Ron+Hermionie= Exaggerated?

[Fili]

Does anyone besides me think the director exaggerated the Ron+Hermionie love story more than it was supposed to be?

[Lady of Rohan]

Yah. Chris Columbas really over exaggerated it. For example, at the end of the Chamber of Secrets, when Hermionie runs of to Harry, and gives him a giant hug, and then is about to do the same to Ron, she suddenlt stops, and then shakes his hand. In the books, Rowling was more subtle. But I guess that Columbas had to, to get the point across.

[Fili]

That is the exact place I was thinking of.

[Lady_of_the_Golden_Wood]

J.K. Rowling only mentioned it in book 4. In book one that doesn't work.

[eowyngirl14]

ya... I don't even think anyone is positive Ron and Hermione will hook up! Some one needs to read the books! *looks pointedly at Chris Columbus* Besides at 11, i wasn't worried about who liked who. I was still a tomboy at that age!

[TheRingIsMine]

we agree. hermione was much more concerned with books and school and saving the world than Ron in the books. we think that movies don't have to be romantic to be gooda cheese. okay. our rant is over now.

[Estel13]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
ya... I don't even think anyone is positive Ron and Hermione will hook up! Some one needs to read the books! *looks pointedly at Chris Columbus* Besides at 11, i wasn't worried about who liked who. I was still a tomboy at that age!

I'm still a tomboy, but there is this guy..... If you want details, I'll PM you. ;) Talk to you all tomorrow!:p :p :p
Oh ya, I think R & H will get together in Book 5. ;)

[Fili]

probably, but that was book 2.

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Estel13
I'm still a tomboy, but there is this guy..... If you want details, I'll PM you. ;) Talk to you all tomorrow!:p :p :p
Oh ya, I think R & H will get together in Book 5. ;)

ofcoarse i want details! which H, Harry or Hermione??

(90 second rule is really startin to get at me!)

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Fili
probably, but that was book 2.

pardon my idiecy- but what was book 2?

[Sailor Saiya-Elf]

Originally posted by Lady of Rohan
In the books, Rowling was more subtle. But I guess that Columbas had to, to get the point across.

It could have something to do with the movies being aimed at a slightly different audiece than the books. To read the books, you have to be able to read, but to watch a movie you don't. It could be cattering for that younger audience.

Or, alternatly it could be catering for the Americans. (no offence intended, but they have made a few changes for their lack of subtlty)

[Finmandos12]

It could have something to do with the movies being aimed at a slightly different audiece than the books.

How could you aim lower than the book's audience:p :p .

Or, alternatly it could be catering for the Americans.

Or, alternately, it could be catering for people like you.

[Fili]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
pardon my idiecy- but what was book 2?

The movie, sorry I didnt make myself more clear. :)

[Sailor Saiya-Elf]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
How could you aim lower than the book's audience:p :p .

You have to be able to read to read the books, you just have to be able to look at a screen to watch the movies.

Or, alternately, it could be catering for people like you.

I didn't mean any offence to Americans out there, but usually lot of things in movies/books are changed for the American audiece. If you don't believe me look up a list of changes in the different versions of the HP books.

[eowyngirl14]

Originally posted by Sailor Saiya-Elf
I didn't mean any offence to Americans out there, but usually lot of things in movies/books are changed for the American audiece. If you don't believe me look up a list of changes in the different versions of the HP books.

accualy I am having a hard time believing you. where might I look up such a list?? Did the americans ever ask for it to be changed, or were the english just 'trying to do us a favor'??

[Fili]

Most Americans are as patriotic to the book as anybody else...... or I speak for everybody I know

[b4ugo]

Originally posted by eowyngirl14
accualy I am having a hard time believing you. where might I look up such a list?? Did the americans ever ask for it to be changed, or were the english just 'trying to do us a favor'??

Actually, I have to agree with Sailor Saiya-Elf, lots of things are Hollywood-ized to make more sense for you Americans, no offense intended, you are a whole different audience. One example is how they changed "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone" due to the fact that most American's didn't know what a philosopher actually was.

But I have to say that the second movie seemed a bit too gory for the 8 yr old readers out there. I don't agree with how they portrayed the fight with blood and all that cos the main audience are actually little kids, and I know I wouldn't want my little sister (9) to see that kind of violence.

Plus, you shouldn't need a list for the changes from book to movie, if you've actually read the book.

[FrodoFriend]

It was definitely more exaggerated than in the books, but I don't think it's necessarily bad, just ... different. I like Rowling's style more, but the way they did it in the movie was alright too.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by b4ugo
Actually, I have to agree with Sailor Saiya-Elf, lots of things are Hollywood-ized to make more sense for you Americans, no offense intended, you are a whole different audience. One example is how they changed "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone" due to the fact that most American's didn't know what a philosopher actually was.
Perhaps it's partly difference in culture, though I think that that is a pretty innaccurate generalization. Harry Potter is wildly popular in America as it is, without any changes being made in it. If you can see numerous changes between the books of Harry Potter and the books of it that are sold in England, then it's obvious that the whole thing has been alterred to be made understandable to American stereotypes. However if you can't back up the statement that the whole project has been alterred for Americans, I think your argument doesn't hold much water. So do you think that the books also have been changed much for Americans?

But I have to say that the second movie seemed a bit too gory for the 8 yr old readers out there. I don't agree with how they portrayed the fight with blood and all that cos the main audience are actually little kids, and I know I wouldn't want my little sister (9) to see that kind of violence.

