Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley V2 ♥

[Paper_Shoes]

I saw a quote from Cuaron on the POA movie thread where he said he doesn't like to focus on the story too much. That explains a lot. I really don't understand that. What's a movie without a good story behind it? Random visual images are not worth the $8 for a ticket no matter how pretty they are.

that's really not what he said at all.

[cgold]

Originally Posted by Paper_Shoes

that's really not what he said at all.

Well, don't just stop there, what exactly did he say or if you can't find the exact quote to post, what was the gist of his statement?

Originally Posted by lindaluna

I don't get that? Where's the horror in discussing plastic surgury?

Doesn't this site post pictures of the trio at other movie opennings? refer to their charitable giving, events they attend, boyfriends & girlfriends (dan & makeup artist in Australia). Post portraits of Dan - certainly not in costume? Tell us all about Bonnie Weasley? Publish stuff in their handwriting that they mailed to magazines? Publish fan shots of filming? Allow pictures from their yearbooks (evanna lynch?).

Obviously pictures of the Trio out promoting, onset pictures and things they say about themselves they've disclosed to the media, their capabilities as actors in their roles are things and so on are things we are free to discuss. Speculating as to whether Rupert has had plastic surgery or not, other than being very silly (to me), is negative and obviously not something to be taken seriously unless this is to turn into a mockery of a thread.

How is driving lessons about Rupert as Weasley?

Driving Lessons is a movie Rupert did in between filming Harry Potter movies. We discuss Rupert's acting abilities a lot of this thread and frequently, his role in Driving Lessons is an indication of how he's grown as an actor and how much the character of Ron Weasley will be improved in later films as Rupert grows as an actor while doing Potter films and other projects. Also, many of the reviews he received for Driving Lessons spoke about him in reference to his main role as Ron Weasley so we're very interested. See below:

Reviews for Driving Lesson discussing Rupert as Ron "As Ben, Grint does just enough to suggest he's capable of shaking off the character of Ron Weasly from the Harry Potter films, for which he is best known." "There are a few moments when the shy, awkward teenager resembles the shy, awkward teenage wizard, but they are few and far between, and on the whole it is an excellent performance." ~ The Scotsman "Grint, on the other hand, is a revelation. A supporting player in the highly popular Harry Potter series (in which Walters plays his mother), the young actor displays an innate naturalness mixed with personal charisma that turn a potentially pathetic Christian freak into a humorous, thoroughly likable -- if more than a little awkward -- young man caught between the dogmatic brainwashing perpetrated by his well-intentioned but psychopathic mother and his need to grow into his own person. Even when Brock's words are inadequate -- the final confrontation between Ben and his mother comes to mind -- Grint delivers his lines with such honesty that he makes them ring true. Only a veritably accomplished actor can manage such a feat." ~ Alternative Film Guide "It's a brave move for Grint, who takes his first steps into grown-up cinema with Driving Lessons and displays talent that seems certain of guaranteeing him a long career as an actor. There's a distinction to be made between performance and acting and the big-budget effects-driven world of the Potter films certainly play to the former category. Here he's acting and while the part may not be entirely removed from who Grint is as a person, his off-screen persona never once intrudes." Film Focus Review "Rupert Grint is best known as Ron, the hapless sidekick in the Harry Potter films. So moviegoers might be excused for relegating him to supporting-actor status. But “Driving Lessons,” a comedy-drama in which he co-stars with Julie Walters and Laura Linney, proves that he has what it takes to be a leading man." ~ STL Today "There is but one reason to sign up for "Driving Lessons" : to watch Rupert Grint ... but his air of perpetual innocence, so endearing in the "Potter" films, conveys nicely. And he makes a disarming foil for Walters." ~ The Washington Post "Rupert Grint is breaking free from Ron Weasley..." ~ The Dish "Many have noted that Grint is actually a better actor than the titular fellow he is a sidekick to, and he proves that here in a performance that evokes Gordon John Sinclair in Gregory's Girl." ~ Scotts Movies "Grint, clearly exhibiting his abilities as an actor through the Potter films and now Driving Lessons..." ~ Film Focus Interview "First time director, Jeremy Brock, awarded Rupert Grint the lead role due to his being criminally underused as ‘Ron Weasley’ in the last two Harry Potter instalments. It proves a wise choice as Grint shines as Ben... Grint plays Ben’s initial reticence well, and as his character flourishes during the course of his friendship with Evie, as an actor Grint grows. Casting off the shackles of Harry Potter, his charm lay in his ability to say very little whilst his earnest expressions manage to encapsulate awkwardness, passion and general teenage angst all at once." "Rupert Grint has been famously under-used in the Harry Potter films as Ron Weasley, Harry's red-headed mate." ... "but it's nice to see Rupert Grint coming out from under that colorful thatch, and coming, not a moment too soon, into an appealing pre-maturity." ~ WSJ.com "Rupert Grint has his first grown-up leading man role in 'Driving Lessons'... such a likeable kid it is fun to see him being manly and getting the girl. Grint is not just a flaky, red-haired sidekick to Harry Potter; he is an actor of growing assurance who looks to enjoy a long, fruitful career." ~ Boca Raton News

Etc., etc., etc. See the opening post of this thread for the rest. The point is, we can discuss Rupert as an actor and his abilities, his achievements, how he could improve etc. on this thread. Pointless and silly discussions about imagined plastic surgery do not seem conducive to a good or relevant discussion. I'm astonished you can't see the point of not doing so and perhaps a mod can explain this matter better than I can although I'm surprised it requires any explanation at all. I actually thought you were joking initially.

