|
Post by Oily on Mar 16, 2003 13:15:55 GMT -5
I think JK Rowling wants to keep it to British people. Tom Felton goes to the local school near us...And one of my friends would have got an extra part but our school wouldn't let her take time off. There's a new director so maybe the third one will be better? They need to give the children some acting lessons for a start...There was a parody of it for Comic Relief and it was very funny
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2003 17:32:31 GMT -5
Can you fake a British accent? And I think she's part Chinese, a name like 'Cho Chang' isn't very common. *grins widely* I know. I'm half Chinese and half Caucasian.. As for the British accent thing, I know Shane West mastered it in that one movie... *sighs* As for the being British thing, that's one of the things that gets me: Why say that only one nationality can try for something?
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Mar 16, 2003 17:36:45 GMT -5
I've never read the books, so I wouldn't know.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 16, 2003 18:07:36 GMT -5
I didn't think the movies were that bad, the second one was at least a little better. Yes, they DESPERATELY need acting lessons. Especially Emma Watson ...
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Mar 16, 2003 19:47:54 GMT -5
Especially Emma Watson ... You're kidding, right? Emma Watson is the best of the three (though that isn't saying much). She pretty much has Hermione down. I loved the way she said "Now I'm going to bed before you two come up with any more clever plans to get us killed. . . or worse: expelled." THat was just about perfect. Rupert Grint only knows how to do about two emotions, but he does them well. Daniel Radcliff, on the other hand, is just plain HORRIBLE. The way he says some things makes me want to just fall over dead.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 16, 2003 22:44:24 GMT -5
You're kidding, right? Emma Watson is the best of the three (though that isn't saying much). She pretty much has Hermione down. I loved the way she said "Now I'm going to bed before you two come up with any more clever plans to get us killed. . . or worse: expelled." THat was just about perfect. Rupert Grint only knows how to do about two emotions, but he does them well. Daniel Radcliff, on the other hand, is just plain HORRIBLE. The way he says some things makes me want to just fall over dead. Well, yes, Emma has some very good parts, but overall I think she really overacted in the first movie. When I watch a movie, I like to get lost in it, forget about life, and imagine I am there, and I think she kind of ruined it for me. Like, when they were on the Hogwarts Express...she just overacted in my opinion. That's basically what I meant. Yes, Rupert does two emotions very, VERY well, but his funny-sour looking face gets a little redundant. And Daniel is kind of on the short end too... I did NOT like the first movie (hehe, can you tell?), but I think they all did much, much better on the second.
|
|
|
Post by sara on Mar 16, 2003 23:20:13 GMT -5
There aren't a great deal of great child actors out there. At least for decent acting training, you have to have a certain about of self-awareness and maturity - you probably want to be at least eleven, and even that is a stretch for all by the best of child prodigies. But there isn't much market for teenage actors as they can usually be played by people over 18 years old - it's for legal reasons.
However, I'll take everyone's word that the Harry Potter movies can be missed, and maybe later they can find a good teenage actor to replace Daniel Radcliffe.
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Mar 16, 2003 23:39:35 GMT -5
maybe later they can find a good teenage actor to replace Daniel Radcliffe. *hides a muffled person behind my back* Oh really?
|
|
|
Post by spectrum on Mar 17, 2003 0:34:23 GMT -5
Some say the movies might get cancelled since the reader's can't use their imaginations after seeing the movie. I doubt it though. It doesn't affect me because they leave too much out for me to really blend it with the book.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 17, 2003 20:40:17 GMT -5
Some say the movies might get cancelled since the reader's can't use their imaginations after seeing the movie. I doubt it though. It doesn't affect me because they leave too much out for me to really blend it with the book. Yes, like Peeves...he is so COOL! And they are only going tp do three, I think, so it still leaves plenty...
|
|
|
Post by sara on Mar 17, 2003 23:35:44 GMT -5
Some say the movies might get cancelled since the reader's can't use their imaginations after seeing the movie. I doubt it though. It doesn't affect me because they leave too much out for me to really blend it with the book. After two giant moolah-making movies, cancel the third? No way in Hollywood! It would have to take serious legal tangles - i.e. inappropriately purchased rights or exposed criminal activities within the production to stop them from making the movie. Even having the entire cast drop dead probably couldn't do the trick - they can find another cast. For that matter, if there were any criminal activities uncovered in the movie, it'd have to be very serious to taint the movies so much nobody would make it. In short, there's going to be a third Harry Potter movie. Maybe, just maybe, there won't be a fourth if the third one is a flop. EDIT : And even though I have never seen either Harry Potter movie, I do like Christopher Columbus, the director. I was an extra in the wedding scene in Bicentennial Man. No, I don't appear in the credits and I fell on the cutting room floor, but it was a day off school, the food was good, I had a lot of fun, and I got $60 for it. So I must thank good old Chris for his money-throwing habits.
|
|