Promiscuous Boy: Harry Potter takes it all off
#41
Darq Ali Wrote:
Agreed.

However, when we discuss the differences between the content of the books and the films, you say that JKR signed off on the content of the films, which you equate to her "approval" of all the changes and omissions,

And say what JKR thinks is of weight, and the opinion of someone like me {a 'fan', if you will, of the books} is of no matter.

On this issue, the opinion of the fans is what you say should be of greater consideration?

But the ones 'signing off' are the parents of the boy-star, and theirs is the permission necessary, not that of the 'fans'.

You can't please all the people all the time. If JKR or Daniel Radcliffe (aka, the boy-star), or Radcliffe's parents aimed to do that, they would fail utterly. It's better to aim to please most of the people most of the time, because what one person doesn't like, another person will. For instance, you don't like that SPEW got left out of the movies, whereas I love that it was left out. It was completely pointless in the books (House elves *love* their jobs and *don't* want to be freed, with the exception of Dobby) and it would have had no place in the movie and just taken up the screen time that was used for the main plot elements. Not to say that my opinion is more important than yours, but one thing I learned about being such an avid reading of LOTR and having to sit through those movies that took about a tenth of the book and put it on the screen and still managed to demolish it is that the more invested someone is in the original source material, the more disappointed they are going to be about the movie adaptations, no matter how good a job the filmmakers did. And I do believe, though I have nothing to back this up except the oodles and oodles of cash that PJ made, not to mention all the fans clamoring to have him come back to film The Hobbit (a notion that makes me shudder), is that purists, who will not tolerate any changes of the source material, are in the minority. Not to mention, of course, the oodles of cash the HP movies make. Obviously, there are more fans happy with the movies than not happy, and what was left out either doesn't bother them or they've made amends with it.

Comparing the HP movie adaptions aimed mostly at children and young adults to a play aimed at mature audiences is apples to oranges. Both have an entirely different fan base. As I said above, the HP movie fan base is, for the most part, happy enough with the movies, so JKR and the filmmakers have achieved their goal in making the fans happy. And the Eqqus fan base seem to be happy with the play, or it wouldn't be getting such rave reviews, which means the producers made all the right choices in making their fans happy. So maintaining that neither JKR nor the producers of Eqqus don't care about their fans is a moot point.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#42
[quote=august]Note: I'm pretty sure in the UK the age is 17, not 18.

For this issue only? Or, in general?

In the HP books, Dumbledore informs the Dursley's that Harry comes of age on his next birthday at the end of July the following year, as he picks up Harry to take him to the Weasley's for the rest of the summer {with a side-trip to recruit Slughorn}. The Dursley's protest that on his next birthday, Harry will turn 17, and won't be of age until his birthday the following year, when he would be 18. At that point, JKR informs us, through the words of Dumbledore to the Dursleys, that in the Wizarding World 'coming of age' is at 17, even though in Britian's Muggle World, the age is 18.

And as above, this is a masterpiece of modern drama, not a porno. Wink And given that it was a London stage production for grown-up theatre-attendees, really what Harry Potter fans in the rest of the world think isn't relevant.

This has been my position from the get-go. It matters to the actor, because it is his life. If he is underage, his parents get a say. Of course it matters to the parties responsible for hiring for this play, and they seem to have found him up to the role in the try-outs, and satisfied with his performance {else he'd not have the job}. It matters to the audience, and the reacton of the critics matters.

The opinions of faans of HP films {which are entirely seperate works} have no bearing on the matter.

[/quote]

Of course, some fans will have strong reactions. People are people and will think what they will. If any are so offended that the person they have come to think of as 'being Harry Potter' would take on this more adult role that they won't attend the remaining HP films not yet released, that is their choice. My guess is there will be some talk, but very little action.

Just as there are some so-called 'Chrisitan' sects that oppose the entire HP series because of the 'witchcraft' and magic included in the books. Lots of talk, but very little impact.
Reply
#43
GamgeeFest Wrote:You can't please all the people all the time.

I said that, too.

If JKR or Daniel Radcliffe (aka, the boy-star), or Radcliffe's parents aimed to do that, they would fail utterly.

Totally agree.

It's better to aim to please most of the people most of the time, because what one person doesn't like, another person will.

Here I don't wholly agree.

Who the actor and his parents choose to 'please' will depend upon what they desire.