Originally Posted by ronjalina

Why do they have to take away his defining character traits and make him look like a coward only to let Harry and/or Hermione shine?

I have an opinion, but it's completely biased so I don't know if it's true. From what I can see the characters of Harry and Hermione cannot shine in the movies if Ron is canon and given his fair because Rupert performances tend to outshine. Harry is the hero and girls need their heroine and sexist producers, etc. can turn Emma into a pin-up doll for guys and Ron can be molded into the cliche of silly sidekick. It's not what made JK's book work but these cliches have been working in the movie industry for quite a while. That's my personal opinion. It could be wrong.

To be honest, I'm a huge Rupert fan and he plans an actor career after Potter so I don't exactly want him to be overexposed as Ron Weasley (although he's very exposed already) so pushing him back a little so others can shine is not a huge problem for me. The problem is that Ron's not very canon so even if they wanted to push other characters forward but left Ron's character in tact, I wouldn't have a very big problem. Ron is a great character but he's not written very well written in the movies and is only saved by the fact that Rupert's such a great actor he makes it enjoyable nevertheless. It's just another aspect of what has spoilt Rowlings work in my opinion. It's not the major thing but simply a symptom of that major thing.

We know we will have Kloves for HBP and most probably for DH as well, so please no.

It would be great if this guy for OotP did such an amazing job it will highlight what a poor job the screenplay has been all these years but somehow I doubt it very much. I fully expect him to be on for Deathly Hallows. You would think he would be in demand after his "glorious" works on the Potter series but I guess he has the time to write it and I'm sure Potter pays more money than a lot of other movies.

I don´t know. Maybe watching multi-dimensional characters requires some thinking. One has actually differentiate between situations and cannot just pidgeonhole someone. That´s a little bit straining of course (sorry, couldn´t spare the sarcasm). What a way to finish the year.

They do require thinking but I've never thought the books were nuclear science in the first place so I don't think they have to think that much.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you all.

Thanks Same to you. I hope I enjoy tonight

Cheers

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by cgold

I went and ordered it because I read a comment by someone on one of the Rupert comment boards that it will play on the computer's DVD player. Amazon said I should get it in about 9 days. If it doesn't work then it wasn't a million dollars and if by some miracle I ever get the courage to travel all the way to the UK I'll have a DVD that works there . Plus it will be kinda neat to have both versions.

Good luck with that - tell me how it works out. Me - I gotta wait for a US release.

Wow. I've never heard that before. It would certainly explain a lot. I wish he would get the story right too because I think he's a brilliant director but when it comes to Potter, you really have to think about the characters and the story too. I think his movie had the most emotional depth though but it was concentrated entirely on Harry.

I had the opposite impression. POA is all about SUPERHermione! and how vital and important she is. He made Harry look clueless and Ron even worse.

But that explains why he completely disregarded the story and characterization. His goal for any movie is to make something visually appealing. Somebody needs to tell him that a movie can be visually appealing and have a good story as well.

It was a mistake to ignore her character but nothing that can't be fixed. I'm eager to see OotP to see what they did with her. It appears she does have some focus and based on that article we read long ago they may be starting some of the romantic implications early. It would be the smart thing to do but as I said before, I don't trust these people.

Cheers

Oh, it's definitely something they can fix. The question is whether or not they will fix it. If they don't build her up in OOTP, then they're going to have to add things to HBP in order for it to make sense. That article we discussed before gave me some hope that they were going to do that in OOTP, but we haven't seen anything in the few clips that are out to confirm that. It is very hard to trust these people when they've made so many mistakes.

Originally Posted by Paper_Shoes

that's really not what he said at all.

Cuaron quote I despise movies that explain. I cannot stand exposition in movies. I start getting, like, a rash. It's like getting suffocated in the theater. Because I love cinema. And cinema is becoming something that is not cinema. Cinema is becoming a medium of illustrating stories. Cinema is becoming a medium in which you can close your eyes and you can watch the movie.(...)I think that cinema within the past few years has been a hostage to stories. And we have to make stories to dance with cinema, not to be just a hostage. Where story, and acting, and cinematography, and music are elements to create a cinematic narrative. I'm sorry; I'm going to rant because I don't understand the point of a movie that you can watch with your eyes closed.

No explanation and no exposition = very bad movie. Cuaron needs to learn that movies are supposed to illustrate stories. That's the whole point of a movie - to see the story come to life.

