Film 6: Snape's "New" Attitude
fr...@theshire.net
semi-nice" to Harry? Or at least he shows him some respect, and
pretty much from the very beginning (Harry's arrival at Hogwarts).
This is different than the book, of course.
My guess is it's either 1) since H is now "working directly with"
D. maybe Snape thinks he needs to treat him more as an active
member of the order (tho D never says in the film that "we will be
working together this year", or "you'll be taking private lessons
with me Harry"). Or 2), in the film's timeline Snape has been told
the truth about Harry's "true destiny" over the summer and he
therefore feels a bit of compassion for Harry's fate. In the books
I think Snape learned about Harry's "problem" much later, just days
before D+H went to the cave (from one of Snape's memories in book
7).
Whatever the reason, it seems deliberate and meant to leave us
wondering...until film(s) 7!
Comments?
------
All and all I liked film 6 a lot, way better than film 5 which
botched the story of the prophecy. 6's biggest weakness was its
so-so score, basically a reprise of 5. I hope they do get John
Williams to do the score for films 7-1 and 7-2.
Yellow
I think trying to make sense of the story as told by the films is pretty
pointless and they should just be watched for the spectacle and for the
fun of seeing the characters come to life.
DaveD
news:MPG.25a188a71...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
Funny, I didn't think much of OotP's score at all, I found it thoroughly
underwhelming, yet I really liked the music to HBP! Although I agree that it
was very much a reworking of OotP's score, more variations on a theme,
including the music at the end over the credits which was note for note the
same music as OotP when Fred and George set off the fireworks. That's a bit
of a cheek, especially considering that this franchise has made more money
at the box office than any other - it's not as if they need to penny pinch
like that lol.
I agree with you though, Yellow - the films have now diverged so much you do
have to just take them on their own merits. Which is a shame as they've lost
some of JKR's humour and the replacement "hollywood" style humour isn't
anywhere near as good but they can still be enjoyable. I do wonder how
people who haven't read the books beforehand make any sense of it though.
DaveD
richard e white
I just think it is more of the film makers getting things wrong again.
they already turned snape into a strict teacher from a nasty one who
broke rules when ever he had a reason. The acter does a good job, but
the script just removes to much and the script writer and director just
don't want to show a nasty teacher at all
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!
mag3
>I just think it is more of the film makers getting things wrong again.
>they already turned snape into a strict teacher from a nasty one who
>broke rules when ever he had a reason. The acter does a good job, but
>the script just removes to much and the script writer and director just
>don't want to show a nasty teacher at all
I guess some things that "sell" well when read (ie. direct from the vision
of the author) don't sell at all when transferred onto film, for which an
audience of millions must be "sold" to make the film profitable. I think if,
for example, the general worldwide film audience were as accepting of
"cannon" as the book loyalists are, then Emma Watson may never have
gotten the part of Hermione Granger - she was far too cute for that role.
Which brings up an interesting point.... I'd be very curious as to how many
have seen the films without ever having read the books, vs. those who have
done both? I guess I can't imagine anyone who has read the books and not
seen at least one of the films.... :-)
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
richard e white
Well I've never seen the films. I went to them but can't say I saw anything.
However, my ears tell me enugf about them to know how badly they were done.
mag3
>mag3 wrote:
>
>> Which brings up an interesting point.... I'd be very curious as to how many
>> have seen the films without ever having read the books, vs. those who have
>> done both? I guess I can't imagine anyone who has read the books and not
>> seen at least one of the films.... :-)
>>
>Well I've never seen the films. I went to them but can't say I saw anything.
>However, my ears tell me enugf about them to know how badly they were done.
Yeah, but you don't count! :-) I'd bet you got more out of listening then we'd ever
get out of watching (too many visual smoke/mirror distractions). Anyway, my (original)
point was that JKR had a specific look for Hermione in mind (a little more nerdy and a lot
less cute than Emma), but that most likely would not have played well visually with the
worldwide film audience, nor kept its interest in the film series. To us book purists, it
wouldn't matter. But to the film audience at large, an unpleasant visual image to look at
for 2+ hours times 8 films might have spelled financial disaster (if it ever got as far as
8 films). To Hollywood, "the look" is everything. But I suppose they're going from their
own experience in making films, so........
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
richard e white
I understand what you mean. And HG's character was messed up far more then just the actors
looks. And before I lost my sight I had already noted the way hollywood would put great
looking people in rolls which called for some one not so pretty. The problem is that they
really do seam to think a pair of glasses can hide a pretty face so when they are removed and
the hair redone everyone will be surprised at how pretty the person is. Its just one of the
things holly wood can't get through there heads. And as they tend to look at the short term,
each movie, they didn't add buck teeath to the actress so they could come off in book four.
However, they didn't even see that each of the trio had something to give to the group. They
moved all the smart lines to HG. Taking them from DD and ron. In the books Ron knew the
facts of the wizard in the street. He explained how bad the word mudblood was to harry. In
the movies they gave it to HG. A person who hadn't ever heard it before. She knew it was bad
but only by the way it was said. HG was book smart and logic in the books and supper smart
and all knowing in the movies and ron became silly side kick. But this sort of cramming a
book into what they think is the only working format is part of the holly wood problem..
Remysun
> So fans, what explains film 6's (HBP) Snape character "being
> semi-nice" to Harry? Or at least he shows him some respect, and
> pretty much from the very beginning (Harry's arrival at Hogwarts).
> This is different than the book, of course.
Obviously, the movie can't be as subtle, and it needs to plant that
Snape is a redeemable character. Book 6 is as good a point as any,
since the Book 5 prophecy reminds Snape that his big mouth was the
reason that Lily died.
As you said, they botched that, so showing that he's probably sorry
about that is better than trying to explain it.