Do the movies influence your imagination?
Dark Magic
the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their products.
The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination, and
have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy 500,000
if you can believe it. Warner Bros. must have made a bazillion on it
already), but she does say that the movies and video games influence kids
and limit their imaginations. I.E. nobody *needs* to imagine what Hogwarts
looks like, or what Voldemort looks like, its all been done for us with
scenes and special effects. And she thinks that it takes away from the fun,
creativity and especially the *personalization* of the story.
I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
his clothes.
I picture him as being a real misfit, along with Ron, who is tall and skinny
and fades into the background of his colorful family, and Hermione who is
bossy, a know-it-all and buck-toothed. These are the kids who live on the
periphery of school life. The uncool squad. And for me it adds more to the
story, because these misfits are the ones who wind up saving the world, and
the school, again, and again. Despite their physical imperfections, their
unpopular personality flaws, and their poverty.
Harry and his friends are geeky.
Dan Radcliffe doesn't fit that description.
I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
Rupert Grint is about as close to Ron Weasley as they could get, I suppose.
As are the twins who play Fred and George. I'm not crazy about Chris Rankin
as Percy.
Or about what's her name as Ginny.
Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
I guess the bottom line is that the movies *don't* really impact on my
enjoyment of the books. I still picture Harry the way I picture Harry.
Unlike say, "Star Wars" where Mark Hamill will *always* be Luke Skywalker.
I didn't picture Vivian Leigh when I read Gone with the Wind either.
So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
Does that make the story better, or worse?
And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids (neices,
nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because of
them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you? And what influences
their choices more? The books, the movies, the video games?
Shannon
Fab
>performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
>Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
>hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
>thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
>his clothes.
I definitely see the same Harry you see, but I really do love Radcliffe and
Grint in the new film. I think it's because Radcliffe can actually act now.
Fab
New boards are up: http://www.fabsboards.com
LittleGreyPoodle
"Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com...
> I've been reading an interesting book called "Consuming Kids". It's about
> the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their
> products.
>
> The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
> influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
> started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination,
> and
> have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
>
> She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy
> 500,000
Well, if she only got 500,000 (pounds? dollars? euros? what?) she must have
some other damn good investments, because Fortune magazine rated her in
their Richest People list as having a net worth of $1 BILLION.
If I hadn't seen the first movie with a friend's daughter (my birthday
present to her--and she picked the movie), I probably still wouldn't have
any idea who Harry Potter is. And I certainly wouldn't have seen the second
or third movie and then gotten interested enough to go back and read the
books. So sometimes the commericalism is good. It opens up a good thing to a
broader audience.
sickamongthecure
> Harry and his friends are geeky.
>
> Dan Radcliffe doesn't fit that description.
>
> I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
> buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
I disagree, I think those two are perfect. I don't think Dan
is too attractive to be Harry, I mean he is described to be
quite handsome, come on, he had some Cho Chang innit.
The buck-toothness I can ignore, she get's rid of them in GoF anyway,
and she is supposed to beautiful at the Yule Ball so...
> Rupert Grint is about as close to Ron Weasley as they could get, I
suppose.
> As are the twins who play Fred and George. I'm not crazy about Chris
Rankin
> as Percy.
> Or about what's her name as Ginny.
Fred and George are perfect in PoA but I thought they
were wooden and just stared at the surroundings
on the first two films.
Percy is hilarious, I could just feel the pompousness
ozzing from Chris Rankin.
> Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
Yeah (except that he's wearing way too much make up...)
The movie changes with Snape are the worse! Wishing Harry
'good luck' against Sylverin. lol when you see Alan Rickman do
that, he does this funny sideways glance like he's looking at the
screenwriter and thinking 'wtf'.
Emma Thompson is spot on too.
> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
> Does that make the story better, or worse?
I will never know what my thoughts would have been if I had read
the book clean because I didn't discover HP til the movies came out.
From reading the books, I thought Hogwarts in my head was sort
of like Oxford , and, hey presto I watch the Making of and bits of
Hogwarts in the movie was actually off Oxford!
But then again when I read descriptions of magenta robes, my mind
actually imagined them to be incredibly bright magenta robes, heh
the movie though showed them to look quite normal and nothing
too out of the ordinary.
I personally think the movies, aethetically, are far more superior to
how I would have 'imagined' it. There are thousands
of talented people putting their all in creating a solid representation
from their imagination. I wouldn't be arrogant as to say I could have
imagined it 'better'. I'm definately not as talented enough to
express an image in my head onto an empty canvas like those people
can. There will always be lots of details missing like:
" What does McGonagall look like exactly? Old, black hair, glasses?
Maggie does a great portrayal of playing McGonagall. Okay she's
ginger but she'd look weird with black hair anyway. How would I
imagine her on my own?
What are her eyes going to be like, her facial distancing, her nose,
her chin, her walk? Imagination is too vague and misty. "
I'm glad JK Rowling sold the rights, if it werent for that I wouldn't
have discovered HP. Commercialism is coo'
> And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids (neices,
> nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because
of
> them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you? And what influences
> their choices more? The books, the movies, the video games?
>
> Shannon
I like Harry Potter because it's got a great story and has heart-
you care for the characters. And this shows through the books
and the movies.
I think the kids appreciate that too...
Richard Eney
Dark Magic <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've been reading an interesting book called "Consuming Kids". It's about
>the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their products.
>
>The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
>influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
>started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination,
>and have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
won't.
<snip>
>Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
>hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
>thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
>his clothes.
Yep. Also, he doesn't get to wear a nice neat school uniform, except for
being able to hide his baggy, ragged old clothes under his school robe.
>I picture him as being a real misfit, along with Ron, who is tall and skinny
>and fades into the background of his colorful family, and Hermione who is
>bossy, a know-it-all and buck-toothed. These are the kids who live on the
>periphery of school life. The uncool squad. And for me it adds more to the
>story, because these misfits are the ones who wind up saving the world, and
>the school, again, and again. Despite their physical imperfections, their
>unpopular personality flaws, and their poverty.
>
>Harry and his friends are geeky.
Agreed.
>I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
>buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
They could have faked the buck teeth (until GoF), except I suppose she
would have had to have speech lessons to learn to talk with the fake
teeth in. The hair's been pretty bushy, though not as bushy as
I imagined.
>Rupert Grint is about as close to Ron Weasley as they could get, I suppose.
He ought to have been taller, and with all the fakery to make Hagrid big,
you'd think they could have done something to fake Ron's height.
<snip>
>And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids (neices,
>nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because
>of them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you? And what
>influences their choices more? The books, the movies, the video games?
I read Harry Potter on my own. None of the kids I am connected to have
been affected by my reading it, and they have not affected me re: HP.
=Tamar
gjw
<slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
>performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
>Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
>hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
>thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
>his clothes.
>
>I picture him as being a real misfit, along with Ron, who is tall and skinny
>and fades into the background of his colorful family, and Hermione who is
>bossy, a know-it-all and buck-toothed. These are the kids who live on the
>periphery of school life. The uncool squad. And for me it adds more to the
>story, because these misfits are the ones who wind up saving the world, and
>the school, again, and again. Despite their physical imperfections, their
>unpopular personality flaws, and their poverty.
>
>Harry and his friends are geeky.
I agree. That was my first reaction when I saw the young actors they
had cast in the three lead roles. They were all too good looking (with
the possible exception of Ron). Harry's hair was too perfect... None
of them looked the way I imagined.
But I must admit that the films have crept into my subconscious, and I
now have a hard time trying to retain my original images of the
trio...
(Fortunately, Snape looked just like I expected him to. So no
adjustments needed there... ;)
seasyde
[snip description of book "Consuming Kids"]
> She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy 500,000
> if you can believe it. Warner Bros. must have made a bazillion on it
> already), but she does say that the movies and video games influence kids
> and limit their imaginations. I.E. nobody *needs* to imagine what Hogwarts
> looks like, or what Voldemort looks like, its all been done for us with
> scenes and special effects. And she thinks that it takes away from the fun,
> creativity and especially the *personalization* of the story.
I think this could be said for most books that are made into movies.
>
> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>
> Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
> performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
> Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
> hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
> thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
> his clothes.
[snip further description of characters]
Agreed, although I think some improvements could be made with hair &
makeup. My main problems were that I thought some of the settings
were not as I imagined them. In particular the entrance hall
(although I thought the great hall was right on) and professor
Trelawny's classroom.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that the movies *don't* really impact on my
> enjoyment of the books. I still picture Harry the way I picture Harry.
> Unlike say, "Star Wars" where Mark Hamill will *always* be Luke Skywalker.
> I didn't picture Vivian Leigh when I read Gone with the Wind either.
Exactly. Sometimes, its whatever you come across first is what seems
"right". The movie has all the work done for you, the book you have
to fill in the blanks yourself. Sometimes it is difficult to re-think
a character/setting once it has settled in your mind.
>
> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
> Does that make the story better, or worse?
I don't think its a bad thing that they did the movies. No matter how
good the books are, there are some people who just don't like to read
and will never read them. Harry Potter is a good story and this way
more people will enjoy it. Granted they won't get the richness or
depth of the books - more like the [*]Cliff Notes version - but they
can still enjoy it.
I've seen the movies and enjoyed them. Fortunately I can then come
home and read the books and in my mind the visions pop right back to
the way they were before I saw the movies. Don't know if this is
unusual or not. Anyone else?
Lorri
[*] For those who don't know, Cliff Notes are a series of booklets
which contain a chapter by chapter summary of famous books. They are
meant to be a study aid and not to replace the books, Some teachers
will even make sure they give students test questions which are /not/
covered by Cliff Notes to ensure that the students actually read the
book!
seasyde
[snip description of book "Consuming Kids"]
> She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy 500,000
> if you can believe it. Warner Bros. must have made a bazillion on it
> already), but she does say that the movies and video games influence kids
> and limit their imaginations. I.E. nobody *needs* to imagine what Hogwarts
> looks like, or what Voldemort looks like, its all been done for us with
> scenes and special effects. And she thinks that it takes away from the fun,
> creativity and especially the *personalization* of the story.
