The Half-Blood Prince...

[fajrdrako]

I'm not sure why I watched the trailer for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince because I'm really not much of a Harry Potter fan. No, really.

And having watched it, I'm not sure why I thought it looked really good.

Going to have to go to see this. Drat.

Comments

[creativeelf.livejournal.com]

LOL I won't watch HP. I don't have the energy to get into another fandom. There is just way to much shit for HP I can't be bothered.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not worried about that. I've read the books and seen the movies (and watched the David Tennant bits over a couple of times) and I've even read some of the fic, and still don't feel the least bit fannish about it. I can participate in a conversation and enjoy it, but there's none of that spark and isn't likely to be. Not even a temptation.

I like it in bits and pieces, but I don't love it. And if I was ever going to, I already would.

[dameruth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wouldn't say I'm an HP fan either -- I read the books (even did the midnight release parties for the latter installments, though that was more to support the local bookstore manager, who is a friend, than from rabid book-lust), I've seen the movies, etc. But it's not a consuming passion for me.

That said, I agree with you, as does LSR -- that new trailer rocks! We're already planning to see the movie in the theater. :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

As with most fandoms, I sometimes find it fun to play on the fringes even if I don't share the love of the show. The proof of fannishness to my mind is how eager I am to watching something multiple times. Clearly I can and do watch Doctor Who and Torchwood over and over, just as I have done in fandoms of the past. But my second and third viewings of any of the Harry Potter movies left me bored and restless - except for the David Tennant scenes, which is indicative. I've never reread any of the books, though I have been slowly, sloooowly reading Harrius Potter et Philosophai Lapis, which is fun.

So. The good trailer has sort of whetted my enthusiasm. In contrast to The Dark Knight - I am a lifelong Batman fan, but the trailer made me not want to see it. I am told it's really a terrific movie, so I'm changing my mind.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I looove HP and loved the new trailer. :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Wonderful, wonderful trailer. I hope the movie lives up to the promise!

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Me too! Though I find I enjoy the movies regardless w/o comparison to the books. They aren't as good as the books to me but I've come to understand that's usually how it is!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I used to think that I preferred the medium I came across first. If I'd read the book before I saw the movie, I tended to like the book best. (Especially considering how bad some adaptations are!) If I saw the movie first, I liked it better.

Now I think that's not really true. I tend to like whichever medium came first - if the book is an adaptation of a movie, they tend to be poor. (I can think of a few exceptions. Well, one exception....)

And occasionally you will find a good movie based on a poor book, because the movie-makers improved on the original. This doesn't happen often... I can't think of an example but I know there are some, because I recall remarking on it.

[agentxpndble.livejournal.com]

I like the movies for their own sake but can't watch them anywhere near a time I intend to reread the books... They f*** my head up.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Because they're different, you mean? Which do you prefer - the books or the movies?

[agentxpndble.livejournal.com]

They are *very* different - The books totally rock. The movies have their good points, but don't even begin to capture the books. And I had very clear casting in my head when I read the books - While the casting in the movies is brilliant, it's different than what I saw in my head. That's the hardest thing to wash out of my brain when I go back to reading. Especially since I cast some of the same actors IN DIFFERENT PARTS! :)))

The movies are *gorgeous* visually, the music is awesome, the casting excellent, and the first few movies really captured the books well... But as they go on, they start clipping out entire characters and storylines and by the time you get to the last one that was out, there's not a whole lot left of the original book. I'll be interested to see how they manage Half Blood Prince, since they've pretty much eliminated some key stuff in the previous movies. And then there's the *final* film... :::headdesk:::

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Especially since I cast some of the same actors IN DIFFERENT PARTS! :)))

Good for you! Who did you cast as Snape, in your head? Or Harry?

I agree that the movies are gorgeous. They have a great sense of scope.

I think that some of the movies should be two-part adaptations of the books, to be more true to the originals. But the movie-makers didn't ask me, did they?

Love your icon!

[agentxpndble.livejournal.com]

Who did you cast as Snape, in your head? Or Harry?

