Page 1 of 3

But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:03 pm
by mouse
I seriously just whined that when I read this.


*sniff*


*pout*

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:11 am
by Gandalf
This really sucks! I got an email about it just before I came here and was really disappointed. Never mind having to wait longer for the film, I just love going to see Harry Potter films in the run up to Christmas. It seems more natural somehow, like the guy in that article says. They don't really feel like summer movies.

It really sucks! Bad idea! :cry:

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:08 pm
by Ghost
Ok, I just read a story that says that Harry Potter gets naked in the last film and Radcliff is going to do it. Does he really get naked?

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:24 pm
by mouse
I really don't remember him getting naked in the last book.


But Radcliffe already got all kinds of naked in Equis, so that's nothing new.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:41 pm
by Ghost
There is a difference between him getting naked for a theater production and him getting naked for a film based on a book aimed at children.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:06 pm
by Gandalf
That's the first I've heard of it, and I can't recall any instances where it would be required. Where did you read this? I really can't imagine them doing this since, like you say, it's a film aimed mainly at younger people (despite the increasingly adult themes in later books). If they did something like that, the rating would bump up, and they'd cut out half their target audience. It doesn't make any sense from a studio/money men point of view.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:10 pm
by Ghost
Gandalf wrote:That's the first I've heard of it, and I can't recall any instances where it would be required. Where did you read this? I really can't imagine them doing this since, like you say, it's a film aimed mainly at younger people (despite the increasingly adult themes in later books). If they did something like that, the rating would bump up, and they'd cut out half their target audience. It doesn't make any sense from a studio/money men point of view.
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/arti ... otter.html
Daniel Radcliffe has revealed he will appear naked in the next Harry Potter film.

The actor - who has starred as the teen wizard in five movies in the franchise based on the books by J.K. Rowling - admits he was unsure when he was told he would be appearing without trousers in a scene in 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:14 am
by CosmicAvatar
It's a pity. I do like my geekery spread out over the year.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:01 am
by Sarah
I can't imagine they'll go for full frontal, so it'll just be another shot of a bare bum--the stuff of PG.

Re: But...*why*? (re: Harry Potter)

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:29 am
by Ghost
But again, inappropriate for a movie based on a children's book.