If they desire to make the actor 'be Harry Potter' to the majority, his young fans, and choose thereby to shun different, more adult and perhaps contraversal roles, they get one outcome {setting down the road to "type casting"}.

If they desire to build for the actor a well-rounded career, to expand his capabilities and his credits, they should ignore the clamor of the HP fans and do as they have done.

My opinion is similar to the words from the song 'Garden Party': "You can't please everyone, so, you've got to please yourself."

In other words, the actor and those who are concerned with his life should chose the path that they think will lead to the outcome he desires. His choices should be made on the basis of his desires for his own life, not made by majority vote of his fans.

For instance, you don't like that SPEW got left out of the movies,

I never said that! You misunderstood me!

I know full well, and have said so repeatedly, that it is near impossible for any major novel be turned into a film version without extensive editing of the story; a 'compression' of the action. I never suggested that S.P.E.W. should or could have been in the film. I know S.P.E.W. couldn't be in the film version, for it was at most a 'sub-plot' or minor story line. I further said, I found it at least mildly annoying in the book.

And yet, when I use the books as a springboard of discussion of thorny issues of morality and right behavior, S.P.E.W. was most useful, annoying though it was. How do you account for Winky's reaction to being freed? Is Hermionie right, that the House Elves are slaves? How can she be wrong, if they are 'bound' to their lives of service and never paid? Yet, how can they be freed, if they don't want to be? How does this relate to modern populations who essentially serve in similar conditions? How could we morally deal with these problems?

This is an example of what the movies lack, that the books have. Yes, if sheer entertainment is all the purpose, S.P.E.W. isn't necessary. But if you want to grow and expand your mind, it is useful. Pointing this out is by way of comparing and contrasting what the book vs the film version of Harry's story offers.


whereas I love that it was left out.

As I understood why and accepted that was the way it had to be done.

It was completely pointless in the books

No, it was a parallel to modern problems of the Human condition. In the U.S., we have a similar group of people, illegals who labor as domestics and in other low-pay jobs. These people are often abused, and underpaid. Often, they are essentially 'captive' to their employers. They are 'exploited', yet, they sought the positions they hold {as superior to the alternatives} and do not wish to be 'freed'.

(House elves *love* their jobs and *don't* want to be freed, with the exception of Dobby) and it would have had no place in the movie and just taken up the screen time that was used for the main plot elements.

Agreed the movie could not have included this; which is why the books are a more "enriching" experience, by necessity.

Not to say that my opinion is more important than yours, but one thing I learned about being such an avid reading of LOTR and having to sit through those movies that took about a tenth of the book and put it on the screen and still managed to demolish it is that the more invested someone is in the original source material, the more disappointed they are going to be about the movie adaptations, no matter how good a job the filmmakers did.

Agreed, to a degree, but let me again say,

That movies and books are very different experiences. Ham and bacon and sausage are made from the same pig as pork chops, but each is a very different tasting meat. One may make some of each from the same pig. Likewise, the same story can be written as a book, adapted as a stage play, a motion picture or a television series, and the result will differ each time.

One may have a 'favorite' of each version, but still view and appreciate all of them. My choice would always be the book version of any story. My reason is that, while I find books "entertaining", they also serve other purposes very well too. I will say again that science backs me up. When you read what JKR or Mr Tolkien describe, you must build the picture in your mind's eye. That creates enriching brain activity. It also tends to build your vocabulary, your writing and speaking skills. Watching a film version of the same scene is a passive act, and does not streatch your mental muscles.

But that does not mean I don't appreciate the film versions. Again I say, I was delighted to have lived long enough that technology allowed Tolkien's work to be adapted for film work, as something other than a cartoon.

And I do believe, though I have nothing to back this up except the oodles and oodles of cash that PJ made, not to mention all the fans clamoring to have him come back to film The Hobbit (a notion that makes me shudder), is that purists, who will not tolerate any changes of the source material, are in the minority. Not to mention, of course, the oodles of cash the HP movies make. Obviously, there are more fans happy with the movies than not happy, and what was left out either doesn't bother them or they've made amends with it.