I think this could be said for most books that are made into movies.
>
> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>
> Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
> performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
> Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
> hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
> thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
> his clothes.
[snip further description of characters]
Agreed, although I think some improvements could be made with hair &
makeup. My main problems were that I thought some of the settings
were not as I imagined them. In particular the entrance hall
(although I thought the great hall was right on) and professor
Trelawny's classroom.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that the movies *don't* really impact on my
> enjoyment of the books. I still picture Harry the way I picture Harry.
> Unlike say, "Star Wars" where Mark Hamill will *always* be Luke Skywalker.
> I didn't picture Vivian Leigh when I read Gone with the Wind either.
Exactly. Sometimes, its whatever you come across first is what seems
"right". The movie has all the work done for you, the book you have
to fill in the blanks yourself. Sometimes it is difficult to re-think
a character/setting once it has settled in your mind.
>
> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
> Does that make the story better, or worse?
I don't think its a bad thing that they did the movies. No matter how
good the books are, there are some people who just don't like to read
and will never read them. Harry Potter is a good story and this way
more people will enjoy it. Granted they won't get the richness or
depth of the books - more like the [*]Cliff Notes version - but they
can still enjoy it.
I've seen the movies and enjoyed them. Fortunately I can then come
home and read the books and in my mind the visions pop right back to
the way they were before I saw the movies. Don't know if this is
unusual or not. Anyone else?
Lorri
[*] For those who don't know, Cliff Notes are a series of booklets
which contain a chapter by chapter summary of famous books. They are
meant to be a study aid and not to replace the books, Some teachers
will even make sure they give students test questions which are /not/
covered by Cliff Notes to ensure that the students actually read the
book!
>
Lorn
There's a rumour that when Spielberg was to direct HP, he wanted H. J.
Osment for the job. How's that for an example of a good actor who
doesn't fit the role at all?
--
Leszek 'Lorn' Rybicki
drusilla
> Fab wrote:
> >>Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
> >>performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
> >>Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
> >>hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
> >>thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
> >>his clothes.
> >
> >
> > I definitely see the same Harry you see, but I really do love Radcliffe and
> > Grint in the new film. I think it's because Radcliffe can actually act now.
>
> There's a rumour that when Spielberg was to direct HP, he wanted H. J.
> Osment for the job.
HP:"I saw Voldemort"
Fudge:"YOu couldn't have! Voldemort is dead!"
HP:"Well... I see dead people"
Asotus
> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
> Does that make the story better, or worse?
I started to read the books before the movies came out, so I had in my
mind all the characters created, for example, I don't know why in my
mind Percy Weasley has black hair and looks soooo much like Damian of
the Omen II. And due to this sometimes I can't recognize the
characters in the movies. The Snape of the movie will never be like
the Snape of my books, 'my' Snape is so much mean and hatefull, and so
on with all the characters. Even the locations don't fit with the ones
in my mind, but eventough I like to go to the movies to see 'how they
will manage' some things.
> And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids (neices,
> nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because of
> them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you? And what influences
> their choices more? The books, the movies, the video games?
>
I knew Harry because a work mate and after I read the first two books
my niece started to read them because I told her. Now she's so much
fan than me, because she can get backpacks of HP, sheets of HP,
posters of HP and all that thing that I would like to have but I
rather not to :P
Asotus
Louis Epstein
> In article <K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com>,
> Dark Magic <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've been reading an interesting book called "Consuming Kids". It's about
>>the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their products.
>>
>>The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
>>influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
>>started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination,
>>and have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
>
> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
> won't.
> <snip>
Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
>
> =Tamar
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Ch...@nospam.com
<photo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com...
> > I've been reading an interesting book called "Consuming Kids". It's about
> > the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their
> > products.
> >
> > The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
> > influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
> > started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination,
> > and
> > have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
> >
> > She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy
> > 500,000
>
> Well, if she only got 500,000 (pounds? dollars? euros? what?) she must have
> some other damn good investments, because Fortune magazine rated her in
> their Richest People list as having a net worth of $1 BILLION.
the billion is the combo of the book royalties, film rights, any film
residuals, merch residuals etc.
It is highly possible that she sold the rights for so little because
she felt in her heart that Warners would be the truest to the spirit of
the books (and not do something wacked like trying to set the books in
the Nazi Regime or some such crap. or turn them into a total sex story,
etc)
or perhaps the book is wrong. she sold them for 500k cash and a percent
of the box office. Tha's not an uncommon deal for book rights.
Especially for a multiple book deal that includes, films, home video
release, toys etc.
Ch...@nospam.com
<si...@among.thecure.com> wrote:
> Fred and George are perfect in PoA but I thought they
> were wooden and just stared at the surroundings
> on the first two films.
everyone was wooden in the first two films.
Chris Columbus's way of working with kids is to basis just tell them
where to stand, how to look etc.
Alonso is the first director that actually asked them to act. And it
shows
Louis Epstein
> "Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com>...
>
> [snip description of book "Consuming Kids"]
>
>> She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a lousy 500,000
>> if you can believe it. Warner Bros. must have made a bazillion on it
>> already), but she does say that the movies and video games influence kids
>> and limit their imaginations. I.E. nobody *needs* to imagine what Hogwarts
>> looks like, or what Voldemort looks like, its all been done for us with
>> scenes and special effects. And she thinks that it takes away from the fun,
>> creativity and especially the *personalization* of the story.
>
> I think this could be said for most books that are made into movies.
And is a reason not to make books with too much content to
fit into movies,into movies.
>>
>> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
>> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
>> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>>
>> Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
>> performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
>> Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
>> hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
>> thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they
>> aren't his clothes.
I see Harry as looking somewhat more like Grandpre's illustrations
than like Radcliffe,though Grandpre is way off on Snape.
Least appropriate look of Radcliffe's is when he smiles...
>> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
>> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
>> Does that make the story better, or worse?
>
> I don't think its a bad thing that they did the movies. No matter how
> good the books are, there are some people who just don't like to read
> and will never read them. Harry Potter is a good story and this way
> more people will enjoy it. Granted they won't get the richness or
> depth of the books - more like the [*]Cliff Notes version - but they
> can still enjoy it.
But why is it good for anyone to get an adulterated version?
I generally deplore adaptation and reinterpretation.
> I've seen the movies and enjoyed them. Fortunately I can then come
> home and read the books and in my mind the visions pop right back to
> the way they were before I saw the movies. Don't know if this is
> unusual or not. Anyone else?
>
> Lorri
>
> [*] For those who don't know, Cliff Notes are a series of booklets
> which contain a chapter by chapter summary of famous books. They are
> meant to be a study aid and not to replace the books, Some teachers
> will even make sure they give students test questions which are /not/
> covered by Cliff Notes to ensure that the students actually read the
> book!
>
>> Shannon
stark
>> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
>> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
>> won't.
>> <snip>
>
> Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
> about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
> meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
And, of course, your opinion is so important that its perfectly okay to
force it upon others.
--
stark
Support C-SCAN:
Condemn Shemione to the Cold Abyss of Nonexistence
Darmok
While I'm glad that Spielberg didn't get any directing contracts for
HP, I'm forced to wonder how the films would have turned out, had
Haley Joel Osment turned out to be Harry. Osment is the best child
actor I've ever seen .. hands down. I've seen all his movies, and his
acting skills exceed those of Dan Radcliffe by several orders of
magnitude. Thanks to Chris Columbus, and his staff, who cast all the
characters, Dan, Rupert and Emma have been polished from their
inexperienced start. Don't know if any of them will be around for
OoTP, or if they will even shoot that movie, but they have progressed
well.
"Mirab, with sails unfurled .."
Fab
>Osment for the job. How's that for an example of a good actor who
>doesn't fit the role at all?
>
>--
>Leszek 'Lorn' Rybicki
>
It's not a rumor, he actually made a bid. And get THIS: he wanted it all CGI.
Ugh.
Fab
>actor I've ever seen .. hands down. I've seen all his movies, and his
>acting skills exceed those of Dan Radcliffe by several orders of
>magnitude.
Not anymore. I think the tables have completely turned. Radcliffe has grown
by leaps and bounds, and in the hands of a proper director, he's shown himself
to be scary talented.
Louis Epstein
> On 2004-09-23, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
>>> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
>>> won't.
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
>> about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
>> meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
>
> And, of course, your opinion is so important that its perfectly okay
> to force it upon others.
Very much so in this case!
Untold millions have had their chance to discover something
of rare and vast worth in the only way anyone ever ought to
discover it ruined forever.
brand
> nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because
of
> them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you? And what influences
> their choices more? The books, the movies, the video games?
Well, I must admit, some of Daniel's looks have started to work their way
into my mental image of Harry. It would be probably impossible to get
someone that was exactly like my mental version of Harry, and if you could
fine him, he probably would be such a terrible an actor it would make you
cry. Or he's have some terrible speech problem.
Emma, not really. I still have the picture of Hermione that isn't to much
like Emma. Rupert was close enough to Ron, he has no chance of working into
my mental image.
The twins look just like I thought they would, but to bad the writters
ruined them.
As for the adults, well, they are all pretty close to how I pictured them.
Juli17
>about
>> > the way companies market to, and influence, children to buy their
>> > products.
>> >
>> > The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way consumerism
>> > influences the populace, children especially. She says that the books
>> > started out as an amazing reading phenomena, an exercise in imagination,
>> > and
>> > have now become just another corporate conglomerate.
>> >
And does she think this is something new? "The Wizard of Oz" anyone? "Little
Women"? "Peter Pan"? "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"?
