Harry Potter [2]

from this video it's clear that a trans man can't always disguise his former maleness.- Halfy

{{ When I first started watching their videos on Who I had no idea they were trans (what is the right pronoun!!!) anyhow, after a few episodes as much as I had given it any thought I figured they were probably a bit camp or gay, as I had noticed a tendency towards painted nails and feminine earrings. But as I couldnt give two hoots about how other people want to present or represent themsleves, I cant say as I gave it much thought, quality of content being more by far more important. Their gender specifics are not even relevant.
But it was not until a video on trans representation in media that they appreared in the full femine guise and I realised that was it.

As you can see Who vids are far less 'out' (for want of a better word). }}

I suppose the proper terminology here is "trans woman" as it indicates acceptance as a woman, not a man.

Had the 'pleasure' of rewatching The Prisoner of Azkaban tonight - still the shittiest piece of shit ever to come out of this franchise. How this is, by some, considered to be the best of the movies in the series, is beyond me. I can't see how it makes sense to those who haven't read the book and I can't see how it pleases those who have. Garbage

I still don't understand how so many people considered the first film to not measure up to the standards of many of the rest. I felt it captured the magic quite well without going so dark as the others.

halfwise wrote:I still don't understand how so many people considered the first film to not measure up to the standards of many of the rest.  I felt it captured the magic quite well without going so dark as the others.

The first film was the best one. it went downhill from Azkaban onwards. When Yates took over he slowly killed the magic.

Philosopher's Stone is definitely a solidly made and appealing family film, that said I've always felt much of the cinematography/camera work was rather pedestrian and the acting (including the adult cast members) decidedly hit and miss, also (I'm aware this is an ironic complaint given all the moaning I've done over the years about PJ's adaptations) I sometimes feel that the first two films were overly faithful to the books to the point that the pacing suffers and it's less enjoyable and surprising as an adaptation, virtually all the key plot points and much of the dialogue were lifted verbatim from the books, in retrospect I think I'd have preferred something more fluid and daring that reflected the tone/spirit of the books rather than a more visually bland but faithful adaptation.

It sometimes feels like I'm just watching the book copied across to a movie, rather than a film adaptation and presenting things in a new context in a different medium,

Deathly Hallows and Prisoner Of Azkaban will always remain my favourite of the films (and probably of the books too) because i felt they balanced the tone and captured the spirit of the books well(and much of the plot) but still did enough different and were visually interesting to stand alone as films rather than just copying and pasting from the books.

Then again it's been years since i've watched or read any of them, and at this point i know the stories so well it's hard to view them as I first did as a kid. 10 year old me would have been completely enthralled by any of the Potter films, regardless of how lazy the camerawork or wonky the CGI was...

https://www.slashfilm.com/harry-potter-and-the-sorcerers-stone-early-cut-length/

 Hmmm, I wonder what those deleted 18 minutes were? It's been years since I watched the film but Philosopher's Stone probably included/referenced 90% of the book already, from memory there's about 6 or 7 minutes of deleted scenes on the DVD which seeme dmostly to be cut for pacing reasons.

I know they filmed but deleted some scenes with Rick Mayall as the poltergiest Peeves, more scenes at Gringotss and I think Hermione's task with the Potions before they face Quirrel. I think they also filmed a flashback of the murder of Harry's Parents, and perhaps some more scenes with Norbert the Dragon (IIRC in the book its Harry and Hermione who are repsonsible for sending Norbert away, in the film it's mentioned by Hagrid in a line of dailogue)?

Overall I think the first film is already quite lengthy and very faithful to the book, I don't think an extended edition would necessarily benefit it much (unlike say Prisoner Of Azkaban which had over 30 minutes of footage cut out, or The Order Of The Phoniex which apparently had nearly a hour of footage deleted) but it would be interesting to see some of the deleted footage...

I think sooner or later Warner Brothers will end up remaking the books as a series of yearly miniseries (the books are already structured very episodically, and you could easily get 8-10 hour long episodes out of the later books)

Peeves. It's all Peeves. 18 minutes of Peeves.

Edit: oh damnit, you already mentioned Peeves. Well and here I was trying to be funny.