From moment one, Snape was Martin Shaw (see icon) for me - I know that doesn't *exactly* fit, but I'd just come off of the Scarlet Pimpernel movies and he just FELL into the part in my own head. Harry, I didn't have a fixed idea about - In fact, Daniel Radcliffe was one of the few movie castings that *helped* me. When I read the books, I'm very much Harry in my own head, so the fact I didn't really have a clear face for him didn't bother me.

The one casting that *really* screwed me up... I had David Thewlis cast as Pettigrew and I just could *not* get around him being Lupin. I had cast John Castle as Lupin from moment #1 (again, not right for everyone but it worked for me) - That's what the icon in the previous post is all about (thanks, BTW. ;-)

I think that some of the movies should be two-part adaptations of the books, to be more true to the originals.

It's hard to quibble with what they've given us... I mean, JKR really likes what they did with it and approved all the changes and everything... So, in a way, it's pure canon. Still, I don't know how they are going to tackle movie seven with all the omissions they've made. It's going to be a completely different story. Part of me wishes they did a BBC miniseries sort of thing with it (like they did with the Narnia stuff) - But then we wouldn't have gotten the amazing visuals and music and casting and so forth... I think I'm happy with it as it is. I just have to *cleanse* myself before returning to the books. :-)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

From moment one, Snape was Martin Shaw (see icon) for me - I know that doesn't *exactly* fit

Woo. He'd be terrific. Very unlike Rickman, but very good. He'd have a lot of projected menace, while Rickman gives Snape a very interioralized interpretation. His Snape is all repressions and tension and weaknesses. Shaw's would be very strong.

I had David Thewlis cast as Pettigrew and I just could *not* get around him being Lupin.

He was very, very unlike my idea of Lupin, too. The other one that seemed anomalous to me was Sirius Black, very unlike my notion of Sirius in the books. Not bad at all - in fact, I'd say the casting was terrific but the way Oldman played him didn't jive with the Black I'd imagined. Partly scripting, partly interpretation by the actor and director.

That's what the icon in the previous post is all about (thanks, BTW. ;-)

Thank you for eplaining. Interesting! I love John Castle, of course. (He'll always be Geoffrey to me. Or Tommy. Or...)

Yes, I too am happy with the movies. It isn't like with, say, the Susan Cooper novels where they changed way, way too much in tone and content. I'm not a big Susan Cooper fan, but I disapprove of what they did on principle.

[agentxpndble.livejournal.com]

Sirius, yeah... I had him cast with Robin Sachs. Someone much shinier and capable of swinging from fun to dark in an instant.

Very specifically, John Castle as Carruthers in Sherlock Holmes - He's got the worn out young-but-grey thing and the angst and the still-waters-run-deep thing going on... :-) The text in that icon is from the Cat Stevens song, "Trouble" - BEST. LUPIN. SONG. EVER.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Someone much shinier and capable of swinging from fun to dark in an instant.

Yes, exactly! Someone mercurial and dangerous, with an edge of glamour in all senses of the word. Oldman's Black too often seemed sullen.

John Castle as Carruthers in Sherlock Holmes

I haven't seen that. Which Sherlock Holmes?

[agentxpndble.livejournal.com]

mercurial

Augh! That's one of my favorite words, EVER! :::hugsvocabulary:::

Which Sherlock Holmes?

Jeremy Brett - The Solitary Cyclist - My screen caps HERE (http://www.johncastlegallery.com/gallerysubpgs/SH.html).

This, of course, was 20-something years ago and there was no *real* chance of him being considered for Harry Potter. ;-) This is the advantage of books over movies.

In praise of John Castle...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I too love the word "mercurial" and use it whenever possible or appropriate.

Thanks for the links to the screencaps. Gorgeous! I must find a way of getting and watching that.

This is the advantage of books over movies.

And of imagination over reality.

[mommimus-prime.livejournal.com]

I haven't enjoyed a HP movie since Prisoner of Azkaban. I find them even more tedious than the books. :P I'm pretty sure I'm going to skip this one because I can think of many better ways of spending three hours including banging my head on a wall. Heh, a bit harsh, I guess.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

a bit harsh, I guess

Well, not necessarily. I feel that way about some shows that many fans totally adore. I am in fact rather charmed and surprised to find someone who likes Harry Potter considerably less than I do! I'm not usually bored the first time through one of the movies. Not much, anyway. (But some of those scenes do go on too long!)