Cuaron's style can work with original movies. But that fails horribly when applied to a movie based on a book. In doing a book adaption, you are basically illustrating the story. The story, characterization, and overall plot have to come first. If you lose that, then it doesn't matter how pretty it all looks in the end.

[Paper_Shoes]

Where story, and acting, and cinematography, and music are elements to create a cinematic narrative.

Notice how story is included in this. He doesn't ignore and just focus on making pretty pictures as you say. He wants everything to work together in harmony.

POA has the story and overall plot, I don't see how you could possibly say it doesn't unless you don't know what the story is. The thing that isn't there is charaterization. And we'll never agree on this subject because I don't think characters need to be portrayed exactly as they are in the book, except for Harry. And this was the only film where I thought he was even close.


edit = and more on topic, rupert is the best child actor in harry potter. by a wide margin.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Paper_Shoes

Notice how story is included in this. He doesn't ignore and just focus on making pretty pictures as you say. He wants everything to work together in harmony.

POA has the story and overall plot, I don't see how you could possibly say it doesn't unless you don't know what the story is. The thing that isn't there is charaterization. And we'll never agree on this subject because I don't think characters need to be portrayed exactly as they are in the book, except for Harry. And this was the only film where I thought he was even close.

Well, it is very subjective, but I don't feel that POA has the story and overall plot. Explanations and exposition are very important to conveying the story accurately. And yes, I do know what the story is. For me, the characterization is the key. If the characterization is wrong, the story is lost. Especially when it comes down to the end and Hermione is running around saving the day - leading a clueless Harry around by the nose.

The basic information is there. Sirius escaped - everyone believes he wants to kill Harry - Lupin and Sirius were friends with James - Sirius is innocent and Pettigrew was pretending to be Scabbers because he was guilty. But that's pretty much it. The heart of the story is lost. It's watered down and butchered to make room for PinkPowerGranger. It's not cohesive and you just don't give a damn about Harry because Super!Hermione is everywhere taking care of everything so Harry and Ron don't have to do anything but look clueless and wonder what's going on. Throw in some wildly exaggerated scared faces and Ron screaming like a girl for Harry to save him - as opposed to bravely sacrificing himself to save Harry - and you have a complete waste of money that does not reflect the book at all.

edit = and more on topic, rupert is the best child actor in harry potter. by a wide margin.

Definitely agree with you on that one.

[cgold]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Good luck with that - tell me how it works out. Me - I gotta wait for a US release.

I will .

I had the opposite impression. POA is all about SUPERHermione! and how vital and important she is. He made Harry look clueless and Ron even worse.

But that explains why he completely disregarded the story and characterization. His goal for any movie is to make something visually appealing. Somebody needs to tell him that a movie can be visually appealing and have a good story as well.

Actually, making Hermione like that made her very one-dimensional and thus a flat character with little to no depth. She experienced none of the stress of overwork that was caused by her using the time-turner, her fight with Ron did not seem particularly stressful for her at all and was barely relevant at all and the only time she seemed like a real person was when she cried over Buckbeak, you didn't even see when she passed out from the dementors. It was completely ridiculous how one-dimensional she was. She had no issues except to be a SuperGirl. Only one aspect of her character was shown and therefore, most of her true self was missing from the movie. Ron was the same as well except going to the other extreme. Harry on the other hand had a lot of depth I thought and completely agree with Paper_Shoes on this. In my opinion, the true character of Harry Potter was the most present during PoA. I found the interactions between him and Lupin particularly great and you saw his strengths, some weaknesses, you saw some wit and grit when he challenged Snape. The way he spoke to Fred and George seemed the most natural of their relationship and overall, I thought Harry was about 75% correct in PoA. He's only been between 40-60% correct in the other movies in my opinion. I've already said that when I read PS/SS I was completely shocked that Harry Potter had a different personality from what I'd been watching on cable all those years.

Oh, it's definitely something they can fix. The question is whether or not they will fix it. If they don't build her up in OOTP, then they're going to have to add things to HBP in order for it to make sense. That article we discussed before gave me some hope that they were going to do that in OOTP, but we haven't seen anything in the few clips that are out to confirm that. It is very hard to trust these people when they've made so many mistakes.

All we have to do is wait and see. Nothing we'll say will matter except that we have the knowledge that this thing isn't brain surgery so why can't they do it.

No explanation and no exposition = very bad movie. Cuaron needs to learn that movies are supposed to illustrate stories. That's the whole point of a movie - to see the story come to life.

Cuaron's style can work with original movies. But that fails horribly when applied to a movie based on a book. In doing a book adaption, you are basically illustrating the story. The story, characterization, and overall plot have to come first. If you lose that, then it doesn't matter how pretty it all looks in the end.