What great children's book *hasn't* been made into a movie? What great novel
period? "Gone With the Wind," "Moby Dick," "Oliver Twist," "Great
Expectations," "Pride and Prejudice" (a dozen times!), "The Grapes of Wrath,"
"To Kill a Mockingbird," etc, etc, etc, ad infintum, have been made into fine
movies. It's hard to even imagine the movies existing without great novels from
which to draw inspiration.
<snip>
>It is highly possible that she sold the rights for so little because
>she felt in her heart that Warners would be the truest to the spirit of
>the books (and not do something wacked like trying to set the books in
>the Nazi Regime or some such crap. or turn them into a total sex story,
>etc)
>
Whatever the amount of money JKR received, she certainly didn't *need* it. If
she'd truly been against her books being made into movies, she could have
refused any offer. I'm sure her motive wasn't purely money. She probably did it
as much or more for her fans, many of whom wanted to see the HP books realized
on film.
Julie
Q
> "Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com...
>
> > Harry and his friends are geeky.
> >
> > Dan Radcliffe doesn't fit that description.
> >
> > I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
> > buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
>
> I disagree, I think those two are perfect. I don't think Dan
> is too attractive to be Harry, I mean he is described to be
> quite handsome,
??? where? nowhere in the books, certainly. i've seen 'scrawny',
'skinny' and 'scruffy', but never 'handsome'. (just because YOU may
think those characteristics are attractive doesn't mean rowling
intended them to be).
> come on, he had some Cho Chang innit.
'innit'? so...are you english or spokane indian, then? :)
> The buck-toothness I can ignore, she get's rid of them in GoF anyway,
> and she is supposed to beautiful at the Yule Ball so...
yeah...so much so that harry doesn't recognize her at first. the
problem with making hermione cute from word go is that when they do
the yule ball scene in movie 4, it'll just look like hermione in a
slightly fancier getup...not the jaw-dropping 'oh my god, that's
HERMIONE???' reaction that rowling originally intended.
> Fred and George are perfect in PoA but I thought they
> were wooden and just stared at the surroundings
> on the first two films.
agreed there. amazing how much giving them a decent haircut improved
their acting, too.
> Percy is hilarious, I could just feel the pompousness
> ozzing from Chris Rankin.
yeah, i like him too...unfortunately he just hasn't had very much
chance to show us what he can do with the character (percy's been on
screen for what - maybe five minutes total in all three movies?).
> > Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
>
> Yeah (except that he's wearing way too much make up...)
nah, i like it. especially those creepy all-black contact lenses.
makes it seem like he's looking right through you. *shudder*
> The movie changes with Snape are the worse! Wishing Harry
> 'good luck' against Sylverin. lol when you see Alan Rickman do
> that, he does this funny sideways glance like he's looking at the
> screenwriter and thinking 'wtf'.
more like, 'good luck, potter...(and you're gonna need it, you little
shrimp)'
Q
favorite movie snape moment so far: toss up between the boggart scene
and his sulking up onto the platform when lockhart introduced him as
'my assistant' in cos
Q
exactly. coming out of the theatre after seeing poa, a friend asked me
if they were gonna recast the kids after movie 4. i said i hoped not;
they'd only just starting being decent actors.
that said, i'd have to say rupert grint seems like the most natural
actor of the three. even with the disastrous bug-eyed
cartoon-character acting columbus had him do in cos, he's always been
the most consistently and comfortably in-character of all the kids.
Q
would love to see him take on other roles as he gets older...i have a
feeling he can do a lot more than the potter films are letting him
Stormie Parsons
"Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com>...
<snippity>
> nobody *needs* to imagine what Hogwarts
> looks like, or what Voldemort looks like, its all been done for us with
> scenes and special effects. And she thinks that it takes away from the fun,
> creativity and especially the *personalization* of the story.
I saw the first movie before I read the books, and yes it was the
movie that inspired me to read them. This will of course color the
way I respond to the rest of the post....
<more snippage>
> I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
> buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
My niece, with whom I saw the first movie, particularly liked Hermione
because of the teeth (a feature she shares), and was disappointed that
they didn't show up in the flick. My mother, on the other hand,
refuses to see the second movie because she "can't stand that girl's
hair".
> Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
Ah, and this *is* where I must agree that the movies ruined my
imagining the books. See, I've been loopy for Rickman's voice ever
since he was Colonel Brandon, so that has caused me to cut Snape
rather more slack than he probably deserves. When in the first movie
he threw open the door and stalked into the classroom and That Voice
said "There will be no foolish wand-waving", I about dissolved.
> I guess the bottom line is that the movies *don't* really impact on my
> enjoyment of the books.
Me neither. I can enjoy both of them, even realizing that they're not
the same. Frex (for those of you who dig English history) I'm a big
Ricardian-- I think that Richard III is the coolest guy ever to wear a
crown. But I also like Shakespeare's play Richard III, even though he
makes Richard out to be the foulest thing since tooth decay. I don't
see any cognitive dissonance here; the historical figure and the play
are two entirely different things. The HP movies are just *one*
interpretation of the books. I enjoy seeing other people's
interpretations of stuff I like. It doesn't generally change how I
see it, though it might add layers to the depth.
> And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids (neices,
> nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like Harry Potter because of
> them? Or do they like Harry Potter because of you?
I started it. I'd read the books and owned the first two movies
before my girls were old enough to appreciate them. They've both seen
the movies now (several times over), and enjoyed them. My elder
daughter (she's seven) has just read the first two books and started
_Prisoner_ today. Much as she has enjoyed the flicks, she really
prefers the books.
Stormie
sickamongthecure
"Q" <sys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:587623da.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I disagree, I think those two are perfect. I don't think Dan
> > is too attractive to be Harry, I mean he is described to be
> > quite handsome,
>
>
> ??? where? nowhere in the books, certainly. i've seen 'scrawny',
> 'skinny' and 'scruffy', but never 'handsome'. (just because YOU may
> think those characteristics are attractive doesn't mean rowling
> intended them to be).
Nah not in the books. Only Dudley, Lockhart, Cedric, Tom Riddle,
Maxime, and Sirius and a few others are described as handsome.
I recall JK saying it somewhere before but she may have been on
about the actor but alas, we know Harry isn't supposed to be that
bad skinny nerdy anyway, right?
> > come on, he had some Cho Chang innit.
>
>
> 'innit'? so...are you english or spokane indian, then? :)
English, but I like to say innit, innit.
> > The buck-toothness I can ignore, she get's rid of them in GoF anyway,
> > and she is supposed to beautiful at the Yule Ball so...
>
>
> yeah...so much so that harry doesn't recognize her at first. the
> problem with making hermione cute from word go is that when they do
> the yule ball scene in movie 4, it'll just look like hermione in a
> slightly fancier getup...not the jaw-dropping 'oh my god, that's
> HERMIONE???' reaction that rowling originally intended.
Hrm I'd agree with that now after movie 3. (damn she's grown into a
fine girl from chamber to askaban aye?) but I don't see how they could
have really done the surprise thing with any actress. You remember
all them generic teen movies "ugly duckling- jock bets to turn her into
stunner-she does-jock falls for her-she finds out about jocks bet-they
fall out-they reconsiliant-blah"? lol that never works! Unless they made
Hermione to have totally whacky busy hair, fake spots, goofer teeth,
and big glasses.
> > Percy is hilarious, I could just feel the pompousness
> > ozzing from Chris Rankin.
>
> > > Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
> >
> > Yeah (except that he's wearing way too much make up...)
>
>
> nah, i like it. especially those creepy all-black contact lenses.
> makes it seem like he's looking right through you. *shudder*
Those are cool, he seems to be wearing thick white/grey blusher
or something though.
> more like, 'good luck, potter...(and you're gonna need it, you little
> shrimp)'
It was more the congratulating him on the troll thing, what was it,
'nice work potter', or something that was bit odd.
stark
> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2004-09-23, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>>> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
>>>> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
>>>> won't.
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
>>> about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
>>> meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
>>
>> And, of course, your opinion is so important that its perfectly okay
>> to force it upon others.
>
> Very much so in this case!
>
> Untold millions have had their chance to discover something
> of rare and vast worth in the only way anyone ever ought to
> discover it ruined forever.
*In your opinion*.
This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
movies were better than the books in both cases. Some people find the
Harry Potter books overly juvenile and hollow (Not that I do...), just
as many people find Lord of the Rings dull and overly wordy. For these
people, the movies are most likely much better.
Most people don't obsess over books like some fans do. They really
don't see the lack of lines by Snape or the fact that elves showed up at
Helm's Deep things that they should even think about for more than
twelve seconds. They read books for fun. They watch movies for fun.
They want only to be entertained while they are reading the book or
watching the movie, and don't form any deep attachement to it. But they
enjoy it nonetheless, and there are many, many more of them than people
who believe as you do.
But what you are saying is that its better to ignore their opinions and
the enjoyment they get from the movies, than for you to be upset.
It is no different than burning all other impressionist paintings
because they just aren't as good as Monet while you shout out to the
masses: "No one should come to impressionism but through Monet!!"
In the end it comes down to simply selfishness. *You* (and there are a
few others like you...) don't like the idea of movies based on the books
you love, and therefore *no one* should ever get to see them. Everyone
should just conform to your ideas, because yours are right and anyone
who disagrees is wrong, by definition. I find such egotism disgusting.
It shows a complete lack of care for anyone else. You care only about
making yourself happy, even if by doing that you take enjoyment from
other people's lives.
If you don't like the movies: Don't watch them. If other people do, be
happy for them. If people see the movies first and see those characters
in the books, who really cares? Wasn't the purpose of watching the
movie and reading the book entertainment? If you're having fun
picturing the actors as you read the book, what is the problem?
I guess I just find the idea of telling someone they can't have some
piece of art because *you* don't like it to be disgustingly xenophobic
and quasi-fascist. But obviously there are a lot of people who really
don't see that as a bad thing (so long as no one is telling them that
its their views which are wrong).
stark
> While I'm glad that Spielberg didn't get any directing contracts for
> HP, I'm forced to wonder how the films would have turned out, had
> Haley Joel Osment turned out to be Harry. Osment is the best child
> actor I've ever seen .. hands down. I've seen all his movies, and his
> acting skills exceed those of Dan Radcliffe by several orders of
> magnitude.
