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

[Miles]

dumbledore11214 wrote:
> md:
>> I don't think WB had anything to do with it. I think it's Kloves. He
>> distilled the characters to what he believes are their basic
>> structures, hero, comic sidekick and well-of-knowledge. It's really
>> a standard way for screenwriters to think. Everything has to be
>> high-concept in big-budget-Hollywood. However, I don't think WB
>> really keeps much of a hand in production. In fact, it was the last
>> three directors that opted for shorter films when WB was fine with
>> 2:45 run time and fine with GOF, OOTP & HBP being 6 films!!! It was
>> the directors that made the choices to cut, and Kloves who made the
>> choice to distill the characters.
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Alla:
>
> Well, when I say WB I certainly include Kloves into this  umbrella
> term, which I use quite loosely.
>
> And if it is a standard way for screen writers to think, well,
> supposedly this is what Hollywood deems acceptable, right? This is
> something which Kloves thinks producers will agree with, etc, right?
>
> I mean, the way I see it, it all goes together - producer finds
> director that will implement his vision, but which will be acceptable
> for producer as well and same for screenwriter IMO.

Miles
Alla expresses my initial thoughts on this. I think it's standard Hollywood
to simplify things in order to make them digestible for the average
moviegoer. And more, if you remember the American title of Philosopher's
stone, this seems to be a general idea for popular filming and writing. To
blame the author of this franchise to do what authors do all the time for
many Hollywood productions, IMO misses the point. I just saw a short scene
from the Valkyrie film with Tom Cruise as an ad for the DVD, and this one
scene with Cruise as Stauffenberg in the style of a typical action hero is
more than enough for me to be happy not to have seen this film.

> SSSusan:
> 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.

Miles
I totally agree. I think that children do "feel" depth in a film even if
they have problems of understanding everything of it. Not to speak of
grownups - while I agree that switching Philosopher's to Sourcerer's Stone
was and still is an insult to the people "meant" by it, it's a symptom of a
general practice.

Miles, who does not want to blame all Hollywood productions, there are many
fascinating films out there even in the major films