Friday Poll
Aug. 10th, 2007 11:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This is a new feature I'm test-driving. It requires less effort than a Friday song-lyrics-meme/download or whatever. So, on with the poll!
WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN COMMENTS TO THIS POLL. There are no spoilers in the poll itself. This week's focus is on Harry Potter. If that's not your bag, no worries. See you next week!
[Poll #1036845]
WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN COMMENTS TO THIS POLL. There are no spoilers in the poll itself. This week's focus is on Harry Potter. If that's not your bag, no worries. See you next week!
[Poll #1036845]
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 04:10 pm (UTC)I THINK I saw the movie first, but read the book almost immediately after, and at some point the images of the kids in my head stopped being identical to the movie actors, if they ever were.
ALSO.
I hate that you didn't give me an option that let me select both Snape AND Draco as my favorite Slytherin.
ALSO, despite the fact that I find Alan Rickman brilliant and adore him as Snape, he's really a bit too old AND a bit too attractive to be Snape, so I really had to go with Umbridge as best-cast, because HOLY SHIT that woman gave me the fucking creeps.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 04:15 pm (UTC)I picked other on Slytherins because, despite Snape, I don't really like any of them. The closest I come to liking any of them is liking Tom Riddle from Chamber of Secrets. And probably only then 'cause the actor was pretty cute.
Movie-Umbridge is PERFECT. That's why I picked her. Kenneth Branaugh would have been my choice but for her being sooooooo good. She actually added menace to Umbridge whereas book-Umbridge was just evil in a banal, self-important way.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 04:19 pm (UTC)But yeah, Kenneth Branagh would've been my second choice. The movies as a whole are, I think, really well cast, except that at some points I almost think they just picked good actors whose names are recognizble when they didn't HAVE to. See: Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes. Those three in particular I think are sort of wasted in their roles, and are mostly just as sort of cameos, like, LOOK WE HAVE FAMOUS NAME PLAYING X.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 05:41 pm (UTC)This is the only place where the first two films have an advantage over the more recent ones.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 05:48 pm (UTC)Richard Harris brought a sparkling note to Dumbledore that Michael Gambon has not. Gambon is a very dangerous-seeming Dumbledore, which undermines the trickster that Dumbledore, the seeming old, senile man, is supposed to be. On the other hand, Harris was so obviously frail, it would have been impossible, even had he lived a few years longer, to see him take up the more action-heavy role Dumbledore occupied in books 4-7.
Gambon, I think, had two very good scenes so far and has otherwise been a non-presence. Which, as you say, will complicate his role in the next two films where he and Harry need to share a closeness they have not since Gambon took over the role. The scenes I think he did well with are the ones involving the time-turner in Prizoner of Azkaban ("We did it, Professor!" "Did what?" ::SNEAKS AWAY::) and the confrontation in the Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix (not to mention that kick-ass escape with Fawkes from Hogwarts). Dumbledore's distance in the films will hurt them.
However, the fact that the Horcruxes are virtual no-shows in the films with the exception of the diary means more trouble still. Rowling did herself a disservice by introducing the concept so very late and with so little clues before OotP, but the films really shot themselves in the foot trying to save time amidst the volume of extraneous material in OotP.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 07:40 pm (UTC)I also agree that the actors playing Harry's parents' generation are too old, but that's only because the book made them crazy young. Nowadays, as the films seem to be set, it wouldn't be strange for parents to be 30 or older before having kids.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 09:47 pm (UTC)ARGH, THANK YOU. His casting actually ruined him in the books for me, and he was my favorite character until the Azkaban film came out. Is that lame? Probably. But I don't care, he sucks. He's not Lupin.
(Compleeeeeeetely disagree on the Oldman front, but I see your point about his age.)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-11 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-11 02:33 am (UTC)And I hate his stupid voice, too. *pout*
At least your icon is cracking me up. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 09:45 pm (UTC)As for favorite - I said Deathly Hallows, but Prisoner of Azkaban is always going to have a special place in my heart. So let's tie those, shall we?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 10:30 pm (UTC)-Arthur Weasley, specifically, is my favorite Gryffindor adult
-Favorite Slytherin is Slughorn. I love how he was written/characterized.
My favorite book (Order of the Phoenix) is a lot of people I know's least favorite. What gives?? This one is so brilliant. I know part of the reason I like it so much is that the Umbridge storyline is so excellent and politically relevant, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE the D.A.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-10 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:24 am (UTC)...or should be.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:01 am (UTC)But yeah, Arthur Weasley is awesome!
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 09:09 pm (UTC)