I speak only for myself. I 'make use of' written works. And, as a person who educates, I have an educators' opinion of the value of written works vs film versions of any story, as to what they do for people's minds. [Meaning: Seeing a play by Shakespere acted out in a theatre can be a great and enriching experience. But reading and taking apart the same play is a more enriching activity for the brain. Can you grasp the difference? And I know most people don't think about things that way; and that, in fact, many hate educators, as if, they are happier when they remain ignorant.]

Comparing the HP movie adaptions aimed mostly at children and young adults to a play aimed at mature audiences is apples to oranges.

I am so tired of this phrase.

Apples and oranges are both foods and both fruits. Sometimes it is very, very useful and appropriate to compare them. And sometimes, not. My comparison of films to written books is useful for some purposes, deny it all you will. But the best diet can include both apples and oranges, after all; and the relative value to the diet of each individual will depend on their needs, which will vary.

Both have an entirely different fan base.

I do not agree. I have seen both the films and read the books {only two films at a theatre, the others on TV}. Same for Tolkien, I have both read and viewed. As have many other people, I am certain.

As I said above, the HP movie fan base is, for the most part, happy enough with the movies, so JKR and the filmmakers have achieved their goal in making the fans happy.

May I say I sincerely doubt that "making fans happy" is exactly the goal. "Making piles of money" is the issue, IMO.

And the Eqqus fan base seem to be happy with the play, or it wouldn't be getting such rave reviews, which means the producers made all the right choices in making their fans happy.

Plays are geared at a very different socio-economic bracket than children's films, and 'fans being made happy' isn't how I would phrase the 'success' of a play. So maintaining that neither JKR nor the producers of Eqqus don't care about their fans is a moot point.

I don't recall saying that these people "didn't care" exactly. They seek to reach a group of people who will purchase their product. For JKR, I see the sale of the film rights to HP so very early a "sell out" and aimed at money, with 'control' of the content geared toward not compromising the end of the tale, not yet published. For those who made the films, the aim is mass marketing to the lowest common denominator, for the largest end sum to be gained. Quality of content is not the issue for either.

But quality of content was the purpose of my comments. Both books and the various film media {plays, movies, tv} are forms of entertainment, true. And people may elect to view HP stories first and formost to be entertained. However, either they gain more from the experience, or they do not. [I am certain what they used to call 'professional wrestling' is seen as entertaining, too; as are many other essentially mindless sporting events. I am very doubtful if viewing such 'entertainments' has any other value. Same for "porn". It entertains. Nothing more; or, nothing more of a positive nature, results.

The LOTR books, or Moby Dick, or the HP stories can both entertain, and serve other purposes as well. Movie versions of each can also entertain, but their other values are more limited.

That was the purpose of my discussion, which seems to have gone over the heads of most responding to me. I don't see how seeing an HP film builds vocubulary, or encourages the exploration of the roots of Western culture, nor yet, how it can stimulate conversation about moral delimmas we face today to the degree that reading the same story in book form can do.

And I'm not going to change my mind, no matter if you agree, or not.

And I am well aware, a lot of youngsters have to be dragged kicking and screaming into cultural enrichment, but there are always some horrible adults around to try to do just that. I would think they would appreciate using HP rather than Moby Dick, if you get my drift.
Reply
#44
Well, needless to say, but perhaps I should make clear just in case, the age of consent for teenage boys in the UK is of no interest to me whatsoever. :laugh: But a quick click over to Wikipedia gives a link to the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Sexual Offenses Act of 2003, which would seem to place the age of consent at age 16 in most cases. I didn't really care to peruse every section of it - or for that matter any section :poke: but feel free to read the fine print and see if there is a "nudity on stage for artistic purposes by a 17-year-old male, sub-section 32b, pursuant to the opinion of someone in another country whom he's never met."

*shrug* Overall though, I'm of the belief that the traditional British method works best: if a 17 year old male named Danielle Radcliffe makes some decision regarding his life, then it is incumbent on the other 6 billion people on the planet to say "Very good, Mr. Radcliffe, sir. Will you be needing anything else, sir? No sir? Very good sir, whatever you say sir." Wink
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#45
Darq Ali Wrote:Here I don't wholly agree. [snip] His choices should be made on the basis of his desires for his own life, not made by majority vote of his fans.

No one suggested that Daniel Radcliffe or anyone should make decisions about his career and/or life based on some “fan vote.” However, to a degree it does make sense that he should aim to please someone; if no one liked him his career would fizzle faster than you can say flobberworm.

