We have more tonight regarding that new issue of Movie Magic magazinewe told you about a few days ago, which contains a large preview on the upcoming Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince movie.” Thanks to Orchid, who let us know she now has all the scans up at her Harry/Ginny website. Of interest is a new interview with actor Tom Felton (scans also here, here and here in our galleries) who speaks a bit more on his character of Draco Malfoy in the sixth Harry Potter film. Tom says that there “are reasons that Draco is the way he is…He’s seen so many things and been taught so many wrong ideas from his father, Lucius, and of course he worships his father. He wants to be like him, to emulate him in every way. But his father has been involved in Voldemort’s dark circle for many years, so it’s not unusual that Draco would want to follow that path too. Everything is to please his father.” The article also contains a bit from Potter film producer David Heyman, who praises the actor’s performance in the upcoming movie, as he says “Tom’s nuances in the new film are terrific. It feels like a deeper richer character than we’ve seen to date.”
On a related note, and perhaps of greater interest to fans, is a possible movie spoiler contained in the magazine’s Encyclopedia of things relating to “Half-Blood Prince.” While it is possible this is a typo or mistake, the article describes the dreadful character of Fenrir Greyback and what is a possible plot twist in the movie. If you do not wish to read more, please stop here, otherwise scroll down for more.
SCROLL DOWN
SCROLL DOWN
SCROLL DOWN
The article (scan here) describes the Werewolf in the movie, and then says that in his attempt to create “an army of werewolves,” “Fenrir attacks Harry, but Harry or (someone unseen) petrifies him in time. But Ron’s Dad is not so lucky-Fenrir mauls his face and nearly kills him.” As readers will recall, we learned that the character of Fleur was not going to be in HBP, nor have we learned of the casting for Bill Weasley, so perhaps they have given Arthur that terrible fate for this film, however as we do not know if this is indeed the case, please keep this in the rumor category until we can update with more.
You know, Lord of the Rings proved that a movie could be done right and well, and still be true to the books, and still be expensive, and STILL make money.
Warner Brothers has a near-perfect cast and then completely screws up every film, getting worse every time. I can’t even watch the opening 15 minutes of the OOTP film anymore, since it’s so awfully done. I mean, really, talk about anticlimactic when Mrs. Figg shows up. And ooh, let’s fly past all the touristy bits in London on broomsticks. Wizarding secrecy?? Bah! No one’ll notice…
Warner Brothers is milking this as a cash cow, but won’t even feed the cow properly (the anemic memorabilia available in the U.S. vs. Japan is another indicator).
Since I’m a screenwriter and live in hollywood, I understand that the whole book won’t make the cut. I can sort of understand cutting out Bill and Fleur. But why bother mauling Arthur then? Want to save money? The make the remaining scenes count! Some of the bits in the last film looked like everyone was different groups of freshly-introduced neighbors, not parents and longterm pals. Most other films wouldn’t get away with such shoddy character development and interactions on tape. They’d flop in the theaters or go straight to video.
I’ve brought people new to Potter to the films, and they’ve never read the books after. The movies were confusing to them. They thought the books would be, too. After seeing PoA, a friend was so confused, I had to explain the entire book plot and backstory. The response? “Wow, that would have been a really good movie if they’d gotten that across!”
I love the books, I love the idea, and I love Jo, but I’m getting really sick of WB. I used to see the films on opening night, but they may not even get me in the theater for the next films. If I’m going to spend $12/person plus snacks, then it better be worth my while.
Lord of the Rings as filmed improved my Tolkein experience. The Potter movies have started to diminish my joy in the series, so they will likely be removed from my entertainment budget. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but the past 3 of 5 haven’t been so great, so that doesn’t bode well for the last 2 (now 3). I don’t see the WB correcting their mistakes anytime soon.
I can understand outrage if this werewolf thing was a huge plot point. But it’s not, so I think people should calm down about it. Sure, some things about the movies are really disappointing but it’s ridiculous if people haven’t yet seen the books and movies as different mediums by now.
we don’t want the movies just as good as the books b.c that nevers happens in any book that becomes a movie.. but their suckin it upp.. so BOOOOOOO!!!! it i think the movies from Ootp on up will suck though.. oh well thats why i never go to the theater to see them… plus… I LOVE ALL YOU GUYS THAT POST COMMENTS!!
Well I am excited to see what to do, I have taken to watching the movies twice in the theater, one time so I can gripe about every little thing they did or didn’t do, and a second time so I can actually enjoy the movie.
Really the only thing that still bothers me is PoA with all the waisted time doing artsy things when there could have been plot, and the ending of GoF whatever happened to Barty Crouch and Snape you are going to go do something and oh everyone who is not the Trio and Dumbledore Sirius really isn’t guilty so in movie 5 when you are staying at his house it will be okay…sorry got off topic didn’t I?
So I am sure I will gripe about the movie, but I will enjoy it for the Hollywood fanfic that it is. :)
If they’re leaving in the plot device, how flipping hard is it to hire two actors to keep with the book? It’s not like the franchise is hurting for an income… I hate it when they morph things completely away from the book. Maybe Arthur Weasley is the Chosen One…he’s getting attacked in every movie now :)
um, that would just be kinda retarded and unecessary to have fenrir maul arthur since that kinda would be changing the plot. theres no point in changing that…have him maul sum insignificant character but that then changes arthur’s character and fate from the bookss…thats just stupid to do that…its not even necessary to do it…i dont think theres any point to hurting arthur’s character and not having bill in the books – it’ll just worsen the effects of wat happens to the weasley family in the 7th bk…
Blah…rereads post…”Well I am excited to see what THEY do” not “to do” ... I am just going to stop rereading my post if there are more typos or whatever maybe I can give yall more credit that you’ll understand what I mean…
But yes, my friends that don’t read Potter just ask okay now whats going on because they have no clue and me and all the Potterheads have to fill in all the blanks the movies left out. I am still trying to convince my other friends to read, they watch the movies, they love Tolkein and Lloyd Alexander, I think they would love HP.
