Movie bruhaha

[Littlered32773 at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27347

I think that we all need to realize that there WILL be changes from 
the book to the movie.  There's no way the book can be EXACTLY 
translated onto the screen.  It would be 6 hours long.  It's not like 
they're combining books (a la Steven Speilberg-GRRRR), but it's 
reasonable that some things HAVE to change.  Since we all know that 
JK has had such close input on the movie, it's probably safe to say 
that she approved the changes, and if she's happy with them, I don't 
see why we can't be.  The beauty of the book is that we can all see 
it in our minds the way we want.  If we don't want to ruin that 
image, we don't HAVE to see the movie.  Personally, I will be seeing 
it.  Heck, I'm having to see it in a different language the first 
time around, but I don't care, because I know the story and just want 
to SEE the movie.  (We're stationed in Germany, and won't get it in 
English for 3-4 months after the release! AGONY!)

Chairs/Benches-As a person who hold a degree in theatrical design, I 
can see the wisdom in benches rather than chairs.  What a nightmare 
that would be.  They would have to be lined up when not occupied; 
they would all have to be occupied for groups shots (as it would be 
distracting to have an empty chair for no reason); they would have to 
make sure all the chairs were tilted in exactly the same position to 
make sure the backs don't obscure another actor.  What a nightmare.  
I understand that there have been several references to chair in the 
books, but there have also been mentions of benches.  In CoS, when 
they all have to sleep in the Great hall, doesn't Dumbledore wave his 
wand and all the chairs and benches fly against the wall?  (I don't 
have my book, so correct me if I'm wrong on that).  When 
Dumbledore "draws" a chair, isn't it reasonable to assume that since 
there were only 12 (then 13) people at a table, they would use 
chairs?  I think the house tables had been moved for this.  Finally, 
with all the refences to "seat" as in "can I have your seat?"  why 
couldn't they be talking about a bench?  It's still a seat.  When at 
a football game, and asking about a seat on a bench, don't you 
normally say "Is this 'seat' free?" not "is this space on the bench 
free?"

Hagrid's Hut-Why can't it be stone with wooden beams?  It would burn 
just as easily (Hermione's comment about him living in a wooden 
house). 

Robes-What do you mean "They are the wrong kind"?  Are they described 
in such detail that we CAN say they are the WRONG kind?  I did 
question the crest on them, as when Hary goes to purchase his robes, 
he didn't know what house he was in.  It could be assumed though that 
the patches are put on magically (or by the house elves) after they 
are sorted.  When Hermione sneaks the spare robes, she could have 
sneaked spare Slytherin robes, but didn't feel the need to say so, as 
it would be obvious to them.  It could be a device used for the movie 
though.  It might simply be to help the audience keep people 
straight.  There are an awful lot of characters in the story, and 
while we might be able to keep them straight when reading the books, 
it could be difficult for someone who's not familiar with the books 
(who can they be?) to keep up with who is in what house in the movie, 
therefore the justification for the crests.   

You're not supposed to know it's a broom-all right I'll give you 
that, but I don't think it will bother me.  After reading the article 
in the Sunday Times, I'm just impressed that they got a real owl to 
be able to get it right (even if it's not a real broom) and didn't 
have to use animatronics or special effects.

Okay, I'm back to lurking.
Cheers!
Slon