I actually interpret this differently than you did. I think he's just saying that he likes to tell the movies visually instead of having a lot of people talking. This is perhaps another reason why I think PoA was superior because Harry feels a lot of things on the inside in the books and miraculously Dan was able to convey some of this without exposition (I thought he did so well in this movie) and it's good to be able to show that instead of having him say it. I particularly liked the little Buckbeak scene where he rode off and you sensed his freedom. It's different from the book where Harry hated the ride but I really liked the connection that Cuaron made with the freedom that Buckbeak represented. I really liked the fact that Cuaron had a lot of themes that were shown throughout the story and made it cohesive. That theme of freedom. Buckbeak saves them twice. The clock in the tower that eventually represented the changing of time and likewise the whomping willow which indicated that there was something mysterious and dangerous but turned out to be something else (Sirius). I thought these things really added depth to his story and it's a reason I would want him back but sans Kloves. Having the two of them together again would just be too much. I don't think I should endure such a massacre of Ron and Hermione's characters again.

Cheers

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by cgold

Actually, making Hermione like that made her very one-dimensional and thus a flat character with little to no depth. She experienced none of the stress of overwork that was caused by her using the time-turner, her fight with Ron did not seem particularly stressful for her at all and was barely relevant at all and the only time she seemed like a real person was when she cried over Buckbeak, you didn't even see when she passed out from the dementors. It was completely ridiculous how one-dimensional she was. She had no issues except to be a SuperGirl. Only one aspect of her character was shown and therefore, most of her true self was missing from the movie. Ron was the same as well except going to the other extreme. Harry on the other hand had a lot of depth I thought and completely agree with Paper_Shoes on this. In my opinion, the true character of Harry Potter was the most present during PoA. I found the interactions between him and Lupin particularly great and you saw his strengths, some weaknesses, you saw some wit and grit when he challenged Snape. The way he spoke to Fred and George seemed the most natural of their relationship and overall, I thought Harry was about 75% correct in PoA. He's only been between 40-60% correct in the other movies in my opinion. I've already said that when I read PS/SS I was completely shocked that Harry Potter had a different personality from what I'd been watching on cable all those years.

Definitely agree with you about Hermione. But not Harry. He was flat and one-dimensional as well. I just couldn't bring myself to care about anything that was going on because there was no depth to it. Some of that is due to acting, but the script was really lacking as well. You just didn't feel it or understand what was going on because there was no exposition. If I hadn't read the book, I would have thought Harry was overreacting most of the time. My mother did - she hasn't read any of the books and she kept asking me why Harry was so upset and I had to explain it to her.

All we have to do is wait and see. Nothing we'll say will matter except that we have the knowledge that this thing isn't brain surgery so why can't they do it.

Sad, but true.

I actually interpret this differently than you did. I think he's just saying that he likes to tell the movies visually instead of having a lot of people talking. This is perhaps another reason why I think PoA was superior because Harry feels a lot of things on the inside in the books and miraculously Dan was able to convey some of this without exposition (I thought he did so well in this movie) and it's good to be able to show that instead of having him say it. I particularly liked the little Buckbeak scene where he rode off and you sensed his freedom. It's different from the book where Harry hated the ride but I really liked the connection that Cuaron made with the freedom that Buckbeak represented. I really liked the fact that Cuaron had a lot of themes that were shown throughout the story and made it cohesive. That theme of freedom. Buckbeak saves them twice. The clock in the tower that eventually represented the changing of time and likewise the whomping willow which indicated that there was something mysterious and dangerous. I thought these things really added depth to his story and it's a reason I would want him back but sans Kloves. Having the two of them together again would just be too much. I don't think I should endure such a massacre of Ron and Hermione's characters again.

Cheers

Well, without explanation or exposition, all you get is random images. To me, explanation and exposition are crucial to getting the story across. That's what bugs me about the POA movie. None of the characters were right and that just destroyed the whole thing. I understand that you thought Harry was good, but I don't. Harry is not that clueless - a bit clueless, but not to the point where he has to be led around by the nose. And the whole backstory is completely lost. If you haven't read the book, it's difficult to follow and understand what's going on. It took me an additional two hours to explain the whole thing to my mom because the movie just left her with questions - she didn't understand any of it. And - I'm not kidding - she literally asked me why it was called Harry Potter when the girl was the star.

It is possible to make a movie that tells the story visually. But not with a book adaption. A book adaption requires explanation and exposition and if you leave those things out in favor of pretty pictures, the story is lost and you're left with a colossal waste of time and money.

After seeing GOF, I'm not so quick to judge Kloves. He did a good job with that one - particularly with the characterization. I've looked at the original scripts for the first three movies and Kloves really did not to that bad of a job in adapting those. It wasn't perfect, but I do think he understands the books and what they are about, as well as the characters. As I've said before, the apology scene with Ron and Harry could have been written by Jo herself. So I no longer believe that Kloves is the problem.

The first four movies had 3 different directors and one screenwriter. Of those four movies, POA is the worst in terms of characterization and story. It is also the least popular of the four movies - and I have done the research on that so I know that is true. The difference is the director - not the screenwriter. Cuaron is to blame for the fiasco of POA. Kloves I can deal with. Pair him with a decent director and he'll be fine.