Darq Ali Wrote:I never said that! You misunderstood me! [snip] Pointing this out is by way of comparing and contrasting what the book vs the film version of Harry's story offers.

You certainly made it sound as though it should have been included in the film. And as I pointed out in the Books or Movies thread, SPEW may have been excluded, but the general plight of the House Elves was there as regards Dobby. I also rebutted several of your other examples of worthwhile things you claimed were “utterly absent” from the movies, and offered several other examples of what the films do offer. Honestly, I think you’re grossly underestimating both the films and the film viewers.

Darq Ali Wrote:Agreed, to a degree, but let me again say,

That movies and books are very different experiences. Ham and bacon and sausage are made from the same pig as pork chops, but each is a very different tasting meat. One may make some of each from the same pig. Likewise, the same story can be written as a book, adapted as a stage play, a motion picture or a television series, and the result will differ each time.

One may have a 'favorite' of each version, but still view and appreciate all of them. My choice would always be the book version of any story. My reason is that, while I find books "entertaining", they also serve other purposes very well too. I will say again that science backs me up. When you read what JKR or Mr Tolkien describe, you must build the picture in your mind's eye. That creates enriching brain activity. It also tends to build your vocabulary, your writing and speaking skills. Watching a film version of the same scene is a passive act, and does not streatch your mental muscles.

That may be true “scientifically,” but I think that movies offer things that books cannot (and vice versa; that they are different mediums is not what is in dispute). Yes, in reading a book you have to use your imagination, but movies continue to entice us; we still become invested in the characters, we can be moved to tears watching a hero in anguish and to anger watching a villain’s success; and films often do contain “uncomfortable subjects,” the subsequent discussion of which can certainly be considered enriching.

Darq Ali Wrote:I speak only for myself. I 'make use of' written works. And, as a person who educates, I have an educators' opinion of the value of written works vs film versions of any story, as to what they do for people's minds. [Meaning: Seeing a play by Shakespere acted out in a theatre can be a great and enriching experience. But reading and taking apart the same play is a more enriching activity for the brain. Can you grasp the difference?

I saw Romeo and Juliet performed when I was about twelve. I didn’t particularly enjoy reading the play on my own, but seeing it in person made it become so real. It moved me and gave me a better understanding of the work that just reading it did not, useful for my brain though it may have been. Can you grasp that difference?

Darq Ali Wrote:And I know most people don't think about things that way; and that, in fact, many hate educators, as if, they are happier when they remain ignorant.]

”Many hate educators”? Do you have a scientific study up your sleeve to back that up? I admit I disliked some of the teachers I’ve had, but not for want of remaining ignorant.

Darq Ali Wrote:[snip] My comparison of films to written books is useful for some purposes, deny it all you want. [snip]

I do not agree. I have seen both the films and read the books {only two films at a theatre, the others on TV}. Same for Tolkien, I have both read and viewed. As have many other people, I am certain.

GamgeeFest wasn’t denying the comparison between films and books, and nor am I. She was talking about the HP films vs. Equus, not the HP films vs. the HP books. She was saying that the fan base of the HP films and the fan base of Equus are entirely different.

Darq Ali Wrote:May I say I sincerely doubt that "making fans happy" is exactly the goal. "Making piles of money" is the issue, IMO.

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but I have to wonder if you have some intimate knowledge of their intentions that the rest of us are not aware of.

Darq Ali Wrote:Plays are geared at a very different socio-economic bracket than children's films, and 'fans being made happy' isn't how I would phrase the 'success' of a play.

But there are also the rave reviews (which GamgeeFest noted in addition to the happy fans), the sold out show times, etc. So how would you phrase the success of a play?

Darq Ali Wrote:I don't recall saying that these people "didn't care" exactly.

You seemed to insinuate that they were only in it for the money, ergo, the fans don't matter. Please clarify if we are mistaken.

Darq Ali Wrote:They seek to reach a group of people who will purchase their product. For JKR, I see the sale of the film rights to HP so very early a "sell out" and aimed at money, with 'control' of the content geared toward not compromising the end of the tale, not yet published.

So at what point would it have been acceptable for JKR to sell the film rights to her books? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? If her kids finally sold them posthumously would you still be crying “sell out!”? I have to wonder, yet again, if you have some intimate knowledge or JKR’s intentions that we are not aware of. I don’t think it at all fair to automatically assume that she sold the films rights only to make more money. She created a story she loved and wanted to share with the world, and a huge opportunity to do that through film presented itself. How can you assume that she only did it for the money?

