Harry Potter and God

[Carol]

md:
> See, that's constructive, and I agree. It's the one fault I had with Cuaron is that for everything he "omitted" to streamline the story, he seemed to add something completely irrelevant.

Carol responds:
I think that criticism applies to most of the directors (the extended dragon scene in GoF, for example), but it's also one of the reasons that most of us don't like the talking heads. They're uncanonical, they add nothing, and in the books, Dark objects are unfunny. (Let's hope that Draco's Hand of Glory stays silent in HBP!)

md:
> I think the heads where his way of adding "comic relief" for the children in the audience in such an otherwise dark story. 

Carol responds:
Possibly. But we don't need comic relief at that point. Viewers have just had the Aunt Marge scene, and now they get Stan Shunpike and Ernie to offset any qualms they may feel about the mysterious "murderer" Sirius Black.

There's plenty of comedy in the book that Cuaron (and Kloves) could have used. The heads are unnecessary.

And this is the OT list, after all. I see no reason why we should hesitate to express our dislike of or appreciation for any element in the books or films that we see fit, whether it's the shrunken heads or "chest monsters." (If we didn't like the books a great deal more than we dislike some of their elements, regardless of what we think of the films, we wouldn't still be members of this list.)

Carol, who did think that Cuaron and his team did an amazing job with the Dementor on the train