Harry Potter Movies

[kostgard]

Hmm, I don't like Moody's eye at all. I pictured it as obviously magical/fake but not strapped on like that. More like a regular glass eye but weird-looking. Doesn't the book (I think in OotP) mention him popping it out of the socket and washing it off because it wasn't rolling right?

The strap thing is odd, but I'm willing to bet they are going to CGI the heck out of his eye to make it all weird, so I'm gonna wait until the final product.

However, I guess one could also argue that she's really not supposed to be super attractive but that it's the Veela part (1/8th I think) of her that makes her seem drop dead gorgeous to the male types.

I could see that - the ladies never seemed all that impressed with Fleur. She's probably like that girl in high school everyone thought was gorgeous simply because she acted like everyone should think she's gorgeous, but when you pull out your yearbook a few years down the road, you see that she really wasn't all that. It's all about the attitude.

[Deleted]

Now, I'm the first to bring on the Keira Knightly hate, but I can totally see her as Tonks. I think she could really pull off that clumsy spunkiness. It is hard to think of a suitible Tonks candidate, especially since I know only a handful of British actresses. I don't think it'd be too wildly implausible that Tonks would make herself look pretty with her metamorphing powers (or whatever the hell it's called). The biggest problem for me would be that Tonks should absolutely NOT be better looking that Fleur. I also don't think Tonks has to necessarily look tough at first glance - I always pictured her as an early-twenties, barely graduated girl who happens to be a really powerful witch.

I think whatever happens, all the castings and portrayals will always disappoint me a little in one way or another*. They're always a little (or a lot) off from how I pictured it. I pictured Dumbledore much more... energetic, for lack of a better term, than either portrayal. More like Ian McKellen as Gandalf, with the twinkles in the eye and such. The people who play Lily and James Potter were the age they should have been currantly, not the age they were when they died, Ron's written as a wimpy sidekick, Snape's far too misunderstood hero-y (and, sadly, too old), Draco's attitude is just messed up, Hermione does NOT have the answers to everything... The list goes on and on. When you add that to all the big things they left out or messed up (Every Quiddich game**, the R/H ship***, Norbert's storyline from SS/PP, Crookshanks helping Sirius, the learning of the Patronus and the firebolt conflict in PoA, just to name a few) and the movies make baby Jesus cry.

The movies so far removed from the books that when seeing PoA with a friend that hadn't read the book, I had to keep explaining what was going on so she'd understand it. There's a girl at work who has only watched the movies and we can't have a discussion about HP because she never knows what I'm talking about and I can't keep all that they left out/changed straight.

*Except for Sean Biggerstaff, because he was damn cute.
** There's more to Seeking than waiting for the snitch to fly past your nose, yo.
*** Ode to the death of subtletly... Kind of makes you wonder how H/Hrs could believe in the 'ship so fervently.

[Deleted]

*Except for Sean Biggerstaff, because he was damn cute.

I cried a little when i read OotP since there was no Wood in it, hence no Biggerstaff in the movie, and i am sure he is barely in GoF if at all.

The movies so far removed from the books

I think this is my only problem with the series in general, there are so many little things in the book that I would of loved to see, but the scenes end up on the cutting room floor or they were never filmed. I guess a 2 1/2 hour movie is about the limits for most kids i know who go to see the HP movies, even then they are all squirming in their seats at the end.

[realitybug]

Yeah, the movies would be getting quite long if you included anything. They are counting on people to have read the books before they see the movies. Otherwise, it's a little hard to follow, for sure. Things are referenced without explanation. You HAVE to read the books.

I have a problem with Hermione's character the most. In the books, she's so know-it-all and no-nonsense. And how she looks as well....her teeth and her hair! They started out in the first movie, making it bushy, but now it just looks like they braided her hair while wet and then took it out when dry. Stupid. For the Ball in the Goblet of Fire, how are they going to shock the people with her transformation? Ugh. And Ron's reaction to her? hehe.

And what about Harry's eyes in the movie? In the close-ups, you can blatantly see his eyes are friggin' BLUE. How many times is it described that Harry's eyes are startingly green, like his mother's? grr...just these little details that are ignored...

As for Keira playing Tonks, I could really see that. I've never had a problem with her, always liked her. I think she's quirky and can pull that off. They'd obviously have to downplay her features, but yeah, I think she'd be great.

I like the movies enough, Goblet of Fire looks bitchin', but I'll always prefer the books. But isn't that how it always goes?

[dulcinea]

I think, for the most part, the studio (or whoever it is who makes these decisions) makes very strange choices when it comes down to what stays and what gets cut. I don't understand the reasoning behind emphasizing a relationship between Lily and Lupin, which was expounded upon on that scene on the bridge, and as far as we know may not have even existed, and then not explain the marauders. Or in Cos, when they have this huge, long car flying scene in leiu of the death day party (although I guess I can somewhat understand this decision, seeing as how I am the only person on the planet who actually enjoys that scene).

While I am looking forward to the new movie, I can't believe some of the things they decided to cut or change. Namely the ending. I understand that the book has to be condensed, but I don't understand why they can't have a five second scene involving Mrs. Weasely comforting Harry. I mean, how much time would that actually add? It is such a touching scene, I hate to see it get cut.

I thought of another possibility for Tonks. I have no idea what this actress' name is. But, you know in "Love Actually," the girl who is with the recording company? I haven't seen this movie for awhile, and only vaguelly remember her, but I do remember thinking that she would be perfect as Tonks. She looked somewhat pixie-ish, which is a quality I associate with Tonks. Does anyone know who I am talking about?

[indygirl]

I still like the idea of Keira or Anna Friel for Tonks. I'm not sure why they would be too pretty? Was she described as unattractive or plain? I honestly can't remember. But if they are too pretty, what about Natalia Tena? She was Ellie, the tough girl who befriends the geeky boy in About a Boy. I don't know anything about her, except that she seemed to have a certain attitude in that film that might be appropriate for an Auror.

But, you know in "Love Actually," the girl who is with the recording company? I haven't seen this movie for awhile, and only vaguelly remember her, but I do remember thinking that she would be perfect as Tonks. She looked somewhat pixie-ish, which is a quality I associate with Tonks. Does anyone know who I am talking about?

Is this the one who has the affair with Alan Rickman's character?

[realitybug]

Dulcinea, I know who you are talking about. I think her name is Laura Rees, and here's a picture of her:

Laura Rees

Now t hat you mention her, I DEFINETELY could see that! Wish I could find a pic of her from the movie. She looks very pixieish.

ETA: lol, I looked at Laura Rees IMDb message board, and people are talking about her as Tonks, as well.

indygirl, no, she's not the one who has the affair. She has a pretty small role in the movie. In the deleted scenes, she has a slightly bigger role.

[indygirl]

realitybug said:

indygirl, no, she's not the one who has the affair. She has a pretty small role in the movie. In the deleted scenes, she has a slightly bigger role.

Okay. That makes sense because I didn't think she had the look for Tonks.

realitybug said:

Dulcinea, I know who you are talking about. I think her name is Laura Rees, and here's a picture of her:

Laura Rees

Now, this girl has the look! She's a cutie. Good call, Dulcinea!

[glitterbug]

Jane Horrocks
would also be good as Tonks IMHO. She is a bit old for the part but doesn't look it, and is very pixie-ish.

Laura Rees would be perfect, though.

[jynni]

The Mirror is reporting that Helen McCrory is being tapped to play Bellatrix for OotP.

Mugglenet has a pic of her.