PoA Question (foreshadowing Books 6 & 7)

[mhbobbin]

No: HPFGUIDX 105562

 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" <cldrolet at s...> wrote:
> I hope the list-elves will indulge me here for a moment.  I have a
question about the PoA movie but only as it relates to the books and
what we have been talking about the last few days about foreshadowing.
> snip snip> 
> I thought Crookshanks' role was severely reduced in PoA movie and I
felt he had a stronger role in that book, very imporant role what we
didn't really get to see in the movie, and I also think old
Crookshanks is going to have another role to play, yet.
> snip snip
> Also, in the book, we learned a lot of, what I thought, was relevant
and important info during the Shrieking Shack chapters that never made
it to the movie.  Was this stuff not important to 'the rest of the story?'
> snip snip
>
> So, do you think the stuff that has been left out, important things,
mean they are not as important after all?
> 
> Cathy - who has way too much time on her hands, obviously, if she
sits and thinks about this stuff all day!

> mhbobbin writes:

As JKR gives the filmmakers some guidance, it is valid to try to
divine where she's going in Books 6 & 7 from what is completely
removed from the films and what is inserted.  However, we probably
should exercise some caution as our divination skills from these tea
leaves are probably somewhat like Trelawney's. Or worse--Ron's. In
addition, JKR has commented on "inadvertent" foreshadowing by Cuaron.
And remember that the film pretty much completed the filming stage at
the time of the release of Book 5.

RE Crookshanks:  The removal of all of Crookshanks' magical skills and
communication with Padfoot may well mean, IMO, that Crookshanks is not
going to play a large role in 6 & 7.  Indeed, Crookshanks has pretty
much slept through Books 4 & 5 already. Very disappointing.

RE: Missing Exposition: The filmmakers have commented that the
exposition about the Marauders, James' Patronus, etc. was "saved" to
be revealed in a future film. I don't get their decision but I do
believe that exposition can be added later, whereas if they eliminate
a character's  magic a la Crookshanks that speaks much louder to the
rest of the story. So it's safe to conclude this background
information is still important.

Much has been made already about Remus talking about Lily on the
bridge. In the book, he avoids talking to Harry about his friendship
with James etc. until late in the story. Although some think that
means there was a romantic triangle,  I personally just believe that
it reinforces that there are major mysteries about Remus not yet
revealed through Book 5.

I also think that the film's use of a Stonehenge-like set outside the
bridge, completed before Book 5 with its subtle Stonehenge references,
reinforces the idea that JKR is taking Harry to Stonehenge in Book 6
or 7.  Lucius Malfoy's address is given in Book 5 as Wiltshire, where
Stonehenge is located. What it means in JKR's world is yet to be revealed.

And there have been many comments about what scenes she insisted
keeping in Movies 1 & 2 and possible implications for the rest of the
story.  Unclear the degree to which it matters but until she finishes
the books, we will all be trying to read what tea leaves are
available. I hope she gets going.

Mhbobbin


ADMIN NOTE:  If you decide to reply to this post, please be sure that your response relates to the HP *books*, not just the movies.  If your response solely concerns the Prisoner of Azkaban *movie*, please send your post to our sister list, HPFGU-Movie, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/

Thanks!