And I think that is a matter of interpretation. Bringing this back on topic - it was suggested by someone that maybe Cuaron didn't like Rupert. But he has always praised Rupert as an actor. I think the problem is simply that Cuaron either doesn't like the character of Ron or he - like many others - has simply misinterpreted the books and Ron's role in the story. The Whomping Willow scene is the best example of that I think. Kloves wrote a really good scene that showed Ron being courageous and sacrificing himself to try and save Harry. It was Cuaron who re-wrote that scene into the drivel that was in the final film. Cuaron altered that scene so that, instead of seeing Ron being courageous, he comes across as a coward - begging Harry to save him. Visually, it was more dramatic for Harry to chase after the dog dragging Ron - but it was not accurate in terms of characterization or even the story. Having Ron begging Harry to save him changes the story from what Jo intended.

Rupert is definitely talented. Even given that kind of drivel to work with, he managed to do a good job with it.

[cgold]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Definitely agree with you about Hermione. But not Harry. He was flat and one-dimensional as well. I just couldn't bring myself to care about anything that was going on because there was no depth to it. Some of that is due to acting, but the script was really lacking as well. You just didn't feel it or understand what was going on because there was no exposition. If I hadn't read the book, I would have thought Harry was overreacting most of the time. My mother did - she hasn't read any of the books and she kept asking me why Harry was so upset and I had to explain it to her.

But what do you think would have added more dimension to his character? I think in this case he seemed to be about as 75% fleshed out in the movie as he was in the books. I think it must be mostly perceived bad acting (the "He was their friend" moment and his weird breathing while dealing with the dementors come to mind) but other than that, I thought Harry was pretty good in this movie. Much better than the cutesy angstless version in movies one and two and definitely better than the almost one dimensional again (but not cutesy) version in movie 4. He had some depth in movie 4 but not much. He pretty much did all the tasks himself with no help or much anxiety or at least not to the extent that was shown in the books and he had a couple scenes showing his trouble with girls. He was a very typical, shallow, I-can-do-it-all-by-myself hero when one of the things about GoF was that he really couldn't do it by himself. Sure they showed him getting help here and there but I think the feeling was that he could still do it all. I just couldn't feel Harry's character much during GoF. I really liked him in scenes with Cho and at the end when he was in Moody's office and when he and Ron made up but nothing else really grabbed me about the character. I also liked the end before he and Cedric grabbed the cup.

Well, without explanation or exposition, all you get is random images. To me, explanation and exposition are crucial to getting the story across. That's what bugs me about the POA movie. None of the characters were right and that just destroyed the whole thing. I understand that you thought Harry was good, but I don't. Harry is not that clueless - a bit clueless, but not to the point where he has to be led around by the nose. And the whole backstory is completely lost. If you haven't read the book, it's difficult to follow and understand what's going on. It took me an additional two hours to explain the whole thing to my mom because the movie just left her with questions - she didn't understand any of it. And - I'm not kidding - she literally asked me why it was called Harry Potter when the girl was the star.

It is possible to make a movie that tells the story visually. But not with a book adaption. A book adaption requires explanation and exposition and if you leave those things out in favor of pretty pictures, the story is lost and you're left with a colossal waste of time and money.

After seeing GOF, I'm not so quick to judge Kloves. He did a good job with that one - particularly with the characterization. I've looked at the original scripts for the first three movies and Kloves really did not to that bad of a job in adapting those. It wasn't perfect, but I do think he understands the books and what they are about, as well as the characters. As I've said before, the apology scene with Ron and Harry could have been written by Jo herself. So I no longer believe that Kloves is the problem.

The first four movies had 3 different directors and one screenwriter. Of those four movies, POA is the worst in terms of characterization and story. It is also the least popular of the four movies - and I have done the research on that so I know that is true. The difference is the director - not the screenwriter. Cuaron is to blame for the fiasco of POA. Kloves I can deal with. Pair him with a decent director and he'll be fine.

And I think that is a matter of interpretation. Bringing this back on topic - it was suggested by someone that maybe Cuaron didn't like Rupert. But he has always praised Rupert as an actor. I think the problem is simply that Cuaron either doesn't like the character of Ron or he - like many others - has simply misinterpreted the books and Ron's role in the story. The Whomping Willow scene is the best example of that I think. Kloves wrote a really good scene that showed Ron being courageous and sacrificing himself to try and save Harry. It was Cuaron who re-wrote that scene into the drivel that was in the final film. Cuaron altered that scene so that, instead of seeing Ron being courageous, he comes across as a coward - begging Harry to save him. Visually, it was more dramatic for Harry to chase after the dog dragging Ron - but it was not accurate in terms of characterization or even the story. Having Ron begging Harry to save him changes the story from what Jo intended.

