Emma Thompson Makes New Comments on Decision Not to Return as Trelawney
January 02, 2009, 07:56 PM
In an interview before the release of her latest film, Last Chance Harvey, actress Emma Thompson has made some new comments regarding her decision not to return to the part of Professor Trelawney for the final Harry Potter films. Speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle, Emma Thompson addresses the outcry over her decision, and her upcoming work on the sequel to Nanny McPhee. Quotage:
Thompson does have a creative outlet other than acting, which is her
writing. She's been working on a drama about British art critic John
Ruskin, and this year filming will start on the sequel to "Nanny
McPhee" (2005), which she adapted from a children's book series.
While this project might seem innocent enough, "Harry Potter" fans
have been all over Thompson because of reports suggesting that she
chose Nanny over Sybil (in the forthcoming "Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows") when both were scheduled to be shot at the same time.
"I wasn't being rude at all," says Thompson, who adds that she loves
Sybil. "It's so typical, where they take something very, very small and
turn it into a big deal. I was never going to be in the next 'Harry
Potter.' I sort of put that to bed."
It’s really a shame she’s not returning as Trelawney. I understand her reasons, but “Nanny McPhee”? Really? It was a terrible film.
I agree that the press is once again blowing things out of proportion. The majority of fans seem clearly supportive of Thompson’s decision. We love her work, but we want her to be happy. :)
Well..Trelawny really don´t add anything to the main story in DH, does she?…So except from throwing crystal balls at death eaters in the ending, there´s really nothing she does…But I agree that it would look funny, but it´s not important to the plot of the story
At least have her throwing crystal balls! That’s one of the most hilarious scenes in the final battle. I’m really sad!
Wait, which Deathly Hallows is she not going to be in? Deathly Hallows will shoot for over a year. Does that mean Nanny McPhee will shoot for over a year too? Can’t they just have her come on set for one day and shoot her throwing crystal balls?
Emma Thompson is a great actress. She was wonderful as Trelawney, but I don’t understand why so many are so angry about her decision. She is a very good screen writer. She adapted “Sense and Sensibility” and “Nanny McPhee” for the screen. I love both films. S&S is one of the very best films I’ve ever seen. I think “Nanny McPhee” is hilarious. It has some really good actors (Imelda Staunton, Celia Imrie, Angela Lansbury) doing some really funny stuff. I watched it again over the holidays and I’m excited to see the sequel. Thompson is one of the most talented people in the film business and I can’t wait to see more of her work!
WHAT!!?? i cant belive shes not coming back!!! I loved her as Trelawney, she was perfect for the role…..
I understand why “Nanny MacPhee” is very important to Ms. Thompson, but if it’s her project she should have worked the filming schedule better. I know Hollywood is very complicated and she’s only one factor in setting up such a schedule, but Trelawney’s part in Deathly Hallows isn’t very big and they probably could have shot all of her scenes in three days at the most. If an actor commits to play a character in a series, I think it’s just incredibly disrespectful to the fans, the creators, and the rest of the cast to walk away when the actor doesn’t feel like working on that project anymore. I realize Trelawney’s absence won’t make any significant changes in the plot of DH, but I think it’s really important to show that all of Hogwarts’ staff was united in the fight against Voldemort, not to mention that each of Jo’s brilliant characters deserves an appearance in the last movie. Then again, I know I’m being naive. I’m one of those silly people who keeps hoping that each new film will actually be comparable to the book.
Well, I for one just don’t buy it that Nanny McPhee would keep her from taking one day to go on the set to throw a few crystal balls. I think it’s more that she’s just assuming her character is written out, given what a minor role it is. I’m not quite convinced there’s NO possibility we’ll see her for that little bit, you never know. I think it’s more tragic that she’s not in HBP for The Seer Overheard. Oh well, I agree with the poster who said she’s just not as into her character as say, Jason Isaacs is, and I do prefer to see the actors who are passionate about being there.
I never really thought Ms. Thompson understood the role. She was always so over the top. Just like McPhee. I think she is a great actress and an even greater screenwriter, but I’ve yet to see her in a role that isn’t completely boring – or way over the top. I’m sorry. I might be too harsh in my thinking here. But honestly that’s how I feel.
A Nanny McPhee sequel won’t be as widely-received as the last Harry Potter movie, and if Emma Thompson honestly believes anything to the contrary, she’s just kidding herself.
I find it amusing that there is all this furore about Trelawney not getting her 5 words of dialogue into what will certainly be an action-packed and more than confusing final act of DH mk2. Has there even been any news as to whether Sprout or Flitwick (the real Filius, not the choir-master version) being there for the final scenes as they have way more importance than Trelawney to the battle?? I honestly did not miss Trelawney in DH, to me it would have been more of an emotional trigger to have her as the teacher that Voldemort kills in the opening chapter rather than the muggle studies teacher we have never seen before. When she showed up chucking crystal balls it was amusing to see her participating in the defense of the castle but it was one paragraph and then nothing more.
I agree with GinaC that her swansong should be in HBP, the real tragedy is her omission there.
She would probably only have had to shoot one day at most if they put Trelawney in DH. Oh well! I’m just glad that the main characters seem to be coming back, and that better include Lucius!
It’s too bad that she’s choosing ‘Nanny’ over HP – she’s a great actress and a brilliant Trelawney – but if you’re that passionate about something, you ought to do that, really. Ah, well. Maybe they could just cut her out of the movie? I don’t want to think about Warner Bros. replacing her (although we fans do know that they love to do things that tick off everyone).
Wow. First of all, she was a mediocre Trelawney who was annoying and overacted severely. Second, she’s no longer needed. Lastly, did she just refer to Harry Potter as “small”? Clearly she fails to see all that is good about the HP phenomenon. She’s a fine actress, but not a very good Trelawney, unlike, for example, Maggie Smith who is fantastic with McGonagall.
I expect she meant “very, very small” in referring to Trelawney’s role in DH. Really they could have just cut the dialogue and have someone in her costume chucking the crystal balls from the stairs and it wouldn’t have made any difference.