Probably because nobody (except JK) had an idea of quite how pivotal Ginny was going to become, and I don't know how much of the early casting was left up to Chris Columbus (but I like to blame shit on him), but I think he went with a lot of bland choices that another ballsier director like Cuaron might not have made.
This is true. Ginny was basically background until this book/movie, and so all Bonnie really had to do was stand there and look cute and redheaded. And it's true that she's a significant enough character that recasting wasn't an option. The other directors did get stuck with what was established in the first film to a certain degree.
and then just ended up about as charismatic as my a stump.
LOL!
I thought the plot was very deft, whereas for me, the fourth one for example was really shittily budgeted for time and information.
lol! I'm the exact opposite. The fourth movie is probably my favorite of the films. And I found the passage of time really jarring in this one. To me it felt like they got to school, had a class and then it was the dead of winter, and everything seemed to just go by in blur for me without major incidents really standing out.
Tom Felton? Awesome. He really brought it in this one. The scene in the bathroom utterly murdered me, and he really impressed me.
This. He was great in that scene. Also the confrontation with Dumbledore. You could really see how tortured Draco was, having to choose between his own life and Dumbledore's.
but possibly when he said to Hermione, "All hands on deck, Granger!"
That line was awesome. Broadbent really was very good. I liked the depth he was able to give Slugghorn. I didn't care much for Slugghorn in the book, but I felt for him in the movie.
As much as I love the Trio, it's the adults who really really make Potter worth watching.
Word. It's almost mean making the kids act opposite these people. I mean what Maggie Smith can convey with a twitch of her lips like eclipses everything Emma Watson did all film, lol (Oh, Emma, I'm sorry to pick on you so much, that crying scene was just really, really awful)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-21 10:58 pm (UTC)This is true. Ginny was basically background until this book/movie, and so all Bonnie really had to do was stand there and look cute and redheaded. And it's true that she's a significant enough character that recasting wasn't an option. The other directors did get stuck with what was established in the first film to a certain degree.
and then just ended up about as charismatic as my a stump.
LOL!
I thought the plot was very deft, whereas for me, the fourth one for example was really shittily budgeted for time and information.
lol! I'm the exact opposite. The fourth movie is probably my favorite of the films. And I found the passage of time really jarring in this one. To me it felt like they got to school, had a class and then it was the dead of winter, and everything seemed to just go by in blur for me without major incidents really standing out.
Tom Felton? Awesome. He really brought it in this one. The scene in the bathroom utterly murdered me, and he really impressed me.
This. He was great in that scene. Also the confrontation with Dumbledore. You could really see how tortured Draco was, having to choose between his own life and Dumbledore's.
but possibly when he said to Hermione, "All hands on deck, Granger!"
That line was awesome. Broadbent really was very good. I liked the depth he was able to give Slugghorn. I didn't care much for Slugghorn in the book, but I felt for him in the movie.
As much as I love the Trio, it's the adults who really really make Potter worth watching.
Word. It's almost mean making the kids act opposite these people. I mean what Maggie Smith can convey with a twitch of her lips like eclipses everything Emma Watson did all film, lol (Oh, Emma, I'm sorry to pick on you so much, that crying scene was just really, really awful)