I guess I disagree. Osment is talented, and I'm not sure I could point
to any child actor and say "[S]He's more talented than Osment in all
respects", but he seems just as hit-n-miss as any other child actor. I
am of the opinion that child actors need to be hand picked for roles
that are best suited to them. Osment has done good work, but it doesn't
mean he can do everything.
Not to mention that he would have been attrocious as a British boy.
> Thanks to Chris Columbus, and his staff, who cast all the
> characters, Dan, Rupert and Emma have been polished from their
> inexperienced start. Don't know if any of them will be around for
> OoTP, or if they will even shoot that movie, but they have progressed
> well.
You almost forgot, though it might cause you pain to admit it, that much
of their improvement came from the work of Alfonso Cuaron. He was
chosen mostly for his ability to help young actors learn how to deliver
good performances. They didn't improve much from PS/SS to CoS, but huge
numbers of critics and industry members remarked on the increase in
acting skill between CoS and PoA. Never mind that, though, good
performances from the actors isn't nearly as important as the location
of the Whomping Willow
Jano
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:15:52 +0200, Lorn <lo...@op.pl> wrote:
>
> >Fab wrote:
> >>>Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
> >>>performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry Potter.
> >>>Harry is scrawny, ill-fed. His glasses are held together with tape. His
> >>>hair is unmanageable, it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a
> >>>thing with it. His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
> >>>his clothes.
> >>
> >>
> >> I definitely see the same Harry you see, but I really do love Radcliffe and
> >> Grint in the new film. I think it's because Radcliffe can actually act now.
> >
> >There's a rumour that when Spielberg was to direct HP, he wanted H. J.
> >Osment for the job. How's that for an example of a good actor who
> >doesn't fit the role at all?
>
> While I'm glad that Spielberg didn't get any directing contracts for
> HP, I'm forced to wonder how the films would have turned out, had
> Haley Joel Osment turned out to be Harry. Osment is the best child
> actor I've ever seen .. hands down.
Am I the one who can't bear Osment? It's artificial, I disliked it in
the 6th sense and hated it in A.I. (like the rest of the movie, BTW).
Louis Epstein
g> On 2004-09-24, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2004-09-23, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>>>> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
>>>>> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
>>>>> won't.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
>>>> about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
>>>> meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
>>>
>>> And, of course, your opinion is so important that its perfectly okay
>>> to force it upon others.
>>
>> Very much so in this case!
>>
>> Untold millions have had their chance to discover something
>> of rare and vast worth in the only way anyone ever ought to
>> discover it ruined forever.
>
> *In your opinion*.
>
> This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
> like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
> movies were better than the books in both cases.
And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
to an original!
> Some people find the Harry Potter books overly juvenile and hollow (Not
> that I do...), just as many people find Lord of the Rings dull and
> overly wordy. For these people, the movies are most likely much better.
And permitting them this choice can not rationally be defended,
however desperately you make irrational defenses of it.
> Most people don't obsess over books like some fans do. They really
> don't see the lack of lines by Snape or the fact that elves showed up
> at Helm's Deep things that they should even think about for more than
> twelve seconds. They read books for fun. They watch movies for fun.
> They want only to be entertained while they are reading the book or
> watching the movie, and don't form any deep attachement to it. But they
> enjoy it nonetheless, and there are many, many more of them than people
> who believe as you do.
>
> But what you are saying is that its better to ignore their opinions and
> the enjoyment they get from the movies, than for you to be upset.
Yes.
I believe that there are certain forms of
enjoyment that ought never to exist.
Fools do not deserve to be catered to.
> It is no different than burning all other impressionist paintings
> because they just aren't as good as Monet while you shout out to the
> masses: "No one should come to impressionism but through Monet!!"
Hardly...it's more like burning re-sized,re-colored prints
of Monet done by photographers who think it's bringing
enjoyment of the original to more people by distributing
depictions in a deliberately altered format,while shouting
that one must come to Monet's painting by seeing what he
actually painted.
> In the end it comes down to simply selfishness. *You* (and there are a
> few others like you...) don't like the idea of movies based on the books
> you love, and therefore *no one* should ever get to see them. Everyone
> should just conform to your ideas, because yours are right and anyone
> who disagrees is wrong, by definition. I find such egotism disgusting.
I assure you,I find your attitude just as disgusting
as you find mine.
> It shows a complete lack of care for anyone else. You care only about
> making yourself happy, even if by doing that you take enjoyment from
> other people's lives.
Your socialist-distribution-of-delight concept
is the least respectful toward creative intellect.
> If you don't like the movies: Don't watch them.
> If other people do, be happy for them.
NO!!
That they could be made happy by such movies hurts me deeply
and you have no excuse for not being hurt by it as well.
> If people see the movies first and see those characters
> in the books, who really cares?
Anyone who really cares about the books.
> Wasn't the purpose of watching the
> movie and reading the book entertainment? If you're having fun
> picturing the actors as you read the book, what is the problem?
That they are picturing the actors as they read the book.
That they consider ANY difference in the movie from the book
not to be a cause for resentment.
> I guess I just find the idea of telling someone they can't have some
> piece of art because *you* don't like it to be disgustingly xenophobic
> and quasi-fascist. But obviously there are a lot of people who really
> don't see that as a bad thing (so long as no one is telling them that
> its their views which are wrong).
Twisting someone else's work is not art.
Darmok
Have you seen "Pay It Forward"? How about his latest, "Secondhand
Lions" ? Both are far different from the 2 you mentioned, and he's
fantastic in both. Warning: If you are the type to wear your emotions
on your sleeve, you'll need a few hankies for these 2 movies.
Fab
>like LoTR*.
/me waves
Chistaya
> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the
> books well before the first movie came out. I already had a
> notion in my head about what Harry Potter looked like, and let me
> tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
Was it like the Mary GrandPre illustration, by any chance?
> Now, nothing against Dan. He's a fine young actor. I think his
> performances are great. But he's too good looking to be Harry
> Potter.
Are we ever actually told whether Harry is nice looking or not?
I don't remember any other descriptions of his facial features
beyond the scar and the green eyes. She does say he has a "thin
face" but it's not clear whether it's thin-featured or just
an average face that's somewhat gaunt.
> Harry is scrawny, ill-fed.
I'm sure that if the casting department could have gotten the
perfect kid, he'd have been that, but unlike an adult actor who
can adjust his weight for a role, I suspect it's against the law
in the U.K. to starve a kid for the sake of acting.
WB obviously went with the best kid they could find, blue-eyes,
normal body weight, and all. Finding a good kid to play Harry
was and still is a mighty tall order. They had to find someone
who was British, the same age as the character, the same coloring
(or within the range of the makeup department's skill), and he
had to be a decent actor, personable, and emotionally stable.
Then, on top of all of that, Chris Columbus imposed the additional
restriction that the kid's _whole family_ had to be deemed
sensible enough to withstand the pressures of show business.
If you want to argue that Dan hasn't had the occasional moment
where it looked like he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper
bag with a machete, that's one thing, but be realistic...in
terms of appearance, he's pretty close to Harry's description,
and even more amazingly, he hasn't matured at a rate that's
outpaced the films. Isn't that close enough?
> His glasses are held together with tape. His hair is unmanageable,
> it sticks up all over the place and he can't do a thing with it.
Now, when it comes to the hair, I'm with you. They have totally
messed up the hair. We had two movies of "bowl" cut and then an
avant-garde, architectural mess, and now Donny-Osmond-circa-1972
coming to a theater near you in November 2005. Why is this such
a problem? As a public service to whomever is directing the fifth
film, let me explain how to fix this: right before the film goes
into production, cut about half the length off, then tell Dan to
go to sleep one night with wet hair....
> His clothes don't fit properly, mostly because they aren't
> his clothes.
Another inexplicable, easy-to-fix failure of the production crew,
made even more noticeable by the switch to muggle clothes in the
last film.
> Harry and his friends are geeky.
> Dan Radcliffe doesn't fit that description.
Dunno, he seems pretty geeky to me.
> I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's
> neither buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
In terms of her appearance versus the character's description,
she's the worst casting of the three.
> Rupert Grint is about as close to Ron Weasley as they could get,
> I suppose. As are the twins who play Fred and George. I'm not
> crazy about Chris Rankin as Percy. Or about what's her name as
> Ginny.
I don't feel quite as strongly as you do about the twins. Maybe
if they had more screen time, I'd have a better read on them....
Chris Rankin as Percy is okay. I don't care for Bonny Wright's
casting, though. She seems like a nice enough kid, but perhaps
a little too demure to play a tomboyish kid sister.
> Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
Well, now if we're going to be picky, Rickman is too old to play
Snape, and his nose, despite being prominent, isn't hooked. Don't
get me wrong--I think he's been great in the part, but I thought
he was really starting to show his age in POA.
> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect
> the way you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the
> character rights? Does that make the story better, or worse?
I think it would have been better if she had waited and they could
have made the movies as a continuous project, instead of the
situation they have now, where WB is sweating about whether she's
going to finish writing before the cast gets too old.
> And, here's the big one, if you have kids or influence over kids
> (neices, nephews, students, younger siblings etc) do you like
> Harry Potter because of them? Or do they like Harry Potter
> because of you? And what influences their choices more? The
> books, the movies, the video games?
We originally bought the books for our son before the movies came
out. My interest in the material is independent of his, but he's
still a really big fan.
Chistaya
>> Thanks to Chris Columbus, and his staff, who cast all the
>> characters, Dan, Rupert and Emma have been polished from their
>> inexperienced start. Don't know if any of them will be around for
>> OoTP, or if they will even shoot that movie, but they have
>> progressed well.
