Originally posted by Rapscallion
It's true that you can tell what Ron is thinking and feeleing, but anyone can show what emotion they are feeling if they play their character like a chracature (sp?) All you have to do is either scowl real big, or smile really wide, or sob real loud. Great actors, show you not only what they are feeling, but why they are feeling it. Obviously, the reason for their emotion should be shown through the script and director, but the actors performance should convey an accurate reflection of what is going on around them so that if you saw only the actor's face, or heard their voice, you could still at least guess as to the situation they are in. This is a lot to ask of such a young actor, but he shows very little attention to detail that is required in what could have been a very strong role. For example, a groan let out upon hearing you have a pop quiz is very different from a groan let out upon being stabbed. A scream while riding a roller coaster is different, from a scream while witnessing a violent crime. And an insult traded between friends should be different from one exchanged between enemies.
Yes, but Dan didn't really show any of that. sure he sobbed, but he didn't look that upset. And I also didn't see any tears. sweat, yeah, but not tears. And If you're going to use an expression on your face, you'd need to show it in your voice too, and Dan didn't. he looked happy when he sounded sad. Rupert, on the other hand, had the expression and the voice for sounding happy or upset. And I don't know about you, but the people I asked said that they understood why Ron would be upset, including people who've never read the book. now could we please drop the subject. this is about Harry Potter vs. Narnia, not who's the better actor, but that's my opinion.
Originally posted by sammii
good point & i agree with you Dan is not really good at showing his emotions like in the poa in hogsmede when he first learns sirius betrayed his father ,when hes on that rock & he,s saying "im gonna find him & when i do im gonna kill him" that sceen was totally rubbish
I definitely agree with you on that one. I was actually talking about that fairly recently to someone. It looked more like he was smiling even though he made himself sound like he was crying. that was really goofy. Well, at least Emma Watson knew how to act in that scene. she made it a little less ridiculous.
Yeah, Emma's a great actress. And that Yule Ball scene in the new one was brilliant. She and Rupert really knew how to make us feel for them. Emma did a great job at being upset and making us feel sorry for her character, And Rupert did a great job at being jealous. he even sounded upset about it and the argument was what I imagined it being like.
Yeah, the writer of Narnia was friends' with JRR Tolkien, so that should prove you right.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Narnia is a classic. Harry potter isnt...yet.And all the films with exception of certain bits from GoF and PoA were terrible.
I hope you mean the Narnia book was a classic. Because the movie isn't, especially for the fact that it just came out. But I personally like the Harry Potter movies. True, I've gotten older, and I now see how much the first couple of movies are geared towards children, but I still like it, because it brings back memories of how excited I was about seeing it. Not to mention that Sorceror's Stone was pretty much the first movie I ever saw that was close to three hours that I didn't sleep through. It just isn't the same with the Narnia movie. They sort of tried too hard to make the Narnia movie a LOTR for kids.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't overhype the HP movies though, they have got alot better but the first two were horribly rubbish.
The third did stick to the plot, but it wasn't nearly as interesting. The image of them wearing street clothes did not make the movie look real.
And the fourth? They left out a shitload.
Originally posted by #1Rupert_Lover
I hope you mean the Narnia book was a classic. Because the movie isn't, especially for the fact that it just came out. But I personally like the Harry Potter movies. True, I've gotten older, and I now see how much the first couple of movies are geared towards children, but I still like it, because it brings back memories of how excited I was about seeing it. Not to mention that Sorceror's Stone was pretty much the first movie I ever saw that was close to three hours that I didn't sleep through. It just isn't the same with the Narnia movie. They sort of tried too hard to make the Narnia movie a LOTR for kids.
Please read my posts and you will see that isnt the case and, although yes the films have grown a little bit, they are still rejecting a lot of potential brilliance by keeping the script small child friendly.
If it says you live in Britain...then why did you say the Sorcerer's Stone?
Weird... 😕
And to Dark C, HP books do not make good scripts, I would have thought that would have been self evident. And I hope you would realise how hard it is to cram nigh on 900 pages into a 2 or 2 hours and a half movie. Making a film of the GoF while not missing out a lot of information is no mean feat.