I feel like I have been ranting about one thing or another for several days, and I have already posted about this topic, but I had to just say to Jenna: I AGREE about the first 15 minutes of OoTP, they are painful.
As far as adapting things for film, what do people almost always end up saying? “Oh, the book was so much better.” That is true here, in spades. (The exception, for me anyway, is with John Grisham’s books, the movies are always better, but that is just my opinion.)
What kills me is if they would stick just a LITTLE closer to the books, not word for word (although that would be great, of course, but I am trying to be realistic) but just a little bit closer, the movies would improve exponentially.
My biggest problem with Yates specifically is this preset maximum he is in love with for the length of films, he has stated in interviews that he doesn’t think ANY movie should be over about 2 hours long. I don’t think going into an HP film with that attitude is conducive to presenting the best film possible, and it showed itself in the horrible jumpiness of OoTP. He has a TV background, not film, and I think that is a problem for him as a director.
He did a great job, for the most part, with the performances, not so much with the character development. What was with the kids just casually strolling up to Harry as he almost dies at the Ministry?? Like he was some mildly interesting specimen on the floor. Things like that drove me CRAZY. I hope that Yates has learned a bit more about the interrelationships and will be able to portray them properly in HBP. I do think HBP is a lot easier to cut and still get a great movie out of, if they do it right, so I am remaining cautiously optimistic. For now.
Seriously, the books and the films are two different mediums. Yeah, it’s sucks if they’re using Arthur as a scapegoat… but it’s also a character that already has backstory in the films so we’re attached to him. Introducing Bill and bringing back Fleur (who was practically mute in GoF) and expecting the general audience to feel for them in stretching it in a film series that has so many different characters and subplots.
re: Interpretations of an adaptation of the book. As Phillipa Boyens said of writing the screenplay for LOTR ( and is no doubt holding true to her statement as she adapts The Hobbit ) ..” the truth is, it’s an organic thing, you can’t OWN these books, each person has a different vision and this is just one fans interpretation of the story” . This is horribly paraphrased but you get the idea.
um,...interpretation is different from making up things that never actually happened. I don’t consider dropping Bill and Fleur from the movie altogether as an interpretation so much as a simple ‘change made for convenience purposes’. I understand that Bill is not a big part of the movie, but dropping his role and having other characters take up the things he would otherwise be doing (ie. getting married at the weasley house, or getting his face bitten off) impacts the audience’s perception of the chararcters as they are portrayed in the movie. Plus the fact that to the rest of the hundreds of thousands of book readers who then see the movie, it makes the movies even more disappointing..not to mention intolerable!
on a happier note, I’m happy Tom is gonna get more screen time this time around. Frankly, the movies are just SO shallow in character development and plot depth that if they did not have a book from which they originated they would be nothing more than just another mediocre movie. The only reason why the movies have had so much success is because half the people watching them have already done their homeworks and so don’t find the movies too confusing.
If they cut out Bill and Fleur where will Ron go when he runs away? surely not to Lupin and Tonks’? If they take out Shell Cottage they will have to make up a really good place to bury Dobby and do him justice! But now that i think about it- i feel like WB might to do a Voldie and take him out of the last movie all together.
But if maybe this is still just a rumor…im hoping…
Black's gaunt face broke into the first true smile Harry had seen upon it. The difference it made was startling, as though a person ten years younger were shining through the starved mask; for a moment, he was recognizable as the man who had laughed at Ha
You know, Lord of the Rings proved that a movie could be done right and well, and still be true to the books, and still be expensive, and STILL make money.
Warner Brothers has a near-perfect cast and then completely screws up every film, getting worse every time. I can’t even watch the opening 15 minutes of the OOTP film anymore, since it’s so awfully done. I mean, really, talk about anticlimactic when Mrs. Figg shows up. And ooh, let’s fly past all the touristy bits in London on broomsticks. Wizarding secrecy?? Bah! No one’ll notice…
Warner Brothers is milking this as a cash cow, but won’t even feed the cow properly (the anemic memorabilia available in the U.S. vs. Japan is another indicator).
Since I’m a screenwriter and live in hollywood, I understand that the whole book won’t make the cut. I can sort of understand cutting out Bill and Fleur. But why bother mauling Arthur then? Want to save money? The make the remaining scenes count! Some of the bits in the last film looked like everyone was different groups of freshly-introduced neighbors, not parents and longterm pals. Most other films wouldn’t get away with such shoddy character development and interactions on tape. They’d flop in the theaters or go straight to video.
I’ve brought people new to Potter to the films, and they’ve never read the books after. The movies were confusing to them. They thought the books would be, too. After seeing PoA, a friend was so confused, I had to explain the entire book plot and backstory. The response? “Wow, that would have been a really good movie if they’d gotten that across!”
I love the books, I love the idea, and I love Jo, but I’m getting really sick of WB. I used to see the films on opening night, but they may not even get me in the theater for the next films. If I’m going to spend $12/person plus snacks, then it better be worth my while.
Lord of the Rings as filmed improved my Tolkein experience. The Potter movies have started to diminish my joy in the series, so they will likely be removed from my entertainment budget. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but the past 3 of 5 haven’t been so great, so that doesn’t bode well for the last 2 (now 3). I don’t see the WB correcting their mistakes anytime soon.