by Johnny
Entertainment Weekly, who is owned by Warner Bros. parent company Time Warner, Inc., featured the face of Daniel Radcliffe in their new Fall Preview issue that hit newstands in the middle of last week. The only problem is that the film Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will not be released until July 17, 2009. The decision was announced by Warner Bros. around the same time the magazine hit newstands. This is sure to be an amusing story in light of our disappointment in having to wait nearly a year for the film. Word to Entertainment Weekly: I can’t wait for the Summer Preview issue…next year!
In the meantime, check these out:
- EW’s cover story ‘Harry Potter’: There Will Be ‘Half-Blood’ is online.
- HPANA has two new hi-res photos from the EW article.
Red Rocker on 
Joivre on 
Tom on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
The young Riddle looks good as always. The picture with Narcissa, Snape, & Bellatrix, I don’t know. Is it Helen McCrory or something like that? She really looks too old to be playing Narcissa. I’d always pictured Narcissa as younger than Bellatrix & still with stunning good looks. And couldn’t they have spent the money to dye all of her hair blonde? Just some quibbles.
Okay, read the EW story. Don’t know what they mean about the books sitting on a shelf gathering dust now that the series is over. The authors of the story are apparently laboring under the delusion that HP is just a pop culture phenomena.
Saw that there’s apparently a new scene in the opening of the film where Harry is flirting with a waitress! I guess this is a set up for all the flirting or attraction he’s going to show towards Ginny. I did like Radcliffe’s description of his flirting technique: Just look at a girl until she notices me & hope for the best. Hilarious!
On an off note, David Yates, like most people, still has the false assumption that because Jo said Dumbledore is gay, that this means Dumbledore is gay. Just because DD had a same sex attraction in his youth, extra-textually, does not mean he is ‘gay,’ as it’s commonly understood nowadays. John Granger does a great job of parsing this out in his essay on Jo’s revelation & authorial intent in The Deathly Hallows Lectures. Great book, btw, even though I’ve only read two essays so far. Buy it now!
Finally, reading Dan’s comments on being naked in DH in context, it is quite obvious that he is joking about the whole thing.
Yes, that blond streak is just weird. I’m sure it’s someone’s idea to make them look like sisters by having part of here hair dark like Bella’s, but can’t they just do that part like the book–please? Some sisters look enough alike to be twins while others look completely different.
I’ll have to see more pics of McCrory to know whether I like her as Narcissa. Maybe with more time on the movie, they’ll decide to fix her hair. Well, probably not.
And this is really a nitpick–I’m glad to see the scene included, but couldn’t they have had them kneel like they did in the book? Somehow, that always made it more somber and significant when I read it.
I agree, that the young Tom looks really good–and sounds good in the trailer. That was a great bit of casting, I think.
Pat
McCrory’s hair or age doesn’t matter one way or the other to me: it’s the attitude that counts. And it looks like she’s got the Black family attitude down to a t: haughty, arrogant and superior.
BTW, McCrory is 40, two years younger than Bonham-Carter. Playing the mother of a 16 year old, that’s about right, I think.
The interesting thing about that shot of Fiennes-Tiffin is that he looks like he could go either way, unlike in the trailer where it looks like he’s well along his chosen path. Very good casting, it looks like.
I just thought that if they made Evanna Lynch dye her blonde hair to a different shade of blonde, they might ask McCrory to dye all of her hair. It’s more brown than blonde. Just an annoying quibble on my part.
I’ll wait to see how she does acting the part. I guess she can’t do any worse than some other casting choices I can think of.
Red, you are right in that McCrory has the haughty, arrogance part down.
Looking at Bonham Carter, I can’t but help say that that is another piece of inspired casting. She does nail Bellatrix.
ARRRGHHH!!! Why, oh why, when they nailed the casting on so many, many of the characters, did they utterly fail in one of the most important characters of the books?!
Sorry. Couldn’t help it; it slipped out.
revgeorge, it does us no good to go on and on about that horrible piece of miscasting whose results we will have to suffer each time we watch the movies, past and future. And I have promised myself that I will stop. And I will, after this.
I was thinking last night about why Bonham-Carter works so well as Bella. I thought that at some point she had sat down and thought out how she was going to play Bella. I thought of Thewlis’ decision to play Lupin like an ex-junkie, of Depp’s decision to play Jack Sparrow as a slightly more articulate Keith Richards, of Depp’s decision to play Willy Wonka as a white Michael Jackson, of Ledger’s decision to play the Joker as a sado-masochistic anarchist who’s half in love with Batman. And I thought of Bonham-Carter’s decision to play Bella like a goth Charles Manson groupie. And I thought how each of these decisions – as out of left field as they might have been – worked to create a credible and compelling character.