As rare as this is, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't mind the story being told without the spoken exposition if they can use other means to tell the story. I actually like that because if they are able to tell the same story from the books but leave out a lot of the spoken exposition, then this is a new way of seeing an old thing we've read about many times. I still think PoA was the best and I liked Cuaron's work. I do not like Kloves's work and that's just the end of that. I don't think the way he adapts the books are conducive to telling the story in it's most capable fashion. I saw his best effort as the GoF script and that still should have been better but I think the director was more to blame for that than Kloves. I've seen where Kloves has improved so I have like a 1% hope for HBP being half-way decent but not much. I've already posted scenes from the original script where he treated Ron's character like ****, notably the scene with him hiding under the bed from Sirius's attack which was completely anti what the book said and anti Ron's character as well. When ever has Ron gone into hiding when Harry needed protection? Cuaron made some shady changes but at least he's a good director. Some stuff he changed was not very canon but I thought the story got told except the Marauder's part was far too rushed, whether you cared about them or not and no explanation given for the patronus. I think Kloves is a bad adapter of HP. He may be a good screenplay writer elsewhere but he's not one when it comes to Harry Potter. People may not see it now but I think when all is concluded, people will look back and realise that the writing was one of the things that sucked the most in these movies.

Cheers

[ep300]

Originally Posted by Nearlyheadless

Rupert seems just like Ron in real life. Not talking about looks, ofcourse they look the same there. I mean their personalities, I won 't say I'm a 'know all about Rupert' but I 've seen alot of interviews and he 's often the quiet/'shy' one of the 3. It's all about the script though. In the movies they don 't look that much alike in personality but if I grab the book it's just Rupert

agreed. i think he does a great job as ron.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by cgold

But what do you think would have added more dimension to his character? I think in this case he seemed to be about as 75% fleshed out in the movie as he was in the books. I think it must be mostly perceived bad acting (the "He was their friend" moment and his weird breathing while dealing with the dementors come to mind) but other than that, I thought Harry was pretty good in this movie. Much better than the cutesy angstless version in movies one and two and definitely better than the almost one dimensional again (but not cutesy) version in movie 4. He had some depth in movie 4 but not much. He pretty much did all the tasks himself with no help or much anxiety or at least not to the extent that was shown in the books and he had a couple scenes showing his trouble with girls. He was a very typical, shallow, I-can-do-it-all-by-myself hero when one of the things about GoF was that he really couldn't do it by himself. Sure they showed him getting help here and there but I think the feeling was that he could still do it all. I just couldn't feel Harry's character much during GoF. I really liked him in scenes with Cho and at the end when he was in Moody's office and when he and Ron made up but nothing else really grabbed me about the character. I also liked the end before he and Cedric grabbed the cup.

Honestly, I think it would have been better if they had just explained why Harry was so upset. If I hadn't already read the book, it would have felt like he was overreacting most of the time. The enormity of the situation was just lost. It was hard to understand just what it was Sirius was supposed to have done. Why was he being blamed for the Potter's deaths? The scene at the pub was just confusing and cutting Ron and Hermione out - which made no sense whatsoever - causes you to lose the impact because you don't get their reactions. Harry just comes across as a one-dimensional cardboard cutout to me. With Hermione being shoved in your face every few minutes, Harry's story is completely lost.

As rare as this is, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't mind the story being told without the spoken exposition if they can use other means to tell the story. I actually like that because if they are able to tell the same story from the books but leave out a lot of the spoken exposition, then this is a new way of seeing an old thing we've read about many times. I still think PoA was the best and I liked Cuaron's work. I do not like Kloves's work and that's just the end of that. I don't think the way he adapts the books are conducive to telling the story in it's most capable fashion. I saw his best effort as the GoF script and that still should have been better but I think the director was more to blame for that than Kloves. I've seen where Kloves has improved so I have like a 1% hope for HBP being half-way decent but not much. I've already posted scenes from the original script where he treated Ron's character like ****, notably the scene with him hiding under the bed from Sirius's attack which was completely anti what the book said and anti Ron's character as well. When ever has Ron gone into hiding when Harry needed protection? Cuaron made some shady changes but at least he's a good director. Some stuff he changed was not very canon but I thought the story got told except the Marauder's part was far too rushed, whether you cared about them or not and no explanation given for the patronus. I think Kloves is a bad adapter of HP. He may be a good screenplay writer elsewhere but he's not one when it comes to Harry Potter. People may not see it now but I think when all is concluded, people will look back and realise that the writing was one of the things that sucked the most in these movies.

Cheers

Well, having read the original scripts, I have to disagree. Kloves did a better job with the adaptions than is revealed through the finished product on screen. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than the changes Cuaron made. I would rather have watched Ron get angry and come to terms with the fact that being Harry's friend could get him killed - which is something I feel Ron probably did do at some point, just privately - than watch him scream like a girl while being dragged into the Whomping Willow. Kloves original scrip just told the story better, IMO.