> You almost forgot, though it might cause you pain to admit it,
> that much of their improvement came from the work of Alfonso Cuaron.
I have to disagree with you here. I thought Cuaron did a lousy job
in terms of the kids' acting. The scene on the train where the
dementors appear has to be, without a doubt, the single worst scene
Emma has done. She was as wooden as a log there. I'll spare you
the rehash of what I wrote when POA came out, but I thought Cuaron
did a horrible job of coaching Dan, too. Unless you are 99th-
percentile gifted as an actor or extremely experienced, you are not
going to have the awareness to go through large emotional transitions
without outside perspective to guide you, and Cuaron was so obsessed
with getting this hormonal teenage experience on film that he totally
lost sight of the way JKR shaped Harry's personality in the book.
Harry wasn't supposed to act like he was a raving lunatic with PMS,
and that was entirely Cuaron's fault.
> He was chosen mostly for his ability to help young actors learn
> how to deliver good performances.
LOL...based on "Y Tu Mama Tambien"? Cuaron has yet to coax a good
performance out of anybody who couldn't already act for some other
director--young or old.
> They didn't improve much from PS/SS to CoS,
No, actually Chris Columbus said they had a huge improvement
in the second film in terms of their ability to get through the
takes more quickly.
> but huge numbers of critics and industry members remarked on the
> increase in acting skill between CoS and PoA.
Well if the critics say so, it must be true....
I think you are discounting the normal progression of the kids'
learning curve. As they get older and more experienced, they
become more aware of the craft of acting. Their ability to
deliver realistic performances will naturally increase. I don't
doubt for a minute that WB could have brought in any other
director for POA, and the kids still would have demonstrated
improvements. Frankly, I don't think WB has hit on the right
director to get really spectacular performances out of them yet.
Fab
>I have to disagree with you here. I thought Cuaron did a lousy job
>in terms of the kids' acting. The scene on the train where the
>dementors appear has to be, without a doubt, the single worst scene
>Emma has done. She was as wooden as a log there. I'll spare you
>the rehash of what I wrote when POA came out, but I thought Cuaron
>did a horrible job of coaching Dan, too.
Emma's beautiful, and fun to see onscreen, but she's not a very good actor. I
disagree with you completely about Dan's scenes. They were as close to
flawless as one could find. Were I still studying the Stanislavsky Method, I'd
bring up his recent work in class.
>Unless you are 99th-
>percentile gifted as an actor or extremely experienced, you are not
>going to have the awareness to go through large emotional transitions
>without outside perspective to guide you, and Cuaron was so obsessed
>with getting this hormonal teenage experience on film that he totally
>lost sight of the way JKR shaped Harry's personality in the book.
I agree with the first sentence, and think Radcliffe is in that percentile.
And I'm not alone. I recently attended an actors' studio workshop with Richard
Chamberlain, who had nothing but praise for Dan. Other "Serious Actors" there
concurred.
I cannot disagree more with your second sentence. I think you're trying to
judge a man's entire career with one movie (Y tu mama tambien) that you either
heard about and didn't see or saw and had your straitlaced morals offended.
See some of his other work.
>Harry wasn't supposed to act like he was a raving lunatic with PMS,
>and that was entirely Cuaron's fault.
Good thing he wasn't, as he didn't.
>LOL...based on "Y Tu Mama Tambien"? Cuaron has yet to coax a good
>performance out of anybody who couldn't already act for some other
>director--young or old.
So not true.
Chris Columbus wouldn't have been able get a good performance out of a young
Marlon Brando - and that's saying something.
>> They didn't improve much from PS/SS to CoS,
>
>No, actually Chris Columbus said they had a huge improvement
>in the second film in terms of their ability to get through the
>takes more quickly.
Well, that's great for Chris, but the finished product didn't show it at all.
>> but huge numbers of critics and industry members remarked on the
>> increase in acting skill between CoS and PoA.
>
>Well if the critics say so, it must be true....
Oh, as opposed to if *you* say so? Goddess forbid that people who actually
know about films be considered appropriate critics of the art form. Do you
have your dental work done by the person at WalMart you buy your toothpaste
from?
>I think you are discounting the normal progression of the kids'
>learning curve. As they get older and more experienced, they
>become more aware of the craft of acting. Their ability to
>deliver realistic performances will naturally increase. I don't
>doubt for a minute that WB could have brought in any other
>director for POA, and the kids still would have demonstrated
>improvements. Frankly, I don't think WB has hit on the right
>director to get really spectacular performances out of them yet.
I saw one spectacular performance in PoA.
Louis Epstein
>>art you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
>>like LoTR*.
>
> /me waves
>
I have never been ignorant of the existence of such tasteless
persons.But I object intensely to any effort to offer them a
"Lite Tolkien" alternative...if they can't appreciate the Real
Thing,let them labor in the darkness of their own devising!
gjw
>On 2004-09-24, Louis Epstein <lep...@shell.fcc.net> wrote:
>> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2004-09-23, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>>>> Yes and no... the ones who got into it via the books will still have the
>>>>> chance to have their own images. The ones who start with the movies
>>>>> won't.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly...this is something that makes my blood boil so much
>>>> about Lord of the Rings movies,since those books have long
>>>> meant much more to me than Potter ever will.
>>>
>>> And, of course, your opinion is so important that its perfectly okay
>>> to force it upon others.
>>
>> Very much so in this case!
>>
>> Untold millions have had their chance to discover something
>> of rare and vast worth in the only way anyone ever ought to
>> discover it ruined forever.
>
>*In your opinion*.
>
>This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
>like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
>movies were better than the books in both cases. Some people find the
>Harry Potter books overly juvenile and hollow (Not that I do...), just
>as many people find Lord of the Rings dull and overly wordy. For these
>people, the movies are most likely much better.
While I agree with you that the movie versions of LOTR could be
considered less "dull and overly wordy" than the LOTR books (by the
general public), it would (IMO) be hard to argue that the HP movies
are "less juvenile and hollow" than the HP books.
My feeling is that the exact opposite is true - the HP movies tend to
oversimplify the books, eliminating (by necessity) the rich details,
characterization and subplots that attract the adult fans in the first
place. And seeing the very young actors in the flesh up on the screen
(especially in the first two films) tends to make the movie series
seem more juvenile than when one merely imagines the characters while
reading the books.
gjw
<lep...@shell.fcc.net> wrote:
>And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
>There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
>to an original!
The obvious problem to this argument is that we would then never have
movies based on books or plays. And about half of the films made are
based on such non-original sources. "Gone With the Wind" comes to
mind, as does "The Wizard of Oz", "Schindler's List", "All the
President's Men", "Amadeus""Silence of the Lambs", "L.A. Confidential"
"A Beautiful Mind", "The Pianist", etc.
gjw
<coonc...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>There's a rumour that when Spielberg was to direct HP, he wanted H. J.
>>Osment for the job. How's that for an example of a good actor who
>>doesn't fit the role at all?
You know, when I first heard that, years ago, I was aghast. The idea
seemed unthinkable.
But I was watching "Pay it Forward" for the first time the other day,
and was admiring the kid's acting skills. I tried to picture what he
would look like with dark hair and glasses, and actually, it wouldn't
have been that bad. He's definitely a better actor than Daniel. The
main problem, as I see it, is that he isn't British, and might not
have been able to do a believable accent.
(Of course, that's not to mention the innumerable heart attacks that
would have occurred in Britain, had the role of Harry gone to an
American. ;)
Fab
>>>art you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
>>>like LoTR*.
>>
>> /me waves
>>
>
>I have never been ignorant of the existence of such tasteless
>persons.But I object intensely to any effort to offer them a
>"Lite Tolkien" alternative...if they can't appreciate the Real
>Thing,let them labor in the darkness of their own devising!
Based on your homophobic rants past, being someone you don't like puts me in
the best of company.
Q
> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>
>
> Harry and his friends are geeky.
agreed. for a real culture shock, anyone who's always imagined them as
the movie kids should have a look at rowling's own drawing of them up
on her site. i could never quite picture what rowling meant about
hermione's hair and teeth problems until i saw that sketch, and it
immediately endeared hermione to me even more.
> Dan Radcliffe doesn't fit that description.
no he doesn't, but i like him as harry anyway. for one thing, he's got
that laid back, slightly-put-upon-and-confused-at-all-the-attention
'everyman' quality the character really needs. for another, i think it
would be really hard to find an eleven year old actor that scrawny
(too much puppy fat still at that age) without making the parents in
the audience want to call social services on the filmmakers.
> I'm not thrilled with Emma Watson as Hermione, either. She's neither
> buck-toothed nor bushy-headed.
agreed. of all the cast she's the one i have the biggest problem with.
she does an okay acting job (well...in poa, at least), but she's way,
WAY too preppy to play hermione.
when i first saw her picture after listening to the audiobooks i went,
'um...wtf? after four books of description, columbus suddenly decides
hermione looks like a cheerleader??'
just more proof that actresses are cast more on looks than talent even
in britain, i guess. :(
> Rupert Grint is about as close to Ron Weasley as they could get, I suppose.
as i've said before, in my book he's the most natural actor of all the
kids, and i think in this case they were really wise to go with a kid
who could really act as opposed to one that looked exactly like
rowling's description.
rupert grint may not look as tall and skinny as ron, but he's got
ron's particular mixture of loyalty, stubbornness and near-willful
cluelessness nailed right down to a T.
(we won't talk about the mugging he did in cos. that was columbus's
fault. stupid home alone acting coach...bad director. bad. no oscar
for you.)
> As are the twins who play Fred and George.
they singularly (no pun intended) failed to stand out for me at all in
the first two films, then suddenly in poa they'd burst into having a
noticeable personality (rather than just being one character that said
something with two heads at once).
> Alan Rickman is spot-on Snape, but he never gets to really show it.
hear hear. although i do enjoy the little ways they manage to tweak up
the character when he is onscreen (ie the 'go play with your chemistry
set' line; having the paintings hassle him, etc).
