Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 170700

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
 
> Carol wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170417>:
> 
> << Wonder why the "generous" Black didn't will some robes and 
money,
> or even his house, to *Lupin*, who needs them much more than Harry
> does. >>
> 
> But I was quite shocked that Sirius didn't will any money to Remus
> (not the house; I am sure there are plot reasons why Harry must own
> the house). 
> 
> All I can figure is that something in those anti-werewolf laws 
forbids
> werewolves to inherit anything. Maybe werewolves are forbidden to
> *own* anything. (I guess Department of Magical Law Enforcements is
> willing to ignore that he has a couple of shabby robes and a worn-
out
> suitcase that he uses as if he owns, as long as he doesn't offend
> their sensibilities by renting a flat or wearing nice new robes.)
> Still, Sirius should have left a note for Harry asking him to help 
out
> poor old Remus.
> 


Lanval:
I haven't answered that post to Carol yet, but here goes:
Werewolves might indeed not be able to inherit. 

Or, Remus may be too proud to take charity from anyone, and may have 
refused. This would naturally require Sirius to have discussed the 
will with Remus, who perhaps felt awkward at taking away some of 
Harry's inheritance -- and protested, promising to hand over every 
penny Sirius left him to Harry.

It's sadly a fact that can't be overlooked, though, that Sirius may 
not have considered Remus. Sure, for the plot it was crucial that 
Harry had to inherit, but still..


> 
> Lanval wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170695>:
> 
> << If a pair of dangerous pitbulls roams the neighborhood (snip) 
If,
> on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and throw
> myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different 
story. I
> may just deserve that medal then. >>
>
Catlady:
> My spouse's late father's late dog did that, when the pit bull next
> door got loose from its back yard and menaced a toddler in its 
front yard.
>

Lanval:
Ouch, bless him! I hope this was not the incident that caused him to 
become a 'late dog'?



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Lanval wrote::
> If, on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and
> throw myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different
> story. I may just deserve that medal then.
> 

> colebiancardi wrote:
> 
> funny that you mention that.  I know this is about the books and 
all,
> but I do wonder WHY this whole exchange was cut out of the movie. 
> Instead, we get what you described - Snape does throw himself 
between
> Lupin and kids, protecting them.  We don't get the exchange with 
Fudge
> & Snape, nor the scene in the hospital wing with Snape & 
Dumbledore.
> 
> JKR, by this time, was consulted on the script of PoA and she did
> approve the new scene of Snape putting himself in front of the
> children when Lupin transformed.  A lot of the "petty" Snape in 
book
> version of PoA is cut out in the movie version.  I do wonder if 
that
> was on purpose;  his nastiness and sarcastic behavior is toned 
down;
> which is why I believe that movies give a real hint to where 
Snape's
> loyalties truly are - that he is DDM!Snape and not ESE!Snape.  His
> whole role as a former DE was downplayed in the movie GoF.  Again,
> why?  I know there is a "time" restriction and all - but would it 
KILL
> who makes these decisions in the movie version, to add an 
additional
> 10 minutes to a 3 hour long movie, if we are to really believe in a
> Snape that could be going either way?  Like we do in the books?
>

Lanval:
Interesting call -- but even as a mere occasional writer I cannot 
see anyone going through the trouble of writing not just a short 
scene, but several chapters (stretching from the Shrieking Shack to 
the last Hospital scene where Snape loses it completely ), putting 
all that energy into writing such wonderful scenes of Snape being a 
petty, nasty, vengeful, spittle-spouting GIT... only to later agree 
that a scene written by someone else is the *real* or *better* 
version? That she didn't really mean what she wrote? And I think 
that she merely checked for major pitfalls (such as the graveyard 
that Cuaron wanted to add), but otherwise let Cuaron and Kloves 
create their own story. After all, there is so much that's different 
from PoA. And she's been letting Kloves get away with his version of 
Ron for a LONG time. 


> colebiancardi wrote:
> I do wonder what JKR discussed with Alan Rickman about his role as
> Snape.  In the movie versions, he is not at all the nasty git, 
unlike
> the book versions.  I have to think there is something there that
> speaks to the final version of the Snape in DH.  I've been an
> DDM!Snape'r for a long, long while now - thinking that his 
description
> and his mannerisms in the books are the classic "villian" 
stereotype,
> which is why I think ESE!Snape is a red herring.  That scene in PoA
> cemented it for me.


Lanval:
But why would the directors or Rickman try to tone down Mean!Snape? 
If he is supposed to be a red herring, why not bring him on, full 
force? After all, a Bang!effect would be in the movies' best 
interest too, so why soften it?

> 
> Anne Squires wrote:
> 
> Aint It Cool News (quoting Heyman, who is quoting JKR):
> In the original draft of the screenplay Order of the Phoenix, they 
had
> decided to remove a character from the story. Rowling read over the
> screenplay and said "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that they 
were
> free to do whatever they liked, of course, but "if you make a 7th
> movie you'll have tied your hands."
> 
> colebiancardi:
> 
> I bet it was Luna.  She really is a minor character in OotP and 
isn't
> really necessary for either OotP or HBP (other than comic relief 
and
> that I personally think she is great!!)  So, this gives me great 
hope
> she will be a major player in DH.  
> 
> other possibilites:
> 
> Tonks
> Kingsley Shacklebolt
> Mrs. Arabella Figg
> 
> as an aside, I cannot believe they have the whole Gawp story line 
in
> there - blech.  Which means other good stuff will be cut out.  
> 
> colebiancardi
>
Lanval:
Blech for Grawp indeed. But I'd like for the mysterious minor 
character to be Figgy!


*runs off to iron her hands for discussing the medium-that-must-not-
be-named*