Darq Ali Wrote:For those who made the films, the aim is mass marketing to the lowest common denominator, for the largest end sum to be gained.

Well, yeah. Nobody in their right mind spends millions of dollars to make a movie and says, “I hope we don’t make any money!” But that does not mean they make the movie only to make money.

Darq Ali Wrote:Quality of content is not the issue for either.

That’s right, JKR didn’t care if the movies remained true to the story she dedicated years of her life to writing, so long as she made money; same with Warner Bros., they didn’t care if the movie was any good, as long as it made them money.

Darq Ali Wrote:But quality of content was the purpose of my comments. Both books and the various film media {plays, movies, tv} are forms of entertainment, true. And people may elect to view HP stories first and formost to be entertained. However, either they gain more from the experience, or they do not.

Films and plays can offer as much as books do, and the HP films do offer up quite a bit. Again, I refer you to my post on the Books or Movies thread, wherein I demonstrated that many of the societal issues presented in the books are also in the films, accompanied by many other good messages besides.

Darq Ali Wrote:[I am certain what they used to call 'professional wrestling' is seen as entertaining, too; as are many other essentially mindless sporting events. I am very doubtful if viewing such 'entertainments' has any other value. Same for "porn". It entertains. Nothing more; or, nothing more of a positive nature, results.

Professional wrestling and pornography are not comparable to films or plays.

Darq Ali Wrote:The LOTR books, or Moby Dick, or the HP stories can both entertain, and serve other purposes as well. Movie versions of each can also entertain, but their other values are more limited.

That was the purpose of my discussion, which seems to have gone over the heads of most responding to me.

No, actually, it hasn’t gone over our heads. The purpose of my discussion has been that films can and do offer us more than mere entertainment.

Darq Ali Wrote:I don't see how seeing an HP film builds vocubulary,

”Loquacious,” courtesy of Hermione in Goblet of Fire. I, personally, had never heard or used that word before hearing it in the movie.

Darq Ali Wrote:or encourages the exploration of the roots of Western culture, nor yet, how it can stimulate conversation about moral delimmas we face today to the degree that reading the same story in book form can do.

Again, I’ve addressed that on the Books or Movies thread.
Reply
#46
Darq Ali Wrote:How do you account for Winky's reaction to being freed? Is Hermionie right, that the House Elves are slaves?

Winky reacted the way she did because she did not want to be free. She wanted to continue to serve her master. Doesn't sound like a slave to me.

Darq Ali Wrote:How does this relate to modern populations who essentially serve in similar conditions? How could we morally deal with these problems?

I don't know of any modern cultures that willingly work for free. Work for less, certainly, if they are desperate enough for the money, but not for free. Keyword there is 'willingly'. Comparing house elves, who *enjoy* what they do, to oppressed populations is like comparing apples to paperclips.

Darq Ali Wrote:This is an example of what the movies lack, that the books have. Yes, if sheer entertainment is all the purpose, S.P.E.W. isn't necessary. But if you want to grow and expand your mind, it is useful. Pointing this out is by way of comparing and contrasting what the book vs the film version of Harry's story offers.

Or one could watch "Amazing Grace", "Amistad", "Schindler's List", or any number of other films that address this issue. All these movies led to many discussions on the matter of slavery and oppression, and so were very enriching.

Darq Ali Wrote:No, it was a parallel to modern problems of the Human condition. In the U.S., we have a similar group of people, illegals who labor as domestics and in other low-pay jobs. These people are often abused, and underpaid. Often, they are essentially 'captive' to their employers. They are 'exploited', yet, they sought the positions they hold {as superior to the alternatives} and do not wish to be 'freed'.

Exactly. No one forced them to come, and no one is forcing them to stay. If they stay, that is their choice and so they must live with it. If their employers are being abusive, they can seek other employment, unless you have some proof that their employers keep them from doing this that I am unaware of. Working with illegals on a daily basis, I know that they will just as quickly leave their jobs as a native citizen would if they are being treated abusively. And even on such meager pay, they make enough to send back to their relatives in their native countries and provide for them, which is why they are here in the first place. I will not rule out the possibility that there are some who are exploited, but I would also not say that they enjoy their lots in life, which does not make them an adequate comparison to House elves.

