Robes once more -- MOVIE: an extra scene

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27443

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., prefectmarcus at y... wrote:
> So from the text, what are the right kind and why are the ones in 
> the movie wrong?  

Marcus is correct that from the text we do not have enough evidence to 
concretely prove the robes are wrong (i.e. no direct descriptions), 
though we do have some suggestive evidence.

However, if you accept JKR's word as canon, then according to The 
Sunday Times article (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/magazine/)

   The author, J K Rowling, specifies the children's school wear as:  
   plain work robes (black), pointed hat (black) and winter cloak    
   (black). But the costume designer, Judianna Makovsky, with the    
   backing of the director, Chris Columbus, and the director of    
   photography, John Seale, wanted to create a look for them that    
   would give them an immediate on-screen identity, one that would be 
   rooted in magical tradition and history. 

   So she created a Hogwarts uniform of grey flannel skirts and    
   trousers, white shirts and striped ties, a look that would scream  
   'English school' to audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. Out of 
   school, they run about in traditional English children's wear circa 
   1950, of sweaters and corduroy trousers. There isn't a trainer or  
   Nike logo in sight.

So, no, they didn't do it "accurately" to how JKR imagines it.  
However, JKR has given us no reason to believe she does not support 
this decision, so it's just fine with me.  And I think they look 
pretty good, just taking into account the visual style of the film.

*****

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Steve Vander Ark" <vderark at b...> wrote:
> Okay, now I'm having a real problem concentrating on my work...this 
> is a quote from Empire Online:
> 
> `A few things are missing,' Columbus explains, `obviously we had to 
> edit or else the film would have been six hours long.' Then he adds 
> a little snippet that's bound to have Potter fans bashing down the 
> door of their nearest cinema come release time. Asked whether 
> there's anything new in the film, Columbus tells Empire that `[JK 
> Rowling] did a little piece for us that wasn't in the first book but 
> she had written it and she authorised it and it's in there and it's 
> a little secret that you won't expect to see.
> 
> `It's in the first film because she originally wrote it for the 
> first book and decided to take it out. So you'll see that when you 
> see the film.' Later in the interview he goes on to add that it's 
> `one little sequence where we get a key into something that happened 
> in Harry's past.'

Although I generally like to avoid speculation like this, I find this 
very much in keeping with the other rumors about them having a 
Godric's Hollow set they filmed in, which AFAIK were never debunked.

It all fits: Rowling might have written a small portion of the scene 
for somewhere in the first book (not necessarily the beginning of the 
book, mind you, and not necessarily the whole of the events that 
evening).  And it's certainly a key into Harry's past.

Perhaps the dream sequence with the flashing green light is extended? 
 Or something similar?

-Luke