Is it worse than movie 1? I haven't seen the movie that was made of book 2 yet, but if they're violent already then that's too bad. They're going to be a LOT worse by the time book 4 rolls around. That'll be very nasty for younger watchers.

[Fili]

Originally posted by b4ugo
Actually, I have to agree with Sailor Saiya-Elf, lots of things are Hollywood-ized to make more sense for you Americans, no offense intended, you are a whole different audience. One example is how they changed "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone" due to the fact that most American's didn't know what a philosopher actually was.

Hmmmmmmmm...... Me, being American disagree because the people who make the movie never ask the people:confused:

Does that mean that the movie people are copmplete cheapskates?

[Lady_of_the_Golden_Wood]

Aren't all movie people cheapskates? Well, except P.J.

[Elf Girl]

I agree about Americans. They seem to like not to have to think about a book/movie.

I am an American, so no hard feelings over this post.

[Lief Erikson]

\America is made up of all different sorts of people from all sorts of different nationalities and religions. The classic less intelligent American stereotype is very ridiculous, in view of this(Not that I think that's what you're saying, Elf Girl).

I'm an American and I like depth and subtlety in movies or books, though not necessarily in all of them.

[Eowyn, Lady of Rohan]

I don't even remember where Rowling says anything about Hermione and Ron being in love. *shrug* oh heck.

[SamwiseGamgeeOTS]

she does it's subtly....like her and ron talk over the summer all the time. Hermione in her letters to Harry will be like, " Ron said, blah blah blah..." crap like that. you have to remember their afe to. even in book 3 Harry is only 13. So they're not realy in love, they're "in like" as I like to call it. But, it will be blown way outta proportion, kinda like Aragorn and Arwen.....ya know?

[Fili]

Yah....

It bugs me how people are always changing the movie to "Suit different audiences". (If you are confuesd, dont ask)

[Eowyn, Lady of Rohan]

I see.

[The Ben]

That is up to them.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Eowyn, Lady of Rohan
I don't even remember where Rowling says anything about Hermione and Ron being in love. *shrug* oh heck.
Well that fight they had after the Yule Ball in book 4 was pretty obvious, in my opinion.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by b4ugo
Actually, I have to agree with Sailor Saiya-Elf, lots of things are Hollywood-ized to make more sense for you Americans, no offense intended, you are a whole different audience. One example is how they changed "Philosopher's Stone" to "Sorceror's Stone" due to the fact that most American's didn't know what a philosopher actually was.

*cough* Hem, hem. The reason it was changed was because all throughout the book the stone is never once referred to as the Philosopher's Stone, only as the Sorceror's Stone. So it seemed out of place to have the title contradict what it was called in the books, therefore the American press wanted to change the name of the first book to coincide with what the stone was called in the book.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
*cough* Hem, hem. The reason it was changed was because all throughout the book the stone is never once referred to as the Philosopher's Stone, only as the Sorceror's Stone. So it seemed out of place to have the title contradict what it was called in the books, therefore the American press wanted to change the name of the first book to coincide with what the stone was called in the book.

Well, I don't know the reason why the title was changed, but that can't be it. The stone is called "the Philosopher's Stone" all the way through the original UK edition. When they changed the title to "Sorceror's" in the US version, they must have changed all the references in the text as well to be consistent.

[Rána Eressëa]

All right then. I guess they must have done that indeed. Well, since it is a book about magic and wizards and witches, wouldn't Sorcerer's Stone be a slight tad more appropriate than Philosopher's Stone in the end? I don't see why it poses as much of a problem. *shrugs*

[Elf Girl]

*splutter* It's called the 'Philosopher's Stone' because the Philosopher's stone is actually something that exists in mythology, while the Sorceror's Stone is just random idiocy.

You do know what a philosopher's stone is, don't you? *pleading look*

It's a mythical object with the power to turn lead into gold. See?

And yes, in the british edition it is all the way through called the Philosopher's Stone. Honestly. You should at least read it before citing inconsistancies.

[Sheeana]

It was also supposedly used for the creation of the humunculus (sp?) - the creation of immortality. And since Voldemort was after it for that very reason, I'd say "philosophers stone" was a very apt description. Besides, the act of alchemy is NOT magical, it's scientific in nature, and philosophy was the very early branch of science. 'Nuff said? Okay. Moving on.

[Elf Girl]

Thank you. *steam gradually stops pouring from ears*

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
*splutter* It's called the 'Philosopher's Stone' because the Philosopher's stone is actually something that exists in mythology, while the Sorceror's Stone is just random idiocy.

You do know what a philosopher's stone is, don't you? *pleading look*

It's a mythical object with the power to turn lead into gold. See?

And yes, in the british edition it is all the way through called the Philosopher's Stone. Honestly. You should at least read it before citing inconsistancies.

I know that a certain real Nicolas Flamel claimed to find a philosopher's stone in the 14th or 15th century. Other than that, I have only heard of an object capable of turning lead to gold (with none of that "elixir of life" as an addition), but it's name fails me.

I would not consider it a myth; the philospher's stone is more of an ancient prank done by many alchemists.

I couldn't exactly get a hold of any British edition, so do forgive me for that note. The "inconsistancy" thing is true for the American version, but alas - I have never been able to find a British version (save for online, but you see how I couldn't read that without buying).

[Elf Girl]

I said 'myth' merely because it doesn't really exist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosopher%27s%20stone

O, and it says, 'also called "elixir"'. Look up 'elixir', and you get: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elixir