I don’t really have much to add to this thread except to say when I was watching the first scene of the film when Harry was in the cafe I thought to myself “that looks a lot like Surbiton station”. And you know what? It was Surbiton station! For those that give a shit it’s about three miles from my house and it makes me squee a bit that I’ve stood on the platform that Harry and AD apparated from.
Oh, and I now know how to get to Diagon Alley too as I visually followed the shapes flying through Trafalgar Square and up Charing Cross Road where they fly into the alleyway next to the book shop that’s on the corner of Great Newport Street. In fact a friend of mine and I went there in search of Diagon Alley and looked down the passageway a couple of weeks ago, but we couldn’t see anything - just some flats.
I have a question - I haven’t seen this answered anywhere else. In the early scene at Slughorn’s house, the magazine has a blonde woman on the cover. Is it a picture of J.K. Rowling?
It’s a contradiction to say she was involved but can’t be held to account for the collaboration. According to the interview with the screenwriter he conferred heavily with her on all aspects of the story.
She’s not accountable for the set design just because she had input into the script. That was your specific complaint in the other thread, remember? That the Hogwarts set wasn’t consistent across all the movies. Screenwriters don’t have anything to do with set design. That job is handled by the cleverly named set designer, a job I very much doubt Rowling is qualified to do.
You also said Rowling should have insisted on a contract that gave her the power to dictate (and that’s the word you used, not “consult” or “advise” or even “recommend”) every creative decision made in the movies. Even if Rowling had written every word of every movie script herself she wouldn’t have had that kind of power. A director on a big Hollywood production doesn’t have that kind of power. Your criticism of Rowling is based on a profound misunderstanding of how the moviemaking process works.
We’re getting off topic but yes, I made comments on both the script and the computer animation (technically, there is no set for hogwarts). If it bothers you that I find fault with her for these aspects of the movies then too bad. You’re not going to change my mind. She held all the cards to the most lucrative book/movie series ever.
Well, yes, I suppose she could technically have demanded total control over every little detail of making the films. But she seems to be a pretty sane and normal person, so she didn’t do that. Because she would have had to have been completely nuts to do that.
And if she had, guess what? The movies would not have been made. Not very lucrative for anybody, including her.
It doesn’t bother me that you hold irrational beliefs. It should bother you, though.
*If you are determined to remain ignorant as to the moviemaking process then that’s your business. What bothers me is that you brought this thread up again just so you could claim some juvenile victory over having discovered proof that Rowling was involved in the scriptwriting process for Prisoner of Azkaban. This fact came as no surprise to me and shouldn’t have been a surprise to you, since I told you more than a month ago that Rowling had more say in the movies than is usual for authors and specifically stated that she had a lot of input into the first four scripts.
*At the time she held all the cards it was no such thing. She made the movie deal in late 1998 after having published exactly two books. Chamber of Secrets hadn’t even been released in the US yet. The first book was already an international bestseller, but Harry Potter was nowhere near the most successful book series ever. I told you all this in the other thread, although I guess I shouldn’t expect it to sink in unless you can find a DVD to explain it to you.
She started out with the first movie by insisting it was an all British cast. You keep insisting such involvement in the movie is some kind of magical power, which it’s obviously not. She had it, she used it, and I criticized some of her efforts. Give it a rest.
Lamia: Your last post is peppered with comments such as:
Personal insults are not permitted in this forum.
I think it is arguable that some of your comments are directed at the post, rather than the poster, which would be acceptable. It doesn’t read that way to me, but I can see an argument to that effect. Hence, I’m not issuing an official warning, I’m just inserting the friendly advice to tone down the personal comments.
It should be possible to have this disagreement without being nasty to the other poster. So, cool it, please.
Yes, I know. That’s another thing I told you in the other thread.
*No, I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that Rowling had much greater involvement in the films than is typical for authors. You have been criticizing her for not demanding total creative control over every detail of the productions, which would have been far more involvement than she actually had and far more than any Hollywood studio would have ever agreed to grant her. And since you’re the one who brought it up again, maybe you should give it a rest.
Thank you for the advice, I hope I have followed it.
I don’t recall using the term “total creative control” in a sentence. Is the casting demand total creative control? Is the collaboration with the screenwriter total creative control? She was in a position to keep the movie on track with the books and she took advantage of that. I fault a couple of things that are directly related to the consistency of the movies and for some reason you insist that it’s beyond her author/collaborator role to make this happen. It’s not an all-or-nothing scenario. Her intent (and purpose in the production) was to keep the movies on-track with the books.
There is no logical reason to change the layout of Hogwarts between movies. It’s not like the old one died and needed to be replaced. It was an easy production value to maintain without losing “total creative control”.
Have you two ever been to a dinner party where a great general discussion has turned into a sharp exchange by just two guests and the rest of the guests just sort of fidget with their cutlery and look down at the tablecloth?
Well, I have.
I can’t wait for the film to come out on DVD–maybe late fall? Anyone know the release date (I’m thinking the Xmas market).
It is totally beyond the role of the lead screenwriter, much less a collaborator on the screenplay, to dictate the floorplans for the movie’s setting.
*As far as I can tell, Rowling feels she succeeded in this goal. Everything she’s said about the movies has been very positive. What changes were made between the page and the screen were apparently all changes she felt she could live with.
*This had nothing to do with Rowling’s job as author of the books or collaborator on the screenplays. It had nothing to do with Steve Kloves as the screenwriter either. It was because of the director of Prisoner of Azkaban, Alfonso Cuarón.
When Cuarón was brought on as director of the third film he wanted to go with a different look. I don’t know what his reasons were, but he was the director and this kind of decision is part of the director’s job. When Chris Columbus stepped down from the director’s chair after the second movie then I suppose the studio could have insisted that his replacement do nothing to deviate from the look of the first two films, but they’d have had a pretty hard time attracting a decent director if they weren’t willing to give that director freedom to make creative decisions. They had a hard enough time getting a director as things were – Wikipedia tells me (with cites included) that Guillermo del Toro and Marc Forster both turned down the job before it was offered to Alfonso Cuarón.
Had Chris Columbus decided to stay on as director of the entire series then it no doubt would have been more consistent in terms of visual style, but he didn’t want to do it anymore. Rowling was not involved in choosing his replacement or any of the directors for any of the films. It’s been widely reported that Rowling’s personal first choice for director of the series was Terry Gilliam, and he’s been verypublic about saying he wanted the job but that the studio was against him. Rowling’s clout as a bestselling novelist wasn’t enough to give her control over who the director would be, and it wouldn’t have been enough to give her control over what the director did either. In response to rumors that she refused to let Steven Spielberg direct the movies, Rowling posted on her website that she could not have vetoed a director if she’d wanted to and that the extent of her involvement with the film’s directors was to answer their questions. There is no reason for you to believe that she had the power to prevent Cuarón from redesigning Hogwarts.
It’s not a dictation of the floor plan, it’s a directive to keep it consistent. You know, like her directive to use British actors.
Good on her the she’s pleased with her work.
And yet I do. In my opinion an author with the power to dictate casting has the ability to suggest continuity of layout. Imagine a world where people have different opinions. The horror.
That isn’t an opinion, it’s a claim about a factual situation. Either Rowling had the power to control the Hogwarts design or she didn’t, it isn’t a matter of opinion. But you can believe whatever you want to believe, and you’re clearly determined to do so. What I don’t understand is why you brought the matter up again if your mind is so firmly made up.