Exposition and explanation can be done in a lot of ways - Cuaron just avoids it all together and that's a mistake when doing a book adaption. For example - Hermione having the time turner. That makes absolutely no sense in the movie because Cuaron neglected to include anything that revealed just how many classes she was taking or that some of those classes were scheduled for the same time. There was no mention of her having additional classes that Harry and Ron were not taking. And having her just appear out of nowhere in the middle of class was poorly done because you didn't notice that she wasn't there. Ron speaks up - "where'd she come from" and she says "I've been here the whole time" and you believe her and think Ron's an idiot because you didn't notice that she wasn't there.

That would have been better if they had included something to show that Hermione had all those extra classes. The bit where Ron looks at her schedule and points out that she has classes scheduled at the same times would have been perfect for that. Instead of having her just appear in class, the effect would have been better - clearer and easier to understand - if they had handled it the way it was in the book. The three of them walking from one class to another class - focus in on Harry or Ron - one of them say something to Hermione,but she's gone. Turn around and she's rushing up the corridor, tucking something into her robes.

Basically, the end result is confusing because - if you haven't read the book - you're left wondering why Hermione needed the time turner in the first place because, as far as the movie shows, she's taking the same classes as Harry and Ron. Why would she need a time turner when they didn't?

Kloves isn't perfect, but when compared with a good director, I can deal with him. I liked GOF a lot more than POA. I think Newell is a better director and can handle book adaptions better than Cuaron. There were some minor things with the editing and scenes didn't really flow into each other very well, but I can deal with that if the story is handled well. At least in GOF, you knew what was going on. It didn't feel like Harry was overreacting because you knew that someone was trying to kill him. The characters were accurate and the story followed. Even the alterations were consistent with what Jo would have written herself - which is another reason I think Kloves is much better than he gets credit for.

I think - overall - it comes down to the WB. Since they finance the movies, they have some say in the final product. They wanted to focus on Hermione because they wanted to appeal to a certain audience. They also made the decision to downplay Ron because Rupert was overshadowing Dan. They have script approval, so Kloves script had to meet their terms as to what they wanted the movie to show. It would appear that they have figured out that was the wrong path to take since GOF was such a huge improvement. At least I hope that's the case. The next two movies should be very revealing in that regard because we have a new director and screenwriter for OOTP, but Kloves is returning for HBP. Once we have something to compare, it will be easier to figure out where the problem is I think .

Returning to Rupert - it's interesting to watch his performance in all four movies because you really see his versatility as an actor. Because Ron has been portrayed differently to a certain extent in each one. They've carried him over pretty much every range in the spectrum from comedy to drama. PS/SS showed him to be loyal and brave - COS was kind of a mixture with the cowardly Ron starting to appear - POA was cowardly, stupid Ron - GOF returns to loyal and brave and also has the dramatic fight scene. Throughout all of that - no matter what material they gave him - Rupert did a wonderful job with it.

[Paper_Shoes]

I seriously think you need to watch the movie again or something. You don't even seem to remember what was in it. There were constant reminders of Hermione's time traveling. There was a scene where Ron commented on her schedule while walking to class. You see her appear out of nowhere while tucking the time turner into her robes multiple times.

[folly54]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Returning to Rupert - it's interesting to watch his performance in all four movies because you really see his versatility as an actor. Because Ron has been portrayed differently to a certain extent in each one. They've carried him over pretty much every range in the spectrum from comedy to drama. PS/SS showed him to be loyal and brave - COS was kind of a mixture with the cowardly Ron starting to appear - POA was cowardly, stupid Ron - GOF returns to loyal and brave and also has the dramatic fight scene. Throughout all of that - no matter what material they gave him - Rupert did a wonderful job with it.

His versatility is interesting because before GOF I didn't know he had it in him. He appears to be able to perform drama and comedy convincingly.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Paper_Shoes

I seriously think you need to watch the movie again or something. You don't even seem to remember what was in it. There were constant reminders of Hermione's time traveling. There was a scene where Ron commented on her schedule while walking to class. You see her appear out of nowhere while tucking the time turner into her robes multiple times.

We only watched it the one time all the way through and partway through when it was on TV and they were supposed to show additional footage. But my kids begged me to change the channel. They love the first two movies and GOF, but they can't stand POA and refuse to watch it at all. We have 3 TV's, but I'm pretty much stuck on that because nobody in my family will consent to sit through that movie - not even so I could research the flaws.

And I swear I did not say anything to them on how I felt about the movie. I let my kids make their own decisions about what they like and don't like. My husband doesn't like it either - and he hasn't read any of the books. He and my oldest son were talking about it after it was on TV and my husband said he didn't like it because they made Harry and Ron look like dumb a**** - which is crude, but unfortunately true - and my son said he was waiting for Hermione to pull out her morpher and yell "It's morphin time! Teradactyl!" Again, I swear I did not say a word to him. That just made me laugh though.

Originally Posted by folly54

His versatility is interesting because before GOF I didn't know he had it in him. He appears to be able to perform drama and comedy convincingly.