Darq Ali Wrote:[Meaning: Seeing a play by Shakespere acted out in a theatre can be a great and enriching experience. But reading and taking apart the same play is a more enriching activity for the brain. Can you grasp the difference? And I know most people don't think about things that way; and that, in fact, many hate educators, as if, they are happier when they remain ignorant.]

Yes, I can grasp the difference, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that. I am not saying that reading is not an enriching experience, because it is. The science, as you mention, supports this. I am only disagreeing with your opinion that those who do not read, or don't read as much as you do, are somehow lacking in intelligence and are thus doomed to lead less fulfilling lives. There are an infinite number of activities, other than reading, that can enrich and fulfill one's life.

I wonder though, if the study you cite distinguishes between passively reading and actively reading, and passively watching a show and actively watching. It's just as easy to stare blankly at a TV screen and not take anything in, as it is to read a whole page in a book and not remember a single word. Likewise, if one is actively participating in a show, such as when one is watching a mystery or an educational program for instance, they are just as likely to take in and remember what they are seeing as they would if they were reading it. If watching TV/movies is such a waste of time, then I have to wonder why more and more colleges are adopting TV classes, and why more educational programs are being created for TV. Media is not entirely without its uses. Take your face blindess disorder, for instance. I learned about prosopagnosia not from reading a book, but from watching a news segment.

Darq Ali Wrote:I do not agree. I have seen both the films and read the books {only two films at a theatre, the others on TV}. Same for Tolkien, I have both read and viewed. As have many other people, I am certain.

You seemed to miss that I am now speaking of the HP movies vs the play Equus. So yes, they do have entirely different fan bases.

Darq Ali Wrote:They seek to reach a group of people who will purchase their product.

As does everyone else seeking to make a living. Whether you're peddling a movie, a book, or working in education, there is not a single person who does not seek to sell their "product".

Darq Ali Wrote:[I am certain what they used to call 'professional wrestling' is seen as entertaining, too; as are many other essentially mindless sporting events. I am very doubtful if viewing such 'entertainments' has any other value. Same for "porn". It entertains. Nothing more; or, nothing more of a positive nature, results.

Again, apples to paperclips. This comparison is irrelevant.

Darq Ali Wrote:And I am well aware, a lot of youngsters have to be dragged kicking and screaming into cultural enrichment, but there are always some horrible adults around to try to do just that. I would think they would appreciate using HP rather than Moby Dick, if you get my drift.

Yes, it's such a shame that children did not think to read the HP books, thus making them the most widely successful children series in the world, which in turn led to the movie adaptions, which in turn led to even more people reading the books, if you get my drift.

And personally, I think Moby Dick is the more enriching of the two.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#47
And back to the original topic, Daniel Radcliffe on stage. From Sci-Fi Wire:

Quote:The West End play Equus, which made headlines for featuring an occasionally nude Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), will close with the actor's departure in June, the BBC reported. Rumors of a replacement included Jamie Bell (King Kong), Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings) and Jesse Metcalfe (Desperate Housewives), but none surfaced. The announcement comes as a surprise, since the play has broken box-office records and received critical praise.
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#48
At last we have the answer. Daniel was on Jay Leno a week or two ago, plugging the movie. Jay pointedly asked him why he chose to do "Equus," especially given that it featured a nude scene, and he specifically asked him if he was trying to distance himself from the role of Harry potter. Daniel said absolutely not, that he was incredibly attached to the role, and very grateful for it, so he never wanted to take anything away from it, or his association with it. But he said that as an actor, he felt that any actor of his age would have been crazy not to leap at the opportunity to play this part in this particular play.

So he basically made the decision as an actor, for the chance to play a particular, famous role in a particular, famous play. He said nothing about any audience at all. Smile
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#49
I saw "Equus" when I was a college undergraduate in the early '80's (and I was in Shaffer's "Black Comedy," but that's another story). I think the theater department thought it was being particularly daring, and of course when watching it you do tend to hold your breath a little - but August is right, the story is so intense at that point that the nudity pretty much goes...I don't want to say unnoticed, but I really doubt that people are sitting there thinking "My God, Harry Potter's killing horses in the nude!"

