying that they already shot the scene with Scrimgeour and DD's will, and that it was at the Burrow. If this is not just a rumor, the Burrow is restored. > Steve: > Still, I can't let myself get too stressed out over it. zanooda: Wise decision :-). There were times in the past when I was very upset about some movie mistakes, but now I just go with the flow. It's much easier this way... :-). From shepardrj at yahoo.com Sun Aug 16 14:50:39 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:50:39 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > cubfanbudwoman: > > > > *I*IRC, Lucius then tosses it to Dobby, who opens it, > > discovers the sock and *drops* the diary. I just > > assumed that Harry picked it up & took it back to DD's office. > > > zanooda: > > Yes, it's different in the book and in the movie. In the book Harry puts *the diary* inside his dirty sock and hands it to Lucius, who removes the diary from inside the sock and throws the sock away, to be caught by Dobby. > > In the movie, on the contrary, Harry puts *the sock* inside the diary and hands it to Lucius, who, for whatever reason, gives it to Dobby, who opens the diary, takes the sock and drops the diary. > > As we can see, in the book Lucius keeps the diary, while in the movie he doesn't, and it's quite possible, as you say, that Harry took the diary back to DD after Lucius left :-). > Richard: The scene in the book has Lucius with the diary and Dobby with the sock, but since what follows is Lucius lunging at Harry and Dobby blasting him down the stairs... I think it is possible that Lucius drops the diary and leaves the castle without it. From md at exit-reality.com Sun Aug 16 18:47:09 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:47:09 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004401ca1ea1$f6464a10$e2d2de30$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Shepard Richard: The scene in the book has Lucius with the diary and Dobby with the sock, but since what follows is Lucius lunging at Harry and Dobby blasting him down the stairs... I think it is possible that Lucius drops the diary and leaves the castle without it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall the diary resurfacing in the book, DD talks about it as a horcrux but doesn't physically have it back. I think they decided that since in the film GOF, Dobby had the diary, not Lucius, it was safe to presume it would have ended up back with DD and that it was a good idea to make the visual connection for the audience, and I think I agree. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From turn2pg394 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 17 12:24:26 2009 From: turn2pg394 at yahoo.com (Can) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harnessed??? Message-ID: <47181.58508.qm@web57102.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Sorry to interupt the present conversation, but I need to ask this. I'm following Tom Felton on Twitter and he said he's been doing harness work for the past couple of shootings (including today). Now perhaps my only reading DH once (yes, I know bad HP fan) I've forgotten bits of it, but when is he up in the air enough for a harness to hurt him as much as it is? I only remember Malfoy being in the air on that awesome scene on the back of Harry's broom. Quick scene I would think, not several days of work or chaffing as I believed he complained about. Then again, this will be the first movie that they'd have pairs riding on a broom. I don't know. Any thoughts? Candace Sent from my STUPID iPhone! From Meliss9900 at aol.com Mon Aug 17 13:10:06 2009 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:10:06 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Harnessed??? Message-ID: In a message dated 8/17/2009 7:25:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, turn2pg394 at yahoo.com writes: I only remember Malfoy being in the air on that awesome scene on the back of Harry's broom. Quick scene I would think, not several days of work or chaffing as I believed he complained about ___________________________ >From what I've read even what would appear to be a quick scene in the book can take several days to film. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 17 20:15:17 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:15:17 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote: turn2pg394: > I only remember Malfoy being in the air on that awesome scene on the back > of Harry's broom. Quick scene I would think, not several days of work or > chaffing as I believed he complained about Meliss9900: > From what I've read even what would appear to be a quick scene in the book > can take several days to film. Geoff: Just before the release of HBP, the BBC ran a programme on "Behind the Scenes of Half Blood Prince" and there was some footage of harness work for the Quidditch match, particularly involving Rupert Grint and Freddie Stroma and the point was made that there was a lot of time involved even for short scenes because the actors had to get used to the work - which also included initially practising on trampolines. They had to feel comfortable (chafing or not!) and confident by the time the scene was filmed. From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 17 21:10:05 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:10:05 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ba01ca1f7f$18cd0f00$4a672d00$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Meliss9900 at aol.com >From what I've read even what would appear to be a quick scene in the book can take several days to film. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Exactly. It can take hours to get seconds of footage, days for a few moments on screen when special effects are involved, especially when there's safety involved as with wirework. The scene has to be set up, carefully choreographed, rehearsed and then finally filmed. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 17 22:50:37 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:50:37 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: The Problems with the DH movie. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301ca1f8d$24423910$6cc6ab30$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol Carol responds: Until Voldemort told him that he'd broken into Dumbledore's tomb to steal the Elder Wand, at which point, he finally knew. "'I sought a third wand, Severus, the Elder Wand, the Wand of Destiny, the Deathstick. I took it from its previous master. I took it from the grave of Albus Dumbledore.' "And now Snape looked at Voldemort, and Snape's face was like a death mask. It was marble white and so still that when he spoke, it was a shock to see that anyone lived behind the blank eyes." But what does Snape say, now that he knows what Voldemort is up to, knows, as we see from his face, that Voldemort intends to kill him? He doesn't try to fight; he doesn't present his usual clever, logical arguments or use Legilimency. He begs again to be allowed to go to "the boy"--Harry. Until that point, Snape has had no idea that Draco was the master of the Elder Wand or that LV was after it or that DD's wand was the Elder Wand. But he understands instantly that LV wants to kill him, which can be for no other reason than that LV thinks he's the master of that wand. Snape, who presumably knows at least some wand lore and certainly knows that Draco Disarmed DD. And then LV actually says, "While you live, Severus, the Elder Wand cannot be truly mine." At that point, Snape could have saved himself by telling Voldemort that he isn't the master of the wand because Draco Disarmed DD before Snape killed him (obviously, he's not going to admit that he did it on DD's orders), but he continues to protect Draco. He raises his wand but he doesn't use it even though, at that point, LV is not pointing a wand at him. Why? It can't be because he knows that the wand LV has been complaining about (though it works perfectly well) is more powerful than his own. His wand can cast a perfectly effective Avada Kedavra; after all, it killed Dumbledore, who is just as powerful as Voldemort. It has to be because he knows that *he* can't destroy Voldemort; it has to be Harry because Harry has to sacrifice himself and destroy the soul bit. The most Snape could do would be to vaporize him and delay that necessary confrontation. He doesn't even use Expelliarmus, possibly because he thinks he's been reprieved. />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ Snape may not know that the disarming makes you the wand master, as is pointed out in DH, most believe you have to KILL the master of the Elder Wand to claim it, most likely Snape would have that same belief. What I wanted in the book was for Snape to have some idea Harry was hiding nearby, because otherwise his choice to not defend / flee from Voldy means he knew the vital information Harry needs would never get to him. That Harry came so close to not knowing that vital info always bothered me. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bgrugin at yahoo.com Mon Aug 17 22:58:38 2009 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:58:38 -0000 Subject: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: <004401ca1ea1$f6464a10$e2d2de30$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > > > I don't recall the diary resurfacing in the book, DD talks about it as a > horcrux but doesn't physically have it back. I think they decided that since > in the film GOF, Dobby had the diary, not Lucius, it was safe to presume it > would have ended up back with DD and that it was a good idea to make the > visual connection for the audience, and I think I agree. > > > > md > MusicalBetsy here: I don't remember Dobby being in GOF at all; in fact, they had Neville giving Harry the gillyweed and they totally ingored the SPEW storyline. So when is it shown/announced that Dobby has the diary? It's been awhile since I've seen GOF, so please refresh my memory. Thanks! From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 18 00:40:36 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:40:36 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Riddle Diary In-Reply-To: References: <004401ca1ea1$f6464a10$e2d2de30$@com> Message-ID: <000c01ca1f9c$813a95e0$83afc1a0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bgrugin MusicalBetsy here: I don't remember Dobby being in GOF at all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant COA. All these acronyms make me dizzy. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 03:45:04 2009 From: cassandra.wladyslava at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:45:04 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: <00ba01ca1f7f$18cd0f00$4a672d00$@com> References: <00ba01ca1f7f$18cd0f00$4a672d00$@com> Message-ID: Meliss9900 at aol.com : >From what I've read even what would appear to be a quick scene in the book can take several days to film. md: Exactly. It can take hours to get seconds of footage, days for a few moments on screen when special effects are involved, especially when there's safety involved as with wirework. The scene has to be set up, carefully choreographed, rehearsed and then finally filmed. Cassie: Yes. I've worked on movie sets before and, like others have said, a few seconds can take hours or even days. The first time I was on a set I was amazed at the insane amount of takes that had to be done for one little scene. Heck, it wasn't even an entire scene. It was part of a scene. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From brian at rescueddoggies.com Tue Aug 18 16:43:28 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:43:28 -0300 Subject: BBC Radio on HP6 film Message-ID: <4A8ADA30.30506@rescueddoggies.com> On BBC Radio 4 - While talking about a news item about a shortage of allotments (for people who want to grow their own vegetables or other plants), the comment was made... "80,000 people are waiting for a plot." The comeback? "I told them that's what you get for watching a Harry Potter film" Sorry. Couldn't resist repeating that one. Brian From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 18 22:15:36 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:15:36 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: <47181.58508.qm@web57102.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Can wrote: > I'm following Tom Felton on Twitter and he said he's been doing > harness work for the past couple of shootings zanooda: Not exactly the same topic, but I just want to ask, did anyone hear persistent rumors (I mean online) that there won't be a Crabbe in the RoR scene, that he is replaced by Zabini, so there are Malfoy, Goyle and Zabini. Goyle dies in the Fiendfyre instead of Crabbe, Zabini lives. I don't know if it's true because I can't trace those rumors to any reliable source. Did anyone hear anything like this :-)? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 19 02:47:12 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:47:12 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > zanooda: > > Not exactly the same topic, but I just want to ask, did anyone hear persistent rumors (I mean online) that there won't be a Crabbe in the RoR scene, that he is replaced by Zabini, so there are Malfoy, Goyle and Zabini. Goyle dies in the Fiendfyre instead of Crabbe, Zabini lives. I don't know if it's true because I can't trace those rumors to any reliable source. Did anyone hear anything like this :-)? > Carol responds: I haven't heard those rumors, but they could have originated because Jamie Waylett, who plays Crabbe, was arrested for possession of marijuana. He got off pretty lightly, though (community service), so I suspect that he'll still be in the film. Maybe the bad guy image went to his head! Josh Herdman, who plays Goyle, was recently photographed apparently smoking marijuana in Holland, where it's legal. Here's a link to an IMDb page with both articles: http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0915488/news#ni0936615 Carol, who supposes that parents of very young Potter fans will deal with this news the same way they did with "Equus," by ignoring it Carol, From md at exit-reality.com Wed Aug 19 03:01:57 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:01:57 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ca2079$6a4e04b0$3eea0e10$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol I haven't heard those rumors, but they could have originated because Jamie Waylett, who plays Crabbe, was arrested for possession of marijuana. He got off pretty lightly, though (community service), so I suspect that he'll still be in the film. Maybe the bad guy image went to his head! />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ Bad guys don't smoke pot, people who smoke pot smile and forget to be bad. The replaced one of them in POA at the shrieking shack when Harry attacked. I think the film makers want to give the impression that Malfoy has a group rather than only two cronies. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 19 03:36:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:36:34 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: <000601ca2079$6a4e04b0$3eea0e10$@com> Message-ID: md wrote: > The replaced one of them in POA at the shrieking shack when Harry attacked. I think the film makers want to give the impression that Malfoy has a group rather than only two cronies. Carol responds: That was because Josh Herdman (Goyle) was taking his exams. He was in some scenes (for example, the DADA class that Snape teaches because Lupin is ill), but not others (e.g., the Hogsmeade scene where invisible Harry throws snowballs). I suppose it may have created that impression among some viewers; it probably just confused others, especially since both Crabbe and Goyle were back for GoF and OoP and the skinny Slytherin boy just disappeared. I've only seen HBP once, so I can't remember whether they were in the scene where Harry sneaks into Draco's train compartment and gets his nose smashed. Carol, who doubts that doing community service for possession of marijuana will keep Jamie Waylett from getting his chance to cast Fiendfyre and die ingloriously From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 19 05:22:40 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:22:40 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I haven't heard those rumors, but they could have originated > because Jamie Waylett, who plays Crabbe, was arrested for > possession of marijuana. Yeah, I know that, it was not only for possession, iirc, he was actually growing cannabis at home :-). > Maybe the bad guy image went to his head! LOL! He apologized thought :-). According to the rumor the information about Crabbe/Zabini switch comes directly from this Herdman guy (Goyle), who allegedly (sp?) said somewhere that he will burn instead of Crabbe. But if no one else heard about this, it's probably just a rumor. I actually don't care either way, Crabbe or Goyle, I was just curious :-). zanooda, who just remembered that in the HBP movie Wrackspurts are real... Does this mean that Crumple-Horned Snorkacks are real too :-)? From shepardrj at yahoo.com Wed Aug 19 14:27:47 2009 From: shepardrj at yahoo.com (Richard Shepard) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:27:47 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > md wrote: > > The replaced one of them in POA at the shrieking shack when Harry attacked. I think the film makers want to give the impression that Malfoy has a group rather than only two cronies. > > Carol responds: > That was because Josh Herdman (Goyle) was taking his exams. He was in some scenes (for example, the DADA class that Snape teaches because Lupin is ill), but not others (e.g., the Hogsmeade scene where invisible Harry throws snowballs). I suppose it may have created that impression among some viewers; it probably just confused others, especially since both Crabbe and Goyle were back for GoF and OoP and the skinny Slytherin boy just disappeared. I've only seen HBP once, so I can't remember whether they were in the scene where Harry sneaks into Draco's train compartment and gets his nose smashed. > Richard: Crabbe and Goyle were both in the train compartment with Malfoy. They were sitting together on one side of the isle, and Malfoy was sitting with Zabini and Parkinson across from them. They were all gone except for Malfoy and Harry when the petrified nose stomping happend of course. That train scene did a good job establishing that the same people that had been Malfoy's Slytherin pals throughout were still around, which contrasted nicely with all the scenes of him alone and frail later in the movie. > Carol, who doubts that doing community service for possession of marijuana will keep Jamie Waylett from getting his chance to cast Fiendfyre and die ingloriously > Richard: They might change the Room of Requirements scene, but I doubt it will have anything to do with Waylett being a pot head. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 19 15:29:43 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:29:43 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard: > > Crabbe and Goyle were both in the train compartment with Malfoy. They were sitting together on one side of the isle, and Malfoy was sitting with Zabini and Parkinson across from them. They were all gone except for Malfoy and Harry when the petrified nose stomping happend of course. That train scene did a good job establishing that the same people that had been Malfoy's Slytherin pals throughout were still around, which contrasted nicely with all the scenes of him alone and frail later in the movie. > > They might change the Room of Requirements scene, but I doubt it will have anything to do with Waylett being a pot head. > Carol responds: But why would they change it? Blaise Zabini has no DE connections in the books despite being a Pure-Blood supremacist, and he's only had a small part in one film, whereas Crabbe and Goyle have been Draco's associates (friends, thugs, bodyguards, whatever you want to call them) throughout the series despite Herdman's brief absence for exams in PoA. So unless Waylett's brush with the law keeps him out of DH2, the filmmakers have no reason not to stick with the story, especially given that both Crabbe and Goyle appeared, however briefly, in HBP. Carol, who still suspects that it's just a rumor based on Waylett's marijuana arrest(s) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 19 22:50:33 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:50:33 -0000 Subject: Harnessed??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Shepard" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > md wrote: > > > The replaced one of them in POA at the shrieking shack when Harry attacked. I think the film makers want to give the impression that Malfoy has a group rather than only two cronies. > > > > Carol responds: > > That was because Josh Herdman (Goyle) was taking his exams. He was in some scenes (for example, the DADA class that Snape teaches because Lupin is ill), but not others (e.g., the Hogsmeade scene where invisible Harry throws snowballs). I suppose it may have created that impression among some viewers; it probably just confused others, especially since both Crabbe and Goyle were back for GoF and OoP and the skinny Slytherin boy just disappeared. I've only seen HBP once, so I can't remember whether they were in the scene where Harry sneaks into Draco's train compartment and gets his nose smashed. Geoff: I've just returned from seeing the film for the third time. I took a careful note of our two "friends" and noticed them on at least three occasions. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 21 21:12:03 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:12:03 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity Message-ID: sartoris22: I read at box office mojo that HBP probably won't make a profit because the movie cost 400 miliion to make and advertise and the studio receives only half the profits from ticket sales. If that is true, where do you think the blame lies? Did Gates do a bad job by shooting scenes he either didn't need (the attack at the burrow) or didn't use ( I read that he shot the Dumbledore funeral scene)? Did delaying the film's release hurt ticket sales? Have the films lost steam since people already know the ending? Is HBP simply a poor film? Is the 250 million even on the screen? I've heard Gates talking about the excitement of the London Bridge scene, but it wasn't particularly interesting to me. Frankly, I'd have rather seen the meeting of the ministers, which had both dread and dark humor. In short, who or what is to blame if HBP isn't a profitable movie? From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 21 21:33:24 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:33:24 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301ca22a7$040771c0$0c165540$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sartoris22 sartoris22: I read at box office mojo that HBP probably won't make a profit because the movie cost 400 miliion to make and advertise and the studio receives only half the profits from ticket sales. />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ According to WB the film earned ? a billion dollars its first week and ? worldwide. So far: Domestic: $286,760,375 33.2% + Foreign: $578,000,000 66.8% _____ = Worldwide: $864,760,375 The film has made more than twice the figure you posted, so at 50% they?ve earned their money back. They will make another 150,000,000 to $250,000,000 off DVD & Blu-Ray sales worldwide and have cable and TV rights to sell yet. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 21 21:42:22 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:42:22 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: <000301ca22a7$040771c0$0c165540$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > > > > > > md: > The film has made more than twice the figure you posted, so at 50% they've > earned their money back. They will make another 150,000,000 to $250,000,000 > off DVD & Blu-Ray sales worldwide and have cable and TV rights to sell yet. > > sartoris22: I know that like a lot of movies HBP will make money through dvd sales and television rights, but when I consider that a movie like The Hangover cost 30 million to make and has made 266 million domestically, I have to believe the people behind HBP made a mistake. For a Harry Potter movie to break even in its inital run seems a huge blunder to me. I consider that a flop, even if it will make money through ancillary channels. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 21 22:20:08 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:20:08 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: References: <000301ca22a7$040771c0$0c165540$@com> Message-ID: <000901ca22ad$8b3085a0$a19190e0$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sartoris22 > sartoris22: I know that like a lot of movies HBP will make money through dvd sales and television rights, but when I consider that a movie like The Hangover cost 30 million to make and has made 266 million domestically, I have to believe the people behind HBP made a mistake. For a Harry Potter movie to break even in its inital run seems a huge blunder to me. I consider that a flop, even if it will make money through ancillary channels. > ,The reason they spend so much money is shared throughout the industry, this film was CHEAPER than Transformers II. Technically Forest Gump "broke even." then actually lost money because they kept advertising it! You can't make this film for 30 million and have it look good, you just can't. These films are made KNOWING they won't do much more than break-even, the entire point is profits down-the-road. Don't forget, either, billions in toys, clothes and collectables, games, ect. The film will generate a Billion Dollars beyond its gross in tie-ins. It's called, going in with your eyes wide open. HP is a business, the films are HUGE commercials for all the other stuff that makes money. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 21 22:38:18 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (geoff_bannister) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:38:18 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: sartoris22: > I read at box office mojo that HBP probably won't make a profit because the movie cost 400 miliion to make and advertise and the studio receives only half the profits from ticket sales. If that is true, where do you think the blame lies? Did Gates do a bad job by shooting scenes he either didn't need (the attack at the burrow) or didn't use ( I read that he shot the Dumbledore funeral scene)? Did delaying the film's release hurt ticket sales? Have the films lost steam since people already know the ending? Is HBP simply a poor film? Is the 250 million even on the screen? I've heard Gates talking about the excitement of the London Bridge scene, but it wasn't particularly interesting to me. Frankly, I'd have rather seen the meeting of the ministers, which had both dread and dark humor. In short, who or what is to blame if HBP isn't a profitable movie? Geoff: The film is currently making the rounds and IMDB quotes the US current aggregate as $283m and the UK aggregate as ?46m which converts to about $75m on current exchange. So there's probably more to come and what do they get from DVD sales and related sales? Aren't they crying wolf a little early? I've seen the film three times and I know of several people who have. It's not perfect for me (I'm thinking of commenting on that in another post) but it is certainly well up my list of favourites. Just as a side issue, David Yates doesn't use London Bridge. The scene is on the Millennium Bridge which links the South Bank near the Royal Festival Hall to the area around Charing Cross railway station on the north bank. London Bridge is a road bridge further downstream. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 22 00:20:43 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:20:43 -0000 Subject: London Bridge (Was: HBP Profitablity) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff wrote: > Just as a side issue, David Yates doesn't use London Bridge. The scene is on the Millennium Bridge which links the South Bank near the Royal Festival Hall to the area around Charing Cross railway station on the north bank. London Bridge is a road bridge further downstream. Carol responds: Was the London Bridge rebuilt? The original is in Lake Havasu, Arizona, where it was rebuilt stone by stone exactly as it was in London. Carol, who can't think of a film connection for this post From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 22 05:04:24 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:04:24 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: <000901ca22ad$8b3085a0$a19190e0$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: >md: > These films are made KNOWING they won't do much more than break-even, the entire point is profits down-the-road. Don't forget, either, billions in toys, clothes and collectables, games, ect. The film will generate a Billion Dollars beyond its gross in tie-ins. It's called, going in with your eyes wide open. HP is a business, the films are HUGE commercials for all the other stuff that makes money. sartoris22: Those are excellent points. Then why do people make so much fuss about box office? It just gives people like me the wrong impression about successful movies. Perhaps they should devise another way of keeping score--other than Academy Award nominations, of course. At least they should report what films actually made money and how they made it. That would interest me. For example, I didn't know Forrest Gump lost money. I would love to see the movie business demystified. > > > > From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of sartoris22 > > > > > > sartoris22: > > I know that like a lot of movies HBP will make money through dvd sales and > television rights, but when I consider that a movie like The Hangover cost > 30 million to make and has made 266 million domestically, I have to believe > the people behind HBP made a mistake. For a Harry Potter movie to break even > in its inital run seems a huge blunder to me. I consider that a flop, even > if it will make money through ancillary channels. > > > > ,The reason they spend so much money is shared throughout the industry, this > film was CHEAPER than Transformers II. Technically Forest Gump "broke even." > then actually lost money because they kept advertising it! > > > > You can't make this film for 30 million and have it look good, you just > can't. These films are made KNOWING they won't do much more than break-even, > the entire point is profits down-the-road. Don't forget, either, billions in > toys, clothes and collectables, games, ect. The film will generate a Billion > Dollars beyond its gross in tie-ins. > > > > It's called, going in with your eyes wide open. HP is a business, the films > are HUGE commercials for all the other stuff that makes money. > > > > md > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 22 05:38:23 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:38:23 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: References: <000901ca22ad$8b3085a0$a19190e0$@com> Message-ID: <005b01ca22ea$c3e7f210$4bb7d630$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sartoris22 sartoris22: Those are excellent points. Then why do people make so much fuss about box office? It just gives people like me the wrong impression about successful movies. Perhaps they should devise another way of keeping score--other than Academy Award nominations, of course. At least they should report what films actually made money and how they made it. That would interest me. For example, I didn't know Forrest Gump lost money. I would love to see the movie business demystified. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, a poor box-office is going to lead to poor DVD sales, merchandising on the clearance rack and no sequels. But, they do make a VERY big deal about box-office compared to cost, which is why District 9 is such a big deal, 120,000,000 on a 30,000,00 budget and very little ads is a big deal, but then again, it's not the merchandising machine HP is. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 22 07:53:23 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:53:23 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: <005b01ca22ea$c3e7f210$4bb7d630$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child Of Midian" wrote: > md: > > Well, a poor box-office is going to lead to poor DVD sales, merchandising on > the clearance rack and no sequels. But, they do make a VERY big deal about > box-office compared to cost, which is why District 9 is such a big deal, > 120,000,000 on a 30,000,00 budget and very little ads is a big deal, but > then again, it's not the merchandising machine HP is. > > sartoris22: I'm glad you returned to HP. I was afraid somebody was going to yell at me for being off topic. I would think that a less successful HP box office would hurt merchandising, although it probably wouldn't hurt DVD sales/rentals that much. I, for example, will buy the HBP dvd even though I don't particularly like the movie. I thought it was disjointed and lacked the communal feeling among the trio. I understand that Hermione and Ron were upset with each other, but Harry and Ron fought in GOF, and they still seemed connected. For me, HBP didn't really capture the relationship stuff or the action very well. And I'd certainly swap the Burrow attack for Dumbledore's funeral. I also missed Bill's maiming and Fleur's declaration of love. I thought that was such a powerful moment and wanted to see it captured on film. I thought OOTP was an okay film, and HPB would be improvement, but it didn't work out that way. I hope that DH will end the series on a strong note. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From brian at rescueddoggies.com Sat Aug 22 15:19:33 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:19:33 -0300 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it Message-ID: <4A900C85.6060506@rescueddoggies.com> Sartoris22 said: "For me, HBP didn't really capture the relationship stuff or the action very well. And I'd certainly swap the Burrow attack for Dumbledore's funeral. I also missed Bill's maiming and Fleur's declaration of love. I thought that was such a powerful moment and wanted to see it captured on film. I thought OOTP was an okay film, and HPB would be improvement, but it didn't work out that way. I hope that DH will end the series on a strong note." Having now seen HBP in IMAX, I agree. I really hoped, having seen it on my computer, that it would look better on the big screen. Well, it did look better, but I still found it disappointing. I had intended to boycott seeing it more than once, and really thought I'd have trouble doing that, but I have to say that I actually didn't feel any great desire to see it again. I still have it on computer and haven't bothered to watch it again. JKR totally botched Harry and Ginny's relationship in the books, making it totally unbelievable. The film did improve on that, but it still didn't really do justice to the relationships at all. Missing Dumbledore's funeral was guaranteed to make fans who care about the characters mad. Missing Fleur's powerful declaration of love was unforgivable. And continuing to give all Ron's "loyal" lines to Hermione destroys the trio. Need I mention the kiss? Very sweet, but NOTHING compared to their first kiss in the book. THAT was Ginny, this was someone WB wanted to paint as a sweet supportive girl without any of the fire. To coin a phrase, the treatment had all the sensitivity of a teaspoon. I assumed I'd buy the DVD regardless, but to be honest it was SO disappointing that I may not bother, even to complete my collection. Given their total disregard for the important things in HBP, I seriously doubt that DH 1 & 2 will improve. My only hope is that Yates found enough in there for two movies. Maybe, just maybe, he won't botch them with the same superficial treatment we were given with HBP. I am seriously considering downloading those movies FIRST, just to see if they are worth paying for a ticket to go and see them. Brian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 22 21:05:41 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:05:41 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: <4A900C85.6060506@rescueddoggies.com> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > JKR totally botched Harry and Ginny's relationship in the books, making it totally unbelievable. The film did improve on that, but it still didn't really do justice to the relationships at all. > Missing Dumbledore's funeral was guaranteed to make fans who care about the characters mad. > Missing Fleur's powerful declaration of love was unforgivable. > And continuing to give all Ron's "loyal" lines to Hermione destroys the trio. > Need I mention the kiss? > > Given their total disregard for the important things in HBP, I seriously doubt that DH 1 & 2 will improve. Carol responds: While I agree that the film disregarded important elements of HBP, my list of items that they should have included is slightly different. I don't care at all about the relationships except to the extent that they contribute to the plot (for example, Ron's being poisoned after by the mead intended for DD after eating the love=potion-filled chocolates and the consequences for his relationship with Hermione). Ginny can be left out of both the films and the books for all I care. I did miss Fleur's declaration of love, but it wasn't important to the plot, and it was part of a more important scene change, the substitution of the pointless burning of the Burrow for the small battle between Order members and the DA on one side an d DEs on the other, which would have included the attack on Bill. I can understand the omission of Dumbledore's funeral, which might well have seemed long and anticlimactic. What I didn't like and still find frustrating is the diminution of the Half-blood Prince himself. Snape in both his manifestations, teenage "friend" and helper and enigmatic adult, should have had much more screen time. (I actually read a review that said he was too transparently evil--obviously, that reviewer is in for a surprise in DH2.) Carol, who nevertheless enjoyed the film more than she thought she would and hopes to see it again From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 23 00:05:47 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:05:47 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: carol: I don't care at all about the relationships except to the extent that they contribute to the plot (for example, Ron's being poisoned after by the mead intended for DD after eating the love=potion- filled chocolates and the consequences for his relationship with Hermione). Ginny can be left out of both the films and the books for all I care. I did miss Fleur's declaration of love, but it wasn't important to the plot, and it was part of a more important scene change, the substitution of the pointless burning of the Burrow for the small battle between Order members and the DA on one side an d DEs on the other, which would have included the attack on Bill. sartoris22: >From conversations I have heard and read, there might be a considerable number of people,like Carol,who are not particularly interested in the relationships in HP, "except to the extent that they contribute to the plot." I find that position interesting because relationships, to me, seem so essential to HP, apart from their use as plot devices. For example, Fleur's rejection of superficiality for love, compels Lupin, after much prodding from others, to reconsider and accept Tonk's feelings for him. These and other relationships seem to reinforce the theme of acceptance in the novel. In fact, some of the more important themes in HP--bravery, love, acceptance, committment--are depicted through relationships--and the emphasis on and complexity of the relationships have helped people to understand the literary value of so-called children's literature. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 23 06:56:55 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (bboyminn) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:56:55 -0000 Subject: HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "sartoris22" wrote: > > sartoris22: > > Those are excellent points. Then why do people make so much fuss about box office? It just gives people like me the wrong impression about successful movies. Perhaps they should devise another way of keeping score--other than Academy Award nominations, of course. At least they should report what films actually made money and how they made it. That would interest me. For example, I didn't know Forrest Gump lost money. I would love to see the movie business demystified. > > bboyminn: Also keep in mind that Hollywood is notorious for 'creative accounting'. Agents are always negotiating 'net profits' for their clients. However, in the entire history of Hollywood, no one has ever collected a penny in net profits. Hollywood has a way of cooking the books so that any money made is consumed somehow somewhere. The really big Actors have agents that are smart enough to negotiated a percent of 'first dollar gross', meaning a share of the gross profits. That is where the real money is. Also, according to the same BoxOfficeMoJo.com site, Harry Potter has a $250 million production budget. It has already grossed $865,705,000. I think they made a profit. The first weekend gross was $77,835,727 which if not a record, is at least in the top first weekend grossing films of all time. (Actually, #1 worldwide, and #3 in the USA.) Also, notice that they easily make their money back in US ticket sales, and make more than twice that amount in foriegn ticket sales. And, The Half Blood Prince isn't over yet, it is still showing in the theaters, and as mentioned by others, there is much profit in secondary aspects like HP posters, lunchboxes, toys, DVD sales, DVD rentals, video games, product tie-ins, etc.... The movie will take in close to $1 billion before it is done on just direct views alone. Plus a few hundred million on these secondary channels. The HP series as been a real cash cow for Warner. Steve/bluewizard From brian at rescueddoggies.com Sun Aug 23 12:55:14 2009 From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:55:14 -0300 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to i Message-ID: <4A913C32.5070606@rescueddoggies.com> I agree with you on the half blood prince. After all, we never even found out why Snape was the half blood prince. I merely picked up on Sartoris' examples. The list of things wrong with that movie are too long to bother to write - it's been well discussed in this group. Brian From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 23 17:34:39 2009 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (bboyminn) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:34:39 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "sartoris22" wrote: > > carol: > > I don't care at all about the relationships except to the extent that they contribute to the plot (for example, Ron's being poisoned after by the mead intended for DD after eating the love=potion- filled chocolates and the consequences for his relationship with Hermione). Ginny can be left out ... > > sartoris22: > > From conversations I have heard and read, there might be a considerable number of people,like Carol,who are not particularly interested in the relationships in HP, "except to the extent that they contribute to the plot." I find that position interesting because relationships, to me, seem so essential to HP, apart from their use as plot devices. ... > bboyminn: I do care about relationship in the sense that they represent character development. In the short term it is not so important whether a given relationship is played out in a given book or movie, but overall, across the series, if the character isn't developed, and it is more developed through relationship, they why should I care about that character? Why should I care that Tonks and Lupin are going to die, when I've been give no reason to care about them? Why should Bill and Fleur's presences in a movie mean anything to me when they, in once case don't exist, and in the other case are poorly developed. Why should I care about Ron and Hermione, when Ron's role has been gutted. In the books, Ron is so much more than he is portrayed in the movies, and it is because of how he is portrayed in the books that I can about him at all. I certainly haven't been given much since the first movie to make me care about him. To create that caring and concern for characters, so that when they are in mortal peril or when they die, it will matter to me, I think, is a very important movie making technique. In this sense I think the movies have failed. If I hadn't read the books, I don't think I would care at all about any of the characters in the movies. Dumbledore is a good example, in the movie Dumbledore is so poorly and weakly developed, and Harry's feelings for him are so poorly developed, I fee very little when Dumbledore finally dies. And, I do indeed think that is founded in poor relationship development. If it is not established that characters matter to each other, how can they possible matter to me. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 23 19:14:38 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:14:38 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "bboyminn" wrote: > >> bboyminn: > > I do care about relationship in the sense that they represent character development. In the short term it is not so important > whether a given relationship is played out in a given book or > movie, but overall, across the series, if the character isn't > developed, and it is more developed through relationship, they > why should I care about that character? > sartoris22: You are totally justified in distinguishing the book from movie characters. I agree that the movies haven't adequately portrayed important characters, including Ron and Lupin. Still, I watch the movies hoping for good characterizations, although I have been dissapointed consistenly in my viewings. I hope that the characters will be developed more fully in DH and wonder if all the movies should have been two-parters. From snape_still_lives at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 24 00:08:09 2009 From: snape_still_lives at sbcglobal.net (Primula Brandybuck) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:08:09 -0700 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it Message-ID: Brian said, Having now seen HBP in IMAX, I agree. I really hoped, having seen it on my computer, that it would look better on the big screen. Well, it did look better, but I still found it disappointing. I had intended to boycott seeing it more than once, and really thought I'd have trouble doing that, but I have to say that I actually didn't feel any great desire to see it again. I still have it on computer and haven't bothered to watch it again. Carol commented What I didn't like and still find frustrating is the diminution of the Half-blood Prince himself. Snape in both his manifestations, teenage "friend" and helper and enigmatic adult, should have had much more screen time. (I actually read a review that said he was too transparently evil--obviously, that reviewer is in for a surprise in DH2. Primula Brandybuck: I've been lurking here trying to decide if I should invest the money to go see HBP at the IMAX or not at all. I figure that if a HP movie is worth seeing, I may as well go for the best viewing venue. Though I have not seen the movie yet, I do wonder why they did to it..... that is, choose Yates for the director again. I thought Alfonso Cueron and POA was very artistic and filled in blanks nicely enough for those who haven't read the books. He is my favorite director and I'd like to know why they didn't keep him for the next movies. I saw POA 3 times and happily paid for the expensive IMAX ticket after I had seen it twice in the regular theaters. Compared to POA I felt GOF was annoying as hell. Newell just couldn't live up to the bar set by Cueron. DD had not one endearing trait the GOF. If I hadn't read the book and had only gone by the movies, DD's demise in HBP wouldn't be very tragic. I had no sympathy for the character in the last 2 movies. In GOF I also kept waiting for Hermione to finish her period and lose the whining behavior. It distracted me from the parts I may have liked. I had no need to see that one at the IMAX. Then they picked Yates to direct the next four movies. OOP was just simply boring and lackluster. I had no need to see it at the IMAX because it wasn't interesting enough to see again at all for me. I do think Cueron would have been able to make the ministry as creepy as it was in the book. So why Yates again? His trailers are even boring. How did Yates get picked to do the next four movies? Seriously, why? IMO he is the most uninteresting director out of all the four directors even though Newell's character development of the kids was annoying. The music in OOP by Nicholas Hooper was also boring compared to the other movies. Music is a very important part of an adventure movie and a series. Maybe Yates wouldn't seem so boring if he had had better music, but Hooper does the music for HBP too. Brian's comments and Carol's comments have been the tipping point for me, and I thank you both. I've decided to skip the $20. IMAX ticket and wait for HBP to come out in video and maybe watch it then. HBP was the book when I stopped enjoying the series anyway. The story truly stopped being any fun at all. I can only envision HBP as more of a horror movie if they have kept the movie close to the book. Primula Brandybuck [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 24 00:43:12 2009 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child Of Midian) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:43:12 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re:HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002801ca2453$dcdbac70$96930550$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Primula Brandybuck I thought Alfonso Cueron and POA was very artistic and filled in blanks nicely enough for those who haven't read the books. He is my favorite director and I'd like to know why they didn't keep him for the next movies. I saw POA 3 times and happily paid for the expensive IMAX ticket after I had seen it twice in the regular theaters. :::::::::::::::::::: Cueron turned down a second film, as did the director of GOF. My understanding is that all four directors have been asked back. I think Yates has done a VERY good job directing, I think the films are just TOO short for all the story and he tries to cram in as much as possible making it nearly dizzying. I think we are in for some decently extended versions, the new versions start coming out next month (ultimate version, I believe they are calling them) and I hope they really have more filmed and re-spliced in than we dare hope. md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 24 06:45:31 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (geoff_bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:45:31 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Primula Brandybuck wrote: Primula Brandybuck: > Then they picked Yates to direct the next four movies. OOP was just > simply boring and lackluster. I had no need to see it at the IMAX > because it wasn't interesting enough to see again at all for me. I do > think Cueron would have been able to make the ministry as creepy as it > was in the book. > > So why Yates again? His trailers are even boring. How did Yates get > picked to do the next four movies? Seriously, why? IMO he is the most > uninteresting director out of all the four directors even though > Newell's character development of the kids was annoying. > > The music in OOP by Nicholas Hooper was also boring compared to the > other movies. Music is a very important part of an adventure movie and > a series. Maybe Yates wouldn't seem so boring if he had had better > music, but Hooper does the music for HBP too. Geoff: It's always very interesting to see how people's views differ so widely. Since GOF, I've made point of seeing the films three times if I can manage to fit them in. I've certainly felt that OOP and HBP have been better as films although I agree with many writers that there are things missing from the films which should have been there if only to make sense to a viewer who is not familiar with the books. And, of course, I and others have already referred to scenes which do not stem from the books and, to me, often merely waste valuable film time. One thing I particularly noticed - and enjoyed - in HBP was the contrast between moments of extreme action and activity and balancing scenes where the scene was one of quiet and reflection . This was also true of the musical score where the same contrast appeared. Patrick Doyle and Nicholas Hooper have certainly steered the soundtrack away from the rather predictable furrow ploughed by John Williams. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 24 15:37:17 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:37:17 -0000 Subject: HBP Sartoris22 comment - and my thoughts on what they did to it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: > > carol: > > I don't care at all about the relationships except to the extent that they contribute to the plot (for example, Ron's being poisoned after by the mead intended for DD after eating the love=potion- filled chocolates and the consequences for his relationship with Hermione). Ginny can be left out of both the films and the books for all I care. I did miss Fleur's declaration of love, but it wasn't important to the plot, and it was part of a more important scene change, the substitution of the pointless burning of the Burrow for the small battle between Order members and the DA on one side an d DEs on the other, which would have included the attack on Bill. > > sartoris22: > > From conversations I have heard and read, there might be a considerable number of people,like Carol,who are not particularly interested in the relationships in HP, "except to the extent that they contribute to the plot." I find that position interesting because relationships, to me, seem so essential to HP, apart from their use as plot devices. For example, Fleur's rejection of superficiality for love, compels Lupin, after much prodding from others, to reconsider and accept Tonk's feelings for him. These and other relationships seem to reinforce the theme of acceptance in the novel. In fact, some of the more important themes in HP--bravery, love, acceptance, committment--are depicted through relationships--and the emphasis on and complexity of the relationships have helped people to understand the literary value of so-called children's literature. > Carol responds: Right, but you're apparently talking about the books, which develop a number of complex themes and motifs. The films, however, are focused more on plot, and, in the case of HBP, character development as far ss it regards teenage hormones and jealousies. I like the subtle touches in the books, too, and the Fleur-Molly hug as the kids look on in bewilderment is one of my favorite book moments. I just don't think it would work cinematically, especially since the films are so firmly centered on HRH, Just my opinion. Carol, whose main complaint about the HBP film is that it focuses on teenage rleationships to the detriment of darker elements like the Snape/Draco subplot and the Voldemort Pensieve memories (which, in turn, harms the Horcrux subplot) From no.limberger at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 16:08:02 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:08:02 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] HBP Profitiablity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90908260908t3ae4453bw171fa40ed7548b78@mail.gmail.com> >sartoris22 wrote: >I read at box office mojo that HBP probably won't make a profit >because the movie cost 400 miliion to make and advertise and >the studio receives only half the profits from ticket sales. No.Limberger responds: According to Box Office Mojo's list of "all time worldwide box office grosses", HBP has earned over $886,400,000. (Reference: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/). Thus, I think it's reasonable to assume that the film has probably broke even as far as the initial budget is concerned, though there are no estimates available for advertising costs. Given that the film is continuing to earn money in theaters and will earn money from DVD sales and rentals, I would not be concerned about HBP's profitability for WB. >sartoris22 wrote: >Did Gates do a bad job by shooting scenes he either didn't need >(the attack at the burrow) or didn't use ( I read that he shot the >Dumbledore funeral scene)? No.Limberger responds: Filmed scenes are always edited and sometimes cut altogether. I am personally looking forward to being able to view all of the movies as "director's cuts" with the deleted scenes included. As for the inclusion of the burrow attack scene, overall in the movie, it works, but it was not necessary for HP fans in my opinion. >sartoris22 wrote: >Did delaying the film's release hurt ticket sales? No.Limberger responds: In my opinion, it was a mistake for WB to delay the release of HBP. Overall ticket sales were undoubtedly affected adversely since the delayed release date prevented HBP from being shown during opening weekend in IMAX theaters, which were in the midst of a 4-week exclusive contract with Paramount to show "Transformers 2". While many did go and watch HBP 2 weeks after opening day at IMAX theaters when they could show the film, it is likely that fewer people overall saw the film in IMAX theaters because they may have gone already seen the film in regular theaters and not been sufficiently enticed to see the film again on an IMAX screen. Others may simply have been angry with WB for delaying the film and haven't gone to see it. >sartoris22 wrote: >Have the films lost steam since people already know the ending? No.Limberger responds: Not everyone who watches the films has read the books or has been told how the series ends. I don't believe that the films have lost steam. If they have, it has been minimal. The last two DH films will undoubtedly be more popular in my opinion. >sartoris22 wrote: >Is HBP simply a poor film? No.Limberger responds: For me, no. I enjoyed the film. >sartoris22 wrote: >Is the 250 million even on the screen? No.Limberger responds: I don't understand the question. >sartoris22 wrote: >In short, who or what is to blame if HBP isn't a profitable movie? No.Limberger responds: I would consider it doubtful that any film's level of success can be correlated to only one factor. Many factors come into play and vary depending upon the film's genre, the actors involved, quality of the screen play, directing, editing, cinematography, special effects, etc., as well as potential external factors, such as timing of the film's release and how many screens the film is shown on. In the case of HBP, it has already done quite well in theaters, it is continuing to be shown in theaters and it will undoubtedly earn a lot from DVD sales and rentals. I think it unlikely that HBP will not be profitable. -- "Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coolbeans3131 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 30 00:09:41 2009 From: coolbeans3131 at yahoo.com (coolbeans3131) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:09:41 -0000 Subject: Saw HBP again, this time in Imax. Message-ID: Saw HBP again, this time in Imax. It was nice to notice some of the details I didn't notice before, like Narcissa's coat (pretty fabric), how cool the Weasley's joke shop was and all the muggle stuff in Arthur's shed (phones, plugs, typewriters, blender). Also how very expressive Dan's eyes are. I wasn't thrilled with the 3D. I was happy to take the glasses off(when Harry arrived at the Wealey's). I still don't get the Harry/Ginny relationship. It simply doesn't make sense to me. And I don't understand why they didn't have them interact at the Christmas party. Ginny was there (in a beautiful dress btw) and was shown for 2 seconds. Instead of creating ways to have them interact, that would have fit in naturally. Joann, who thanks to some members of this list, I saw the shoe tying scene in a new nasty way, lol. From coolbeans3131 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 30 10:36:49 2009 From: coolbeans3131 at yahoo.com (coolbeans3131) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:36:49 -0000 Subject: Saw HBP again, this time in Imax. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for replying to my own thread, but I had one more thought. The scene of the students around Dumbledores body has bugged me each time I've seen it, and I finally figured out why. They (with the exception of Harry) behave the way they would at a funeral. Funerals are a few days after someone has died and the shock has worn off. Most people are calm at funerals. They are not usually calm gathered around the body of a murdered person. Why was McGonagall so calm? Wasn't anyone freaked out, asking questions? Hysterical even? These are children and young adults we are talking about (mostly). They tend to be very dramatic. Very dramatic! They should have done the funeral if they were going to have everyone behave like that. Joann