Source
The goods about this?
- More Rupert Grint.
- Maybe more Tom Felton.
- They’ll probably really milk the bit where Harry and Hermione are shown to be kissing, which will drive Daniel Radcliffe fangirls insane with jealousy. Someone might seriously hurt Emma!
- To be fair, some of the previous films have felt a little hurried. If they have two films this time, they might be able to devote some quality time to the character development and show us more of the engaging supporting characters.
- It is one more trip to the cinema to see one of my favourite franchises of all time on the big screen.
- More screentime = less screentime = truer to the original? You decide.
The bads:
- More Emma Watson and her atrocious eyebrow acting. God’s sake.
- More Daniel Radcliffe. Gah. He’s on Zac Efron levels of annoyingness.
- It's seven Harry Potter books. Eight films? It just doesn't add up.
- That damn epilogue will probably last about 15 minutes.
- More $$$ for studios.
- There’s simply no need for it to be two parts; they managed to get the longest HP book, Order of the Phoenix, into one movie, so they’ve really got no excuse. If anything, the two films are going to be far too much screentime, and the studios might start adding random storylines just to fill the celluloid.
Hmm. I’m currently not too keen on the idea, but as time goes on, I may change my mind. One thing’s for sure, though; if they cut out “Not my daughter, you bitch!” just to make space for a new, invented Emma Watson scene where she gives some passionate monologue in order to get a bid at Oscar glory, there will be blood.
7 comments:
Yeah this has me a bit divided too. More Tom is never bad, in fact I encourage it! But it also means lots of camping, lots of Emma W being annoying and THAT epilogue! Argh...I'll be old by the time it's all over, and hopefully have written my own best-seller. I'm worried about the film being economical for terms of pacing. But I'll still queue up like a mad woman and squeal excitedly!
aww I don't mind. I really like Emma, so it's fine by me. :D I do agree about the whole seven books eight films thing though...
Hello can we exchange links with my blog? just email me if you're interested contact me at blasy.ferdy@gmail.com
Here's my blog:
Entertainment Buzz
http://gobuzzyourself.blogspot.com/
Hmmm...I thought the Order of the Phoenix film could have been done better. They left out some crucial parts of the book, like, I don't know, quidditch?! Though I did enjoy it for the most part (Umbridge was very good.)
Two parts, though, is perhaps just a bit weird. To be continued? Where would they cut the story in half without altering it in a pretty major way? I agree, being as Deathly Hallows wasn't excessively long, two movies may be too much.
x
Just a girl
Hang on, kids by 21? You don't go to university so you can have kids by 21. It's the people you leave behind, they're the breeders.
I'm not fond of the idea of splitting Deathly Hallows into 2 films either. I thought they did a fine job at reducing an 800-paged book into a 2-hour movie, so why can't they do the same with a 700-paged book?
I think Emma Watson definitely overacts from time to time in the series, but I don't mind her. Daniel Radcliffe's acting has definitely improved since the first film, though. But you're right: The epilogue sucked. A lot.
I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep writing!
Queen Elizabeth’s Government
a. Source A shows that even above Queen Elizabeth, Parliament was the highest power in England. They read each law 3 times, after which, no-one could complain and must accept the law, and that was how a Law was passed. Parliament had a lot of power, as they represented every man in the country when a Law was made. Parliament had much power under Queen Elizabeth, who is not even mentioned. However, it does not mention Parliament’s right in creating laws – they can only agree or disagree to them.
b. Source B shows that Elizabeth chooses what her Parliament can and cannot discuss. They could not discuss what kind of religion the Parliament could have. In this source, Queen Elizabeth is telling Parliament what she will and will not accept, which disagrees with source A, which said that Parliament were the greatest power – source B is saying that Elizabeth has power over them. It also disagrees with Source A in that source B writes it is Elizabeth who chooses to pass laws, and Parliament only has the right to agree or disagree, and give a brief comment.
Source A writes as if it was Parliament that had the final say on laws, but it is only if the law has been agreed to buy the Queen. When it says, in Source B, “speak with loyalty,” it is of loyalty to the Queen. When she tells them that they have free voice, it is only of matters such as finance, which disagrees with Source A, saying that the highest power was Parliament. By Elizabeth telling Parliament what they have rights to, this shows that she has power over them.
c. I think that sources A and B disagree because they were both written by different people, and for a different audience. Source A was written by Elizabeth’s ambassador in France, so he may not have actually been present in any of the Parliament meetings. It was also written for a book, and as an ambassador, Thomas Smith may have wanted to make the government in England sound better than it was to impress those in France. He may also have heard about the powers of Parliament from French ambassadors who did not like Elizabeth.
Elizabeth, who had a different experience of Parliament, as she had met with them 13 times over her reign, however, wrote source B. She was the Queen, so would have felt power and control over government. Also, she would always need to give an effect of power, so the note may have been to assert her power rather than an actual order – she may not have expected it to be followed, but it was important to show that she was in charge. If she really wanted the order to be taken seriously, she probably would have been there and said it. It is also doubtful as to whether the note was to be taken seriously – although Elizabeth was a strict ruler, the Parliament were slowly beginning to form their own side.
Though she had power over Parliament, members were not afraid to dispute with her, especially on areas such as religion and her marriage. Parliament were starting to become aware of how the monarch only called them if they needed something done, especially after Henry VIII had used them to break away from Rome. Because of this, some members of Parliament were starting to gain independence from the Queen, so although they were not the highest power, at times, neither was Elizabeth.
The two sources were also written at different times – Source A was written in 1565, during the first half of Elizabeth’s reign. Source B was written later, and during this time, Elizabeth became stricter on her Parliament, and changed many of her approaches to it – before 1565, Elizabeth would just close Parliament to prevent matters from getting serious, but later in her reign, she would punish people by imprisoning them.
What Thomas Smith wrote may have been true to his knowledge – laws did need to be agreed to by Parliament. In the early years of Elizabeth’s reign she may have been a lesser authority than the Parliament, but later on, this was definitely untrue.
Post a Comment