In this most recent movie (Order of the Phoenix) it was the first time I really believed Daniel Radcliffe was Harry and not an actor chosen because he looked the part. If he does an equally good job playing the part of the disturbed boy I really don't think you could watch it and see him as Harry Potter. The problem would only arise if you went to see the play solely for the novelty of seeing "Harry Potter take it all off."
Reply
#50
We will now have the chance! :poke: After 100% of negative American fan reaction has been assessed and valued... Daniel is going to reprise his role on Broadway! Details from Reuters:


Quote:NEW YORK (Reuters) - British actor Daniel Radcliffe hopes to debut on Broadway next year in a reprise of his London role in "Equus," a performance where he shed not only his clothes but the mantle of Harry Potter.

Radcliffe won rave reviews for his performance as a tortured teenager during an 8-week run of Peter Shaffer's grueling psychological thriller in London earlier this year....

Radcliffe ... said "Equus" could open late next year in New York....

Media hype over Radcliffe's nude scene in the play sparked more than $4 million in advance ticket sales in London.

"Equus" was first produced in London in 1973 to critical acclaim and won a Tony Award for best play in 1975 during a long run on Broadway. It was adapted by Shaffer for a 1977 film starring Richard Burton and Peter Firth, which received three Oscar nominations in 1978.
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#51
My favorite line:

Media hype over Radcliffe's nude scene in the play sparked more than $4 million in advance ticket sales in London.

I wonder how many sales were from the teen/tween girl demographic? :bounce:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#52
My guess: 50%. The other 50%? From their Moms! :bounce: :leech:
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#53
It's official! Daniel is bring "Equus" to Broadway next year! This is from E! Online (so it just has to be true :bounce: )

Quote:... Radcliffe wrapped up an eight-week run in the U.K. production of the play in June and received a Best Actor nomination from London's Evening Standard Drama Awards....

More controversially, the role called and will continue to call for the erstwhile boy wizard to engage in some manly onstage activities, including appearing completely nude and engaging in simulated sex acts with both his equine and female costars.

"All the people I know in New York say New York is ready for this kind of play," Radcliffe said. "If we can get a straight play to really succeed in a world of theater that is so besieged by musicals, that would be a real achievement, and I think the time is absolutely right to do it there.

"For a kid who grew up listening to showbiz tunes in the car, Broadway is a big, big thing."

Radcliffe won't be making the transatlantic flight on his own. The actor will be rejoined on Broadway by West End costar Richard Griffiths, who also appeared alongside Radcliffe as Uncle Vernon in the Harry Potter franchise, as well as the play's London director, Thea Sharrock, its lighting director and its designer.

....

The Broadway production of Equus is scheduled to begin rehearsals next August for a September 2008 premiere.
August  - Jack's Pack Fan # 1, Keeper of the List, 3-Time Speaker of the JoAT Fan Quote of the Week, and the only person ever to have Back 2 Back Jack and Cleo fan quotes !
Reply
#54
Lets see it. with lots of close ups a nd tight shots :dude::hat:
Reply
#55
Ummm, that's Danny-boy on the stage, NOT Harry Potter. One is a person, the other is a character in a series of novels. We need to separate those ideas.

For instance, The Negotiater is Captain Kirk is a lawyer (etc) in all the work he has done, but in reality, he is William Shatner, the actor, who has had these roles.

Leonard Nimoy is not only Mr. Spock, by the way.

And, so on and so forth......................:trio:
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#56
I hope that he isn't taking this kind of role with the intention of breaking out of possible type-casting as boy hero. I also hope that he isn't taking this kind of role in desperation- that he is finding that his acting abilities are not in demand, and so he is taking whatever roles he can find to keep his name visible. A third caution I would have for him is to consult people with more experience in the acting profession for guidance in such choices.

If he sincerely wants this kind of role and feels it will broaden his acting career, then its his choice and I wish him well in it.
Reply
#57
Arcadia Wrote:I hope that he isn't taking this kind of role with the intention of breaking out of possible type-casting as boy hero.

Why not?

Quote:I also hope that he isn't taking this kind of role in desperation- that he is finding that his acting abilities are not in demand, and so he is taking whatever roles he can find to keep his name visible.

Reviews say he is quite good. If this is the case it seems like a proper move to me.

Quote:A third caution I would have for him is to consult people with more experience in the acting profession for guidance in such choices.

