HP does not better in the summer than Fall

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
<post snipped by md>
> Carol, who likes the SS film despite flaws in the acting

md:
> I Don't not like the SS  (pr PS as my British blu-ray is titled) since the source material is strong enough to overcome the bad directing.
> 
Carol responds;
Well, liking or not liking is a matter of taste. To each his or her own. :-)  As I said, I like it despite the acting flaws, primarily because it's faithful to the book, most of the casting is good, and the costuming and sets are appropriate.

md: 
> My issue is not just with Hermione's line (which you focused on) since I also mentioned Molly's line in COS as well, I think all the actors where poorly served by Columbus.

Carol:
Sorry about that. I can't recall Molly's line and don't want to lose my post by looking it up. If you could quote it again and provide a link, I'd appreciate it. (It's hard to follow threads on Yahoo and locate the correct post myself.)

md:
 And don't give me that "younger audience" crap, that's BS in a big way, 

Carol responds:

Excuse me, but what have I done or said to deserve that tone. Please have the decency not to call what I or anyone else says "crap" or BS." That's simply uncalled for--and certainly not a reasonable, logical argument that will persuade us to agree with you. (Sorry, List Elves, but there are limits to my tolerance.)

md:
> look at Shrek, Wal-E, The original Star Wars, all sold big to very young audiences with good acting and directing and uncompromised story telling.

Carol:
I haven't seen "Wal-E" and haven't watched the original "Star Wars" films since they came out (and I confess that I was mostly watching for Han Solo!). As for "Shrek," sure it's clever, but it's written on two levels, one for kids and one for adults (which the old Bullwinkle cartoons did better, IMO), but it also resorts to body-based humor (thanks, "Lion King" creators, for inventing flatulent cartoon characters!). Admittedly, the HP films and books also use that approach (e.d., "troll bogies") but it doesn't appeal to me.

And, of course, both "Shrek" and "Wal-E" are cartoons, so they involve only voice acting--by professionals and, in the case of "Shrek," at least, adults. You can't really compare two different genres.

md:
> And, since you brought it up, Hermione, Harry and Ron are 10, 11, & 12 in SS the actors are each about 1 year apart in age with Emma being the youngest and Rupert the oldest.

Carol:
Yes, I know. But you were discussing the unlikelihood of a ten-year-old speaking that line, and I was pointing out that in the book, from which the line originated, Hermione is twelve--and more intellectually developed than the two boys. I wouldn't expect that line from Ginny Weasley, but it fits Hermione just fine. The performance, OTOH, could be improved.

md:
> As for a 10 yr old acting, every see the Piano? 

Carol responds:

I haven't seen "The Piano" because the story doesn't appeal to me. I have, however, seen ten-year-olds who can act, which appears to be your point.

I'm not saying that no ten-year-old can act. I'm saying that Emma Watson at age ten (or eleven, depending on when the scene was filmed) was inexperienced, untrained, and not particularly gifted. She was cute and perky; she looked the part (if you don't mind her not having prominent teeth), but *she* had not yet learned to act. And though she might have received more tips from Columbus, I doubt that even Cecil B. DeMille could have made her into a skilled actress at that point. She's improved, but she's still (IMO only) the least talented of the three main actors. (Someone should tell her to calm down and slow down so that Americans can understand her--a problem that, oddly enough, she *didn't* have in the first two films.)

Carol, who would never, ever call another person's point "BS" regardless of how ridiculous I thought it