PoA MOVIE DISCUSSION

[montavilla47]

> Cabal: 
> > Rowling loved the shrunken head and the inclusion of the clock-tower (not in the book) so it's her world, I accept any change / addition so long as she's on board and she was.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I have no complaint about the clock tower, which was an effective addition. And even if JKR accepted the shrunken heads, for some fans, including me, they're a distracting and *un-English* intrusion into JKR's world. (Yes, I know that Hogwarts is in Scotland, but most of the teachers and students are English.)


Montavilla47:

Um.  But shrunken heads aren't "un-English."  They are a magical item from the
Caribbean, which was partially colonized by the English and very much part of the
British Empire.

Which reminds me about something I really, *really* liked about PoA--that he
included people of color in his cast.  I remember kind of wondering where 
Angela Johnson was the film of PS/SS, because I didn't see anyone who looked
dark-skinned.  Also, it seemed like there were two many boys on the Quidditch
team in PS/SS.  The girl who was identified as Angela looked white to me.  I've
watched it since and I can't really tell if she's white or very light-skinned, but
it always bugged me a little.

Then, when you look at the kids in PoA, you get a much more diverse palette.
There are the Patel twins!  And you  *two* black boys.  Thomas is no longer the 
only black kid in school!

JKR's endorsement of the shrunken heads appears in the DVD extras.  She gives
a joint interview with Cuaron and says that she wishes she'd thought of them.

.... Incidentally, I don't much care for them either.  Or the whole Knight Bus
sequence.  But that's because I read the books and I'm impatient for the 
plot to begin.  For the same reason, I could do without that extended 
"Monster Book" sequence.

> Cabal: 
> > I thought Cuaron made the time-turner ending work in ways the book didn't, it begs you to watch a second time. 
> > 
> Carol responds:
<snip>
> Do you have any specific complaints about the way the scene was written and any specific improvements to note in the filming? (The rock throwing seems pointless to me. Hermione knows that they left. Also, the Patronus is not clearly the same as the shining stag, which doesn't return to Harry as in the book. I think that a filmgoer would be confused and think that the Patronus is just a shining light shield.) 


Montavilla47:

The rock throwing thing is vital, because Future!Hermione has seen that 
Past!Hermione (and Ron and Harry), aren't leaving Hagrid's hut as they are
supposed to do.  So, she throws the rock to alert them that the Minister is
on his way.

It links what she and Harry are doing to what happened earlier--and makes
the time turning most important to the plot--which just makes it better.

I remember finding the time-turning part of the book really confusing--
especially the stuff about where Hermione and Harry were during the 
Dementor attack and how that worked and how it was that Buckbeak
didn't die the first time round.   I thought the whole concept was better 
in the film.


> Cabal: 
> > The only complaints I ever hear about POA are from book fans, where I think the one film to complain about from the POV of  book fan is GOF, that's the butcher job! <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Book fans are the ones who know what's missing! I do wonder, though, whether people who didn't read the books were confused by some of the details, including the glitch with the Dementor Boggart, which is or ought to be evident to any viewer. (Huh? Lupin *saw* the Dementor Boggart. How could he think it would turn into Lord Voldemort?)

Montavilla47:

We see the boggart turn into a bunch of things.  I don't see why it couldn't turn
into Lord Voldemort after being a Dementor.  Even in the books, the boggart
turns into all the Weasleys just for Molly.  

I'm not saying that's not a plothole.  But it's different watching a movie than
reading a book and the brain doesn't have time to ask as many questions.  

I was listening to the commentary on "My Cousin Vinny" and the director 
mentions this plot hole that terrified him:  Why does the kid's mother send
Vinny down to rescue her son, but not bother to show up herself?  He filmed
scenes explaining why she doesn't go herself, but no one in the audience
ever did question it.  A lot of films will break down if you apply basic
logic.  Most people turn logic off if they are enjoying a film.

But, of course, one major problem with enjoying a book adaptation
is when the story veers away from the book.  So, I completely understand
why this plot hole bugs you.