Re: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows (Parts I and II) discussion
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Holadem
As soon as I saw the first picture, I wanted to read the book again. Somehow, it's the tent that gets me.
--
H
|
In this month's
Empire (which features a
great photo of the trio taken at Leavesden), Dan Radcliffe says: "This is a road movie, particularly in Part One of the film. That seems to have really freshened things up, and hopefully will get people seeing the films with fresh eyes again, because it is just a totally different look when you're not just sat in the same room the whole time."
The early onslaught of photos is in part a reflection of the fact that this story requires a good deal more location shooting than the very Hogwarts-extensive earlier films. That has me kind of excited that we're going to see something different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ray H
About one of the photos.... Warning Spoiler! Click to showI'm kinda surprised they're still doing Bill's wedding if that blurb is accurate. We've haven't really seen the character before (except for maybe a photo in POA).
|
Warning Spoiler! Click to showBut we spent most of the fourth movie with his bride. (Clémence Poésy is rumored, I believe, to be returning).
If they were making Deathly Hallows into one jampacked movie, I think the wedding definitely would have been on the chopping block. But with over 240 minutes to kill, they don't really have to leave anything out of this one.
The thing you get from the wedding, even if it doesn't have the same impact it had in the book, is the jarring nature of the attack. Things go from serene frivolity with an undercurrent of unease to scarier and more dangerous than they've ever been before. I love the conspicuousness of the trio in their dress clothes on the streets of London. It really hammers home their vulnerability.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yee-Ming
Perhaps the only 'unfortunate' thing about casting Radcliffe all those years ago, is that the poor guy hasn't grown very tall...
Rupert now towers over him, and didn't I read that even the girl playing Ginnie is taller than him?
|
Yeah, I think Bonnie Wright (who plays Ginny Weasley) is a hair taller than him -- but you only really notice it when she's in heels. I kind of like that about the casting though, which gets back to the idea from the very first book: that this shrimpy little kid with knobby joints and broken glasses could be the one to save the world. I kind of like that Dan isn't our collective idea of an action hero. One of the few mistakes of the book, in my opinion, was that Rowling tried to make Harry look the part more in the last couple books.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hartwig Hanser
Emma Watson is more in the foreground which may let her seem taller than she is. In the other 2 pictures she does not seem to be much taller than Radcliffe. Anyway, size doesn´t matter, right?
|
She's wearing heels in the third picture, which is what accounts for the difference:
They're probably about the same height in real life, with Rupert being noticably taller. It matters only in regards to our cinematic expectations of taller male action hero, shorter sidekick and female cohorts. And for the reasons I've noted, subverting those expectations can be as rewarding as validating them.