> So what do you think? Does the commercialism of the series affect the way
> you read the story? Are you glad that Rowling sold the character rights?
> Does that make the story better, or worse?
i started listening to the audiobooks while they were making the first
movie, so i kind of had the actors in mind when i imagined the story.
over time that's melded into something halfway between the movie
characters and the way i'd started seeing them myself.
now although i mostly think you should read a book before you see a
movie based on it, i don't necessarily agree 100% with the old 'it's
never as good as your own imagination' theory. this is because
sometimes, for whatever reason, i just don't get a very clear picture
in my head of a certain character, landscape, etc; and other versions
of the story (like audiobook readings and movies) really help to fill
in the gaps.
professor trelawny is a good example. she never really stood out for
me - for some reason i imagined her as much older than she was in the
movie, although i didn't have a much clearer picture than that - and
because of that vagueness, she wasn't half as vibrant for me as she
could have been. only after i saw emma thompson's (brilliant) 'goofy
ex-hippie' take on the character did she really come alive for me.
sometimes the movies alter my concept of a character after the fact,
and this can be good and bad. i'm not too sure anymore how i
originally pictured lockhart, but it sure as blue blazes wasn't
kenneth branaugh. he had such fun with the role, though, that i ended
up picturing him when i reread cos, much to my annoyance.
otoh, i had a *very* clear idea of what lupin was like after hearing
the audiobook...but when i saw david thewlis's (totally different)
take on him, i liked it so much that his performance has kind of
merged with my original idea of the character.
and i don't think i'd have liked mcgonagall half as much without
picturing her as maggie smith. she does the strict/softie thing so
well with those big wonderful eyes...
Q
wondering who's playing ludo bagman (another vague character for me
before hearing jim dale's take on him). i kind of thought brendan
gleeson (who's playing moody) would have made a much better bagman,
but oh well. we shall see...
sickamongthecure
"Fab" <discov...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
news:20040924220328...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >
> >I have to disagree with you here. I thought Cuaron did a lousy job
> >in terms of the kids' acting. The scene on the train where the
> >dementors appear has to be, without a doubt, the single worst scene
> >Emma has done. She was as wooden as a log there. I'll spare you
> >the rehash of what I wrote when POA came out, but I thought Cuaron
> >did a horrible job of coaching Dan, too.
>
Cuaron did a fantastic job man! You can really feel it, through
the longer shots and the way they interact with each other on
screen, and the Train scene is a perfect example of that.
Err the horrible jobs was the questionable scene transitions-
like at the end of the film or when PMT Harry is on the bench,
and says "WHEN I FIND HIM, I'M GOING TO KILL HIM
*HALF-WHEEZE, PANT, PANT*"
I mean, christ mr.editor, couldn't you have at least waited a
quarter of a second later or before, 'cause it makes Dan
look like he really needs to pee.
Fab
>"Fab" <discov...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
>news:20040924220328...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> >
>> >I have to disagree with you here. I thought Cuaron did a lousy job
>> >in terms of the kids' acting. The scene on the train where the
>> >dementors appear has to be, without a doubt, the single worst scene
>> >Emma has done. She was as wooden as a log there. I'll spare you
>> >the rehash of what I wrote when POA came out, but I thought Cuaron
>> >did a horrible job of coaching Dan, too.
I didn't state the above. In fact, I disagree strongly with the above. PLEASE
check your attributes.
sickamongthecure
"Fab" <discov...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
>
> I didn't state the above. In fact, I disagree strongly with the above.
PLEASE
> check your attributes.
>
> Fab
>
> New boards are up: http://www.fabsboards.com
... I blame Outlook express and my laziness okay!?
How does everyone view these forums anyh00t?
Jano
I haven't seen these, so maybe my problem is only when he is combined
with Spielberg.
Louis Epstein
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:23:15 -0500, Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>>And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
>>There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
>>to an original!
>
> The obvious problem to this argument is that we would then never have
> movies based on books or plays. And about half of the films made are
> based on such non-original sources. "Gone With the Wind" comes to
> mind, as does "The Wizard of Oz", "Schindler's List", "All the
> President's Men", "Amadeus""Silence of the Lambs", "L.A. Confidential"
> "A Beautiful Mind", "The Pianist", etc.
As I've said elsewhere,an important consideration is the
amount of content in the book.A simplistic narrative is
able to be translated to the screen without nearly as much
"signal loss"...while something as complex and content-rich
as TLotR can hardly have its surface scratched.
If a forgivably large fraction is impossible to retain,
there should be no attempt to adapt.
(Mind you,read Baum's books and you'll be hard pressed to say
M-G-M did Oz justice!"Dream" indeed!!!)
Louis Epstein
Regarding statements that a wise government will not accomodate
citizen's inherently inappropriate desires for homosexual conduct
as a "homophobic rant" is par for the course I suppose,but there
are plenty of people I don't like who you wouldn't like.
Louis Epstein
That is what movie adaptation does to ANY book with enough
detail,characterization,subplot,sophisticated theme,etc. that
there is too much to fit in the film format.
The more there is to a book the less appropriate it is to film it.
And as the Potter books tend to get longer and deeper through the series,
it doesn't augur well for the later books on film.
Chistaya
>> I have to disagree with you here. I thought Cuaron did a lousy
>> job in terms of the kids' acting. The scene on the train where
>> the dementors appear has to be, without a doubt, the single worst
>> scene Emma has done. She was as wooden as a log there. I'll
>> spare you the rehash of what I wrote when POA came out, but I
>> thought Cuaron did a horrible job of coaching Dan, too.
> Emma's beautiful, and fun to see onscreen, but she's not a very
> good actor. I disagree with you completely about Dan's scenes.
> They were as close to flawless as one could find.
Go back and watch the classroom scene where Lupin is teaching him
how to cast the patronus.
> Were I still studying the Stanislavsky Method, I'd bring up his
> recent work in class.
...Of what's wrong with method acting. The classroom patronus
scene is the sort of ham-fisted, psychologically out-of-character,
screaming jag that would have brought tears of joy to Lee Strasberg's
eyes. Al Pacino couldn't have done it any better.
The renowned British dramatic tradition is founded on classical
techniques, not Stanislavski's nonsense. Method acting is what
children and Americans do. If Dan wants to be taken seriously as
an adult actor, method acting is the LAST thing he should be doing.
>> Unless you are 99th-percentile gifted as an actor or extremely
>> experienced, you are not going to have the awareness to go through
>> large emotional transitions without outside perspective to guide
>> you, and Cuaron was so obsessed with getting this hormonal
>> teenage experience on film that he totally lost sight of the way JKR
>> shaped Harry's personality in the book.
> I agree with the first sentence, and think Radcliffe is in that
> percentile. And I'm not alone.
I agree that he's gifted, and he's better than most of the abuse
he gets, but I'm not sure I'd say he's in the top 1% of all actors.
Not yet, anyway.
> I recently attended an actors' studio workshop with Richard
> Chamberlain, who had nothing but praise for Dan. Other "Serious
> Actors" there concurred.
Well, I personally don't consider Richard Chamberlain to be much
of a "Serious Actor." I don't see anybody rushing to cast him
in anything of any value, and he's never won a major acting award.
He's largely remembered for "The Thorn Birds," a trashy miniseries.
Who were these other "Serious Actors"?
> I cannot disagree more with your second sentence. I think you're
> trying to judge a man's entire career with one movie (Y tu mama
> tambien) that you either heard about and didn't see or saw and had
> your straitlaced morals offended. See some of his other work.
I'm judging him on "POA" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien," the latter of
which is regarded as his crowning achievement. Both movies failed
to demonstrate the directorial prowess attributed to him, because,
AFAIC, both movies lacked flow. The individual scenes were fine,
but his overall composition was stilted, and the editing was
jarringly awkward. And as far as having my "straitlaced morals
offended," I thought "Y Tu Mama Tambien" was excruciatingly dull.
When you have to resort to pornography to keep the audience awake,
there's something wrong with your directing.
>> Harry wasn't supposed to act like he was a raving lunatic with
>> PMS, and that was entirely Cuaron's fault.
> Good thing he wasn't, as he didn't.
Somewhere out there on the Internet (I couldn't find it easily,
and don't feel like spending five or six hours on a modem trawling
around on fan sites), there's a streaming clip of Dan describing
how it was so hard for him to do the scene down by the lake because
he expended his whole emotional range on the earlier patronus
scene. (He talks about fainting from pushing himself too hard.)
So you think that was his fault? I don't. The director is the
one in charge of DIRECTING the actor's performance, especially
when the actor is a kid with minimal experience. Cuaron screwed
up. Sorry.
>> LOL...based on "Y Tu Mama Tambien"? Cuaron has yet to coax a
>> good performance out of anybody who couldn't already act for
>> some other director--young or old.
> So not true.
> Chris Columbus wouldn't have been able get a good performance
> out of a young Marlon Brando - and that's saying something.
Brando was another member of the infamous Pantheon of Overrated
Method Actors, but that's off topic. Go back to my original
statement and name an actor who was lousy in other directors'
movies, but good in a Cuaron film.
>>> but huge numbers of critics and industry members remarked on
>>> the increase in acting skill between CoS and PoA.
>> Well if the critics say so, it must be true....
> Oh, as opposed to if *you* say so?
I clearly stated that these were my opinions.
> Goddess forbid that people who actually know about films be
> considered appropriate critics of the art form.
Er, since when did people who write movie reviews become "people
who actually know about films"? I thought they were the corollary
to the saying "Those who can't do, teach."
> Do you have your dental work done by the person at WalMart you
> buy your toothpaste from?
Do you buy your light bulbs from Thomas Edison? What does this
have to do with whether I'm entitled to disagree about Cuaron's
directorial abilities?
Fab
>
>How does everyone view these forums anyh00t?
>
I use AOL's reader for text and Agent/Supernews for binaries. In my
decade-plus working with computers, I eventually figured out that the simplest
way is usually the best.
I do, however, avoid MSIE and MSO like the plague, and I'm a hardcore MS Office
user.
gjw
>"Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com>...
>>
>> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
>> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
>> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> Harry and his friends are geeky.
>
>
>agreed. for a real culture shock, anyone who's always imagined them as
>the movie kids should have a look at rowling's own drawing of them up
>on her site. i could never quite picture what rowling meant about
>hermione's hair and teeth problems until i saw that sketch, and it
>immediately endeared hermione to me even more.
Actually, JKR's sketch of Hermione (with the teeth and all) is exactly
what I always envisioned Hermione to look like. Her sketch of Harry is
also similar to what I imagined. I only differed with her sketch of
Ron, who looks (in the sketch) a bit too much like a young, nerdy John
Lennon (if John had freckles. ;)
Tim Behrendsen
> >Osment is the best child
> >acting skills exceed those of Dan Radcliffe by several orders of
> >magnitude.
>
> by leaps and bounds, and in the hands of a proper director, he's shown himself
> to be scary talented.
Just out of curiosity, what in his PoA performance did you find "scary talented"?
I thought he had moved to "adequate" in PoA, but some of his lines still fell flat to my
ears. The final "Expecto Patronum" was great, but I found his "He killed my parents!"
speech to be really flat.
Tim Behrendsen
news:H4udnW2z8rm...@fcc.net...
> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
> > like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
> > movies were better than the books in both cases.
>
> And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
> There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
> to an original!
That's simply silly. There are many, many cases where an artist performs a song which is
lost in obscurity, then another artist reinterprets the song and it becomes hugely
popular.
Sometimes a reinterpretation is better than the original. Not to start a flamewar over
LotR, but I find the books unreadable. Tolkien had a great imagination, but he was a
terrible smith of words. Maybe the world will get lucky someday and the books will get
rewritten by a decent writer. :)
Louis Epstein
> "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
> news:H4udnW2z8rm...@fcc.net...
>> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
>> > like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
>> > movies were better than the books in both cases.
>>
>> And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
>> There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
>> to an original!
>
> That's simply silly. There are many, many cases where an artist
> performs a song which is lost in obscurity, then another artist
> reinterprets the song and it becomes hugely popular.
Only the way the composer/writer intended should be promoted.
> Sometimes a reinterpretation is better than the original.
Not by any legitimate measurement.
> Not to start a flamewar over LotR, but I find the books unreadable.
Then the story they tell is not for you to know.
> Tolkien had a great imagination, but he was a terrible smith of words.
He was the greatest I have ever encountered the work of.
> Maybe the world will get lucky someday and the books will get
> rewritten by a decent writer. :)
They were written by a great one,
a merely decent one could never compare.
Fortunately the Tolkien Estate blocked the
filmmakers' proposal to write dumbed-down
tie-in versions.
Moore
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote in message
news:DcE5d.300837$Lj.38599@fed1read03...
I tried to read the books when I was young and I didn't have the patience to
read them, they seemed slow and just didn't keep my attention. Then I tried
again in my late 20's and I was actually able to sit down and read them,
true there were times when my patience was pushed, but I was able to sit and
read them and to actually start to enjoy them. Then just a little over a
year ago, I was bed-ridden while pregnant and I read them front to back and
I enjoyed them to the point of being able to give trivia to my Tolkien
loving husband.
I do believe that there are times in our lives that certain books just don't
fit. And at other times books that you (general, not you imparticular)
couldn't stand, or bored you to the point of putting it down become new
books, books that you actually enjoyed reading and it brightened your world.
A book that was that way for me was "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" My mother
loved that book so she tried to make me read it, couldn't stand it, I was 13
and it just bored me to death. When I was in University, I read it again,
to try to see what my Mother loved about it, and I really liked the book, it
brought tears to my eyes at times, and it made me think. If I had just kept
my original opinion, I never would have found out what a great book it was.
But that is the nice thing about the number of books and stories out there,
there are some for everyone. Not everyone likes Tolkien, my brother
doesn't, but there are some who love it and think of it as one of the best
books ever. And there are some who would never have read Tolkien if it
weren't for the movies being released.
Just my two-cents on the subject.
Aldy
Dark Magic
"Chistaya" <chis...@aol.comquack> wrote in message
news:20040924213931...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> On 9/22/04, Shannon (Dark Magic) wrote:
>
> > I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the
> > books well before the first movie came out. I already had a
> > notion in my head about what Harry Potter looked like, and let me
> > tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
>
> Was it like the Mary GrandPre illustration, by any chance?
>
the characters as people. Honestly the best artwork I've ever seen done on
the Potter books is on ArtDungeon. The artist has captured the essence of
the characters perfectly from their description in the books. I'd buy a
copy of the books illustrated by her in a heart beat.
Shannon
sickamongthecure
Artdungeon is ace. Hrm don't see why people complain about the
look of the movies but perfectly accept Grandpre and Artdungeon
though..
Fab
>grown
>> by leaps and bounds, and in the hands of a proper director, he's shown
>himself
>> to be scary talented.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what in his PoA performance did you find "scary
>talented"?
The two times that stand out for me are both times where he's reacting rather
than speaking. Watch him in the Dursley's kitchen and on the bridge with
Remus.
When perfection is reached, you can see what the character is thinking. I
watched Harry's emotions play across Dan's face and was awed.
Dark Magic
"sickamongthecure" <si...@among.thecure.com> wrote in message
news:MZCcnWSElsF...@karoo.co.uk...
have the look of the castle, its grounds, and the surrounding areas down
pat. I think many of the computer graphics are excellent. Buckbeak was
wonderful. I just don't agree with the casting directors interpretation of
the characters. Some of them, anyway.
And like I said, Grandpre's illustrations are cartoonish. Marta does a much
better job of making them realistic, but I think all of her characters tend
to look very youngish. Her drawings of Fred and George are great, but they
look the same at seventeen as they would at twelve. Still, of all that I've
seen her work rings the truest and has stayed in my head the longest.
Shannon
gjw
Her art is the best I've seen. Simply great stuff.
BUT (you knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you?) she does tend to
make one mistake in common with the movies: she draws Hermione as a
very pretty girl, rather than the big-toothed plain jane that she
appears to be in the early books.
(Make that two mistakes - I forgot about her obsession with R/H... And
as a result I think Ron comes out just a bit better looking than he
would in "real life".)
sickamongthecure
>
> And like I said, Grandpre's illustrations are cartoonish. Marta does a
much
> better job of making them realistic, but I think all of her characters
tend
> to look very youngish. Her drawings of Fred and George are great, but
they
> look the same at seventeen as they would at twelve. Still, of all that
I've
> seen her work rings the truest and has stayed in my head the longest.
>
> Shannon
>
Marta's style looks kinda manga like and they all look young
and cute, more so than the movie's interpretation, in my opinion
that is, hehe.
Q
> >
> Honestly the best artwork I've ever seen done on
> the Potter books is on ArtDungeon. The artist has captured the essence of
> the characters perfectly from their description in the books. I'd buy a
> copy of the books illustrated by her in a heart beat.
*checks out site*
whoah!! uh...wow. *ahem* so glad the drawing on the main page isn't
freudian at all...
anyway, cool site. a little manga-ish for my taste, and more than a
little idealized (even moody and snape look like they escaped from a
harlequin cover, fercryinoutloud). also i had trouble telling her
lupin apart from the kids a lot. other than that, though, she draws a
damn yummy cedric diggory.
Q
and the 'boo, you're it' pic made me laugh out loud
OJ
> I enjoy the movies, video games, etc...but I started reading the books well
> before the first movie came out. I already had a notion in my head about
> what Harry Potter looked like, and let me tell you, Dan Radcliffe ain't it.
> > Shannon
Hey,
I'm waiting to see if Umbridge looks like Mother Nature from the "A
Year without Santa Claus" holiday special. You'd need glasses of
course. That's my mental image.
oj
drusilla
He looked very like the movie Ron, I think. My 3 years old son saw a
Marta's Ron picture in my PC desk, pointed at the screen and began to
scream: "'Don Weesly'! 'Don Weesly'! where's his flying car?! Where?
Where?!!"
gjw
wrote:
Take a look at this Artdungeon pic of Ron:
http://www.artdungeon.net/general/template.php?p=napping
Then compare it to this pic of the movie Ron:
http://www.mandys-web.de/images/Potter/RupertGrint.jpg
See what I mean?
sickamongthecure
"gjw" <g...@example.com> wrote in message
news:415c364c...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> Then compare it to this pic of the movie Ron:
>
> http://www.mandys-web.de/images/Potter/RupertGrint.jpg
>
>
> See what I mean?
My God, he looks like a white ginger version of Jackie Chan!
Fab
>Hey,
>
>I'm waiting to see if Umbridge looks like Mother Nature from the "A
>Year without Santa Claus" holiday special. You'd need glasses of
>course. That's my mental image.
>
>oj
>
Crap, crap, crappity crap CRAP!
Now I have that freakin song playing in my head!
"...I'm too much!..."
Fab
Pancakes, Calvinball and Catfights: http://www.fabsboards.com
Chistaya
>>> Not anymore. I think the tables have completely turned.
>>> Radcliffe has grown by leaps and bounds, and in the hands of
>>> a proper director, he's shown himself to be scary talented.
>> Just out of curiosity, what in his PoA performance did you find
>> "scary talented"?
> The two times that stand out for me are both times where he's
> reacting rather than speaking. Watch him in the Dursley's kitchen
Please don't make me...once was enough. Was I the only one who
thought Dan was channeling Bill-Bixby-soon-to-be-Lou-Ferrigno there?