Why do you think he hasn't? He has worked with some of the best in the business.

Quote:If he sincerely wants this kind of role and feels it will broaden his acting career, then its his choice and I wish him well in it.

Seems to have worked so far. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds for Master Radcliffe.
Houston . . . we have a problem.
Reply
#58
Fantasy Wrote:
Arcadia Wrote:I hope that he isn't taking this kind of role with the intention of breaking out of possible type-casting as boy hero.

Why not?

Because it could be a mistake. On a number of occasions people have posed nude or acted in sexually suggestive films as young people and regretted it later. As I said, I hope that his reason for doing this isn't to break out of the type-casting. I hope he has considered all ramifications. If he has and has received good advice, then one wouldn't worry about an actor that one likes- it is his life and his choice. - Arcadia

Quote:I also hope that he isn't taking this kind of role in desperation- that he is finding that his acting abilities are not in demand, and so he is taking whatever roles he can find to keep his name visible.

Reviews say he is quite good. If this is the case it seems like a proper move to me.

I am glad to hear this. Being good, though, and removing some possible future choices because of doing this should be weighed.- Arcadia

Quote:A third caution I would have for him is to consult people with more experience in the acting profession for guidance in such choices.

Why do you think he hasn't? He has worked with some of the best in the business.

Why do you think that I think that he hasn't? - Arcadia

Quote:If he sincerely wants this kind of role and feels it will broaden his acting career, then its his choice and I wish him well in it.

Seems to have worked so far. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds for Master Radcliffe.

(adding some text to meet site requirement)
Reply
#59
Arcadia Wrote:Because it could be a mistake. On a number of occasions people have posed nude or acted in sexually suggestive films as young people and regretted it later. As I said, I hope that his reason for doing this isn't to break out of the type-casting.

Seems to be a good choice to me. I take it you haven't read Equus, otherwise you would know that it is a powerful piece, and playing it requires an impressively skilled actor. I'm for Radcliffe playing against part to avoid typecasting. He strikes as an actor who is worth more than a single role.

Quote:I am glad to hear this. Being good, though, and removing some possible future choices because of doing this should be weighed.

Can't see that happening. He's a capable actor. This would only open doors.

Quote:Why do you think that I think that he hasn't?

Because you offered the advice that he should do this. You didn't use the past-tense. If you had, your advice wouldn't make any sense. It seems clear you think he hasn't spoken to anyone else.

My question is why you think that?
Houston . . . we have a problem.
Reply
#60
Fantasy Wrote:Seems to be a good choice to me. I take it you haven't read Equus, otherwise you would know that it is a powerful piece, and playing it requires an impressively skilled actor. I'm for Radcliffe playing against part to avoid typecasting. He strikes as an actor who is worth more than a single role.



Can't see that happening. He's a capable actor. This would only open doors.



Because you offered the advice that he should do this. You didn't use the past-tense. If you had, your advice wouldn't make any sense. It seems clear you think he hasn't spoken to anyone else.

My question is why you think that?

And I still feel that it is a reasonable caution that he should seek such advice. Whether he has or not is not something that I conjectured in my reply, regardless of your interpretation.

So your question seems to be, why would I think that he hasn't spoken to anyone else. And my reply is, I do not think that he hasn't spoken to anyone else. I do not know if he has or not. Do you know for a certainty that he has, or are you speculating that he has?
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Harry Potter rebooted? badlands 2 180 January 18th, 2023, 11:56 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Actor Leslie Phillips, voice of Harry Potter Sorting Hat, dies aged 98 Michael 1 120 November 10th, 2022, 05:18 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Harry Potter vs Encanto badlands 3 462 March 2nd, 2022, 01:06 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter exhibit badlands 0 341 February 20th, 2022, 09:43 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Slavery in Harry Potter badlands 1 419 February 7th, 2022, 09:33 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Is Harry Potter really Moaning Myrtle? badlands 3 431 February 6th, 2022, 04:12 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter game badlands 2 1,097 March 14th, 2021, 11:18 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Harry Potter bar badlands 3 733 February 5th, 2021, 03:59 PM
Last Post: Michael
  HBO Harry Potter reboot badlands 1 586 January 31st, 2021, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter theories badlands 10 1,456 November 5th, 2018, 12:17 PM
Last Post: august

Forum Jump: