Hermione/Emma Watson (Re: The Romance (was HBP))

[cubfanbudwoman]

Miles
> > I agree that this "character shaping" in the films is annoying. 
> > But it's just a consequence of the business, and the way the 
> > Potter films are made. The films are no works of art. There's no 
> > intention to add depth to the story. The films are to entertain 
> > people, especially young people/kids. They are to be consumable 
> > without any stomach trouble, people shouldn't go home thinking 
> > too much. Thus, the characters we know from the books are 
> > simplified. Hermione is the intellectual leader of the Trio. 

Alla:
> I do see your point, Miles. But if you are right, I really really do not like it. I mean yes, obviously movies are made primarily for younger audience, but I mean how much will they complicate characterization if they, OMG will show that Hermione sometimes does stupid things and no, she is not always in charge, etc?
> 
> Sarcasm is directed at WB here, not at you of course. But seriously, do they expect that little of their audience that they think it will complicate matters so that kids will not be interested?
> 
> So what if Ron besides being the guy who delivers comedy lines shows bravery and devotion to his friends and again OMG wisdom sometimes?
> 
> It is not like JKR wrote her stories  for much older audiences initially (yes, yes I know she wrote books for herself, however they were targeted at kids at least initially) and it is not like characterization is THAT complex, you know?
> 
> And Harry can do bad things too (oh dear, I know, how complicated). Again, please understand I am not arguing with you, I can see you being completely right, I am sort of arguing with WB LOL.
> 
> What would it hurt to give those lines to Ron? Especially if they rightfully belong to him.


SSSusan:
I, too, think you make a good point, Miles, although I'm still with Alla in how it all makes me *feel.*  

To me, the deal is that it took some effort to CHANGE things so that Hermione got Ron's lines, such as about "mudblood" and the Shrieking Shack "You'll have to kill us!"  And it took some effort to CHANGE things so that Hermione got to be the one taking charge during the TT sequence of PoA.  What I mean is, since it was *written* with Ron doing X and Harry doing Y, there should have been a pretty significant reason that the Warner team elected to make changes so that they were giving X & Y to Hermione.

What you've said about simplifying or distilling the trio down into almost one characteristic could explain it:  the intellectual; the comic; the reckless, impulsive hero.  

And yet.  It wouldn't exactly have *not* made sense to have allowed Ron -- the only one who grew up in the WW -- to explain the mudblood stuff.  And it wouldn't exactly have *not* made sense for Harry to be taking, say, an equal part in the TT decisions.  And it wouldn't exactly be counter to the role of Intellectual for Hermione to occasionally be a little human.  

IOW, if the Warner team felt that doing those things *did* make it too complicated, did move too far away from the super-simplified, narrow role they'd determined each should play, then WOW.  What an insult to the average audience member -- kids included! And a definite disappointment to the many slightly older fans, the savvy kid fans and the read-'em-in-detail fans.  

I guess I'm saying I see Miles' suggestion as plausible; it's just if it's accurate, it's rather ridiculous imo for Warner to have assumed such major league simplification/distillation was necessary.

Bah humbug on them.

;)

Siriusly Snapey Susan,
who, in spite of this negative-sounding post, LOVES the movies overall and watches them repeatedly, just wishes Warner had stayed more true to these three at times