AFAIC, the kitchen scene was the winner of the "Worst Scene Not
Featuring the Words 'Expecto Patronum'" Award. <cringe> You'd be
hard pressed to find a better example of what was wrong with
Cuaron's directing. The man simply has no concept of crescendo.
The subtlety of Harry's emotional states--the promise of getting
his permission form signed, the toadying acquiescence, the slow
build of anger, the guilt and panic at having lost control--was
completely disregarded in favor of some snorting, scenery-chewing
exercise designed to make the veins pop in Harry's neck. Ugh.
There's an art to bringing a scene to an emotional climax, of
knowing when to slow the tide of emotions to build anticipation,
of sensing the boundaries. Great music, great sex, heck, even
great roller coasters have it. That scene didn't. Do I expect
a 14-year-old boy to have mastered the awareness required to
orchestrate it all by himself? No. But Cuaron should have been
able to come up with something better than that. Cuaron is the
directorial equivalent of Christopher Walken's Bruce Dickinson--
he's got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell!
> and on the bridge with Remus.
Agreed. That scene is, quite arguably, his high-water mark. He
was very good there.
Fab
>> reacting rather than speaking. Watch him in the Dursley's kitchen
>
>Please don't make me...once was enough. Was I the only one who
>thought Dan was channeling Bill-Bixby-soon-to-be-Lou-Ferrigno there?
Yes.
>AFAIC, the kitchen scene was the winner of the "Worst Scene Not
>Featuring the Words 'Expecto Patronum'" Award. <cringe> You'd be
>hard pressed to find a better example of what was wrong with
>Cuaron's directing. The man simply has no concept of crescendo.
>The subtlety of Harry's emotional states--the promise of getting
>his permission form signed, the toadying acquiescence, the slow
>build of anger, the guilt and panic at having lost control--was
>completely disregarded in favor of some snorting, scenery-chewing
>exercise designed to make the veins pop in Harry's neck. Ugh.
I strongly disagree. You were looking for something from the book that didn't
make it into the movie. Armchair directing is almost as easy as armchair
acting. I saw Harry go from amusement to hurt to anger and it was very, very
true and real.
sickamongthecure
"Fab" <discov...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
> I strongly disagree. You were looking for something from the book that
didn't
> make it into the movie. Armchair directing is almost as easy as armchair
> acting. I saw Harry go from amusement to hurt to anger and it was very,
very
> true and real.
>
> Fab
Although the Hulk joke about the anger was very funny, I
have to agree with Fab here, it was fab!
sickamongthecure
"Chistaya" <chis...@aol.comquack> wrote in message
> > The two times that stand out for me are both times where he's
> > reacting rather than speaking. Watch him in the Dursley's kitchen
>
> Please don't make me...once was enough. Was I the only one who
> thought Dan was channeling Bill-Bixby-soon-to-be-Lou-Ferrigno there?
ROFLMAO
Jan van Aalderen
> "Fab" <discov...@aol.commonsense> wrote in message
>
>> I didn't state the above. In fact, I disagree strongly with the
>> above.
>
> PLEASE
>
>> check your attributes.> .... I blame Outlook express and my laziness okay!?
You use fOutlook.
You say Cuaron did a great job.
You claim to be lazy.
At least you are consistent. :)
> How does everyone view these forums anyh00t?
To read and post on usenet, one usually uses a newsreader. I'm not going
to praise or flame any, but for me Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8, a combined
news/mailclient, works reasonably well. Mark: ZERO point 8, so it's
still far from perfect. But at least I can reply automatically below the
quote, and get the ">" right.
So in fact I'm not using a dedicated newsreader either. I'm lazy too, I
suppose. I didn't think Cuaron did such a great job, though. Reasonable,
but not great. It was a Cuaron-movie, while we wanted an HP-movie. It
was worth the bandwith, not the entrancefee and *certainly* not the
extravagant price they charge for movie-DVD's. Fortunately, it couldn't
be bought on DVD, so nobody can claim to have suffered any loss by me
downloading it. :)
Before I used Netscape 4.8, which is really too outdated to be usable:
it cann't handle HTML4 (unlike Thunderbird, it also is a browser). For
browsing I now use Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR, by the way. I can recommend
it. In both programs, the "extensions" feature (not to be confused with
plugins - although I really couldn't describe the difference in a few
words) is a very nice asset.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Jan van Aalderen
> In article <e9p4d.56003$9Y5.50501@fed1read02>, LittleGreyPoodle
>
>
>> "Dark Magic" <slnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:K9udnRTdU65...@comcast.com...
>>
>>> It's about the way companies market to, and influence, children
>>> to buy their products.
>>>
>>> The author refers to Harry Potter as an example of the way
>>> consumerism influences the populace, children especially. She
>>> says that the books started out as an amazing reading phenomena,
>>> an exercise in imagination, and have now become just another
>>> corporate conglomerate.
>>>
>>> She doesn't fault Rowling for selling the character rights (a
>>> lousy 500,000
>>
>> Well, if she only got 500,000 (pounds? dollars? euros? what?) she
>> must have some other damn good investments, because Fortune
>> magazine rated her in their Richest People list as having a net
>> worth of $1 BILLION.
>
>
> the billion is the combo of the book royalties, film rights, any film
> residuals, merch residuals etc.
>
> It is highly possible that she sold the rights for so little because
> she felt in her heart that Warners would be the truest to the spirit
> of the books (and not do something wacked like trying to set the
> books in the Nazi Regime or some such crap. or turn them into a total
> sex story, etc)
The movierights were auctioned, as what I read - here or elsewhere; I
don't recall - is correct. So it seems she felt in her heart that she
wanted to get as much as possible. Like most people when they are
selling something. Moral considerations towards their choice usually pop
up later, when they get the idea they could have gotten much more and
are afraid to look stupid for not doing so.
> or perhaps the book is wrong. she sold them for 500k cash and a
> percent of the box office. Tha's not an uncommon deal for book
> rights. Especially for a multiple book deal that includes, films,
> home video release, toys etc.
Gary Thompson
> Tim Behrendsen <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
> > "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
> > news:H4udnW2z8rm...@fcc.net...
> >> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is the part you just never seem to understand. Many people *don't
> >> > like LoTR*. Many people don't like Harry Potter. For many people, the
> >> > movies were better than the books in both cases.
> >>
> >> And that is precisely why there shouldn't BE movies of the books.
> >> There should be no possibility of an adulteration being preferred
> >> to an original!
> >
> > That's simply silly. There are many, many cases where an artist
> > performs a song which is lost in obscurity, then another artist
> > reinterprets the song and it becomes hugely popular.
>
> Only the way the composer/writer intended should be promoted.
>
> > Sometimes a reinterpretation is better than the original.
>
> Not by any legitimate measurement.
>
You are absolutely correct. Then we wouldn't have to put up with
hacks like James Joyce (Ulysses),Shakespeare (His complete works minus
The Tempest), or Moses (Genesis 6-11).
ste...@nomail.com
: Louis Epstein <lep...@shell.fcc.net> wrote in message news:<48qdnXxoB60...@fcc.net>...
Don't forget that hack who rewrote Kullervo's story from the
Kalevala. :)
Stephen
Chistaya
>> AFAIC, the kitchen scene was the winner of the "Worst Scene Not
>> Featuring the Words 'Expecto Patronum'" Award. <cringe> You'd be
>> hard pressed to find a better example of what was wrong with
>> Cuaron's directing. The man simply has no concept of crescendo.
>> The subtlety of Harry's emotional states--the promise of getting
>> his permission form signed, the toadying acquiescence, the slow
>> build of anger, the guilt and panic at having lost control--was
>> completely disregarded in favor of some snorting, scenery-chewing
>> exercise designed to make the veins pop in Harry's neck. Ugh.
> I strongly disagree. You were looking for something from the book
> that didn't make it into the movie.
I'm not understanding why misrepresenting a character's motivation
in a scene is defensible. I'm not saying I thought they should have
had Harry walk out of the Dursley house imitating Sammy Davis Jr.
singing "I've Gotta Be Me" or something. Cuaron made the choice
to (over)emphasize Harry's anger at the expense of the other
elements, and I think he made the wrong choice. I suppose you
could debate whether Cuaron simply misunderstood the point of the
book (this was a story about fear, not anger), or that he apparently
prefers in-your-face, over-the-top theatrics to more restrained,
nuanced performances. It's probably a combination of the two.
At any rate, it's a variation on the same theme that resulted in
Hermione punching Malfoy instead of slapping him.
Harry is not a confrontational character. Even when he does show
aggression, it's not a raving, grotesque tirade. (He can't even
sustain the tantrum in Dumbledore's office for very long at the
end of OOTP.) To opt to have him revel in his insolence and
disobedience was wrong.
> Armchair directing is almost as easy as armchair acting.
IMHO, Cuaron simply did not understand the books, the characters,
the object of adapting a book into a movie, or for that matter,
the strengths of the actors he was given to direct. And I'm not
even sitting in an armchair.
> I saw Harry go from amusement
What was he amused about?
> to hurt to anger and it was very, very true and real.
Must be hard on your kitchen cabinets if that's what very true
and real anger looks like at your house....
T.M. Sommers
> Cuaron was so obsessed
> with getting this hormonal teenage experience on film that he totally
> lost sight of the way JKR shaped Harry's personality in the book.
I am not sure that he read the book, or if he paid any attention
if he did read it. He did not seem to understand that the dog in
the alley was Sirius, for example.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
sickamongthecure
"T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote in message
news:Ttxbd.3050$Pd2.1...@monger.newsread.com...
> Chistaya wrote:
> > Cuaron was so obsessed
> > with getting this hormonal teenage experience on film that he totally
> > lost sight of the way JKR shaped Harry's personality in the book.
>
> I am not sure that he read the book, or if he paid any attention
> if he did read it. He did not seem to understand that the dog in
> the alley was Sirius, for example.
>
lol but you could interpret it as 'Sirius, the ever prankful
dog who will bark and scare the crap out of you on first
impressions' guy