I think he showed that potential in PS/SS - before they started making Ron the clown of the story. But GOF was definitely better material for him to work with. The fight with Harry and the apology were just brilliantly done. I loved it. Rupert really made you feel how upset Ron was.

[ronjalina]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

My husband doesn't like it either - and he hasn't read any of the books. He and my oldest son were talking about it after it was on TV and my husband said he didn't like it because they made Harry and Ron look like dumb a**** - which is crude, but unfortunately true - and my son said he was waiting for Hermione to pull out her morpher and yell "It's morphin time! Teradactyl!" Again, I swear I did not say a word to him. That just made me laugh though.

And they were correct in their assessment. I don´t know how one can see it much differently. Everyone catches on it, even the press:

City Pages, Third Time´s the Charm Grint's Ron enacts the damsel in distress of the tale to delirious effect. Meantime, Hermione throws a mean punch and saves the day with her brain-sporting low-slung jeans (and, yes, breasts).

http://citypages.com/databank/25/1226/article12168.asp

I think he showed that potential in PS/SS - before they started making Ron the clown of the story. But GOF was definitely better material for him to work with. The fight with Harry and the apology were just brilliantly done. I loved it. Rupert really made you feel how upset Ron was.

Yes, he´s a natural and that showed from the beginning. He seems to have a special liking for comedy, but I hope he does other movies as well. I love his comedic talent, but I am in awe when I see him perform the more serious scences (Harry/Ron fight, Ron/Hermione fight, Ben/Evie fight)

[Paper_Shoes]

I just don't think it's wise to critisize a film when you've only seen it once and can't remember what was in it. It's fine to hate it because the characters aren't exactly the same, but you don't have to make up additional stuff just for the sake of it.

[portage]

I find that Rupert Grint is the best one to play Ron Weaslry

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by ronjalina

And they were correct in their assessment. I don´t know how one can see it much differently. Everyone catches on it, even the press:



http://citypages.com/databank/25/1226/article12168.asp

Yes, they were. I was a bit surprised because son hasn't finished reading the books on his own yet - he decided to wait for DH and read them all together - and my husband hasn't read them at all. That was the first time either of them had said anything about POA when I was around and they were pretty much saying the same things that I have been saying here. I just thought that was funny.

I think this mother - who took 5 kids to see it - says it best.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur3535882/comments

Distinctly underwhelmed pretty much sums it up - and "So, where are we going to eat" is not the desired response when the movie is over. That just tells you that your kids were bored. My rating system is based on how many times my middle son goes to the bathroom. If it's a good movie, he won't go at all because he's interested. If it's bad and he's bored, you pretty much have to let him have the aisle seat. POA rated a trip every 5-10 minutes and we gave him the aisle seat.

Paper_Shoes - one viewing is more than enough to determine whether or not you like something. If they had done their jobs well and made a good movie, the reason that Hermione had the time turner would have been gotten across and you wouldn't need to watch it a zillion times to figure that out.

Yes, he´s a natural and that showed from the beginning. He seems to have a special liking for comedy, but I hope he does other movies as well. I love his comedic talent, but I am in awe when I see him perform the more serious scences (Harry/Ron fight, Ron/Hermione fight, Ben/Evie fight)

He does seem to prefer comedy, but he also enjoyed Driving Lessons so there's hope for that. And most good comedies have a little bit of drama as well. He's such a versatile actor, I don't see him limiting himself in that area. He chose a dramatic coming of age movie for his first foray out of the Potter limelight. It will be interesting to see what he chooses to do next.

[Paper_Shoes]

Paper_Shoes - one viewing is more than enough to determine whether or not you like something. If they had done their jobs well and made a good movie, the reason that Hermione had the time turner would have been gotten across and you wouldn't need to watch it a zillion times to figure that out.

I've never said you had to like the movie. But there was enough in the movie to know why she had the time turner. I got it the first time I saw, without having read the book. Most people did. Saying "the movie had no exposition or explanations" is not the same as "the movie sucked." What I'm saying is don't say you hate the movie because nothing was explained and there was no exposition (because there quite clearly was). Say you hate it because you think it sucked and wasn't like the book.

And if showing some anecdotal evidence helps my case, my brother laughed at me for watching it, then started watching it himself and was glued to the screen. Clearly, the movie must have been incredible.

[folly54]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

He does seem to prefer comedy, but he also enjoyed Driving Lessons so there's hope for that. And most good comedies have a little bit of drama as well. He's such a versatile actor, I don't see him limiting himself in that area. He chose a dramatic coming of age movie for his first foray out of the Potter limelight. It will be interesting to see what he chooses to do next.

He also wants to be a villain. He can do anything he wants with the right direction and script, in my opinion. He has the skills.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by folly54

He also wants to be a villain. He can do anything he wants with the right direction and script, in my opinion. He has the skills.

Oh absolutely. Rupert definitely has the skills to play any role he chooses. His versatility is one of the things that will carry him far as an actor.