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

[sistermagpie]

> > 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

Magpie:
Just to throw out one thing about the title change, whether or not it makes it better or worse, but I have heard that the rumor that Philosopher's was changed to simplify it or dumb it down for American audiences isn't true. What they wanted was a title that indicated that the book was about magic/sorcery etc. I think they asked JKR to come up with an alternative title and she chose Sorcerer's Stone--which is pretty good given the options. So it's not that they just changed that word because it was too hard, it was that she went for Sorcerer's Stone rather than Harry Potter and the School of Magic or whatever and they liked that. 

So it was more about the title grabbing the right audience than simplifying in that case. US children's books aren't anti-4-syllable words on principle, iow.

-m