I look at Gambon and I ask myself: did he sit down and decide to play Dumbledore as an insecure, anxious and overwhelmed Hallowe’en party goer? Because the two things that strike me every time I look at him is the confusion in his eyes, and the way his clothes look so inappropriate on him. Is that really what he consciously decided to do?
Or put slightly differently: what in sweet heaven does he think he’s trying to do? What is his take on Dumbledore? Does anyone understand?
Red, honestly I’m trying to stop with the Gambon issues. I just can’t help it when I see them get so many casting choices right & miss a big one.
Although thinking about it, I’m not quite sure Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee would’ve been good choices either. Michael York maybe. Richard Chamberlain, even though he’s an American, I think would’ve done well. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk. Although in my household with all the cats, there is usually much rejoicing over spilled milk.
OK , let’s not talk about Gambon. Let’s just play fantasy casting: why don’t you like McKellen or Lee for Dumbledore? I’m not saying I disagree with you (I agree, actually, especially about Lee who’s got the warmth of a snake) I just want to hear your reasons.
I dimly remember Chamberlain in Dr. Kildare (which you won’t remember), The Three/Four Musketeers and Shogun. I remember women swooned over him in The Thorn Birds Didn’t see him in that, but doubt that I would have swooned. Can’t say he ever impressed me with any acting depth or gravitas: seemed a lot like Tom Cruise but with a bit more class and a lot less charisma. Generic heart trob. Which of his performances gives you to think that he is capable of more?
As for Michael York, I remember him in Logan’s Run, Cabaret and the aforementioned Three/Four Musketeers. Competent as most British actors are who’ve had some stage training. And Google shows that he’s been really busy in secondary roles all of his life, but again: which of his performances do you think makes him a likely actor to play Dumbledore?
My candidates would be Russell Crowe (in 16 years’ time when he’ll be 60), Peter O’Toole ( a little nervy but he can speak the lines with conviction), Nicol Williamson (check him out as Merlin in Excalibur) and Albert Finney (a lot like Crowe, I think: with force of personality and a sense of having a lot of knowledge and experience, a credible leader).
I wouldn’t be so sure I can’t remember Dr. Kildare. I am 43 after all. That being said, I don’t remember Dr. Kildare. But I do remember The 3 Musketeers & I didn’t like The 4 Musketeers. I do remember Shogun & bits of The Thorn Birds. Yes, Chamberlain was kind of a heartthrob character but I think now in his later years he could hit the part of Dumbledore.
Here’s what I see as Dumbledore’s apparent character throughout the books. A venerable, well-respected, albeit very eccentric teacher, who is somewhat semi-serious & semi-comedic. Very flippant & self deprecating while also quite sure of his abilities. Stern when necessary & having the backbone to stand up when it counts.
I think Chamberlain could do that, as well as Michael York. Plus, York has played a somewhat comedic figure in the Austin Powers films.
I disqualify Lee for much the same reasons you do. Plus, after having watched entirely too many vampire movies in my youth, I could only imagine a Lee Dumbledore sinking his fangs into unsuspecting students & teachers at every turn.
McKellen I think would hit most of my characterizations but I’m not sure on the comedic bit. Plus, I think he can be disqualified by being too closely tied to Gandalf.
Crowe I think would do well, with your qualifications. O’Toole as well might be good, although it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Lawrence of Arabia. Plus, I’m not sure he’s in very good health. Williamson was of course brilliant in Excalibur. The whole film was great. But I’ve not seen him in much else. Finney, loved him in Murder on the Orient Express & in A Christmas Carol & especially Annie. Could definitely pull off the role.
Hopefully that helps explain my comments. Also, what do you think of Patrick Stewart?
Ow well, I’m not going to say anything on casting. I’ll wait and see how it works out on screen.
But does anyone else think that it’s just about the most horrible EW cover that was ever seen ? Either they took a rendering of Radcliffe from the video game or it’s just about the worst airbrush touch-up job I have ever seen…!
I have personal issues with Patrick Stewart, which I think I’ve explained before.
It goes back to seeing him as Picard in ST: TNG, and thinking that he played a great leader: wise, and compassionate, and decisive and forceful and with no ego whatsoever. In other words, I put him on a pedestal. And then I saw him in Mel Brooks’ Robin Hood: Men in Tights where he took advantage of his position as King Richard to French kiss Maid Marian.
He fell off that pedestal so badly, it took 15 years before I could watch him without thinking of that kiss.
Other than that, I think he’d be pretty good. Problem is, now that he’s back on the pedestal, I’m not sure that I could see him losing his moral compass either over a pretty face or a vision of ruling the world. He’d have to dig pretty deep to show such vulnerability. Whereas the other names I’ve mentioned – O’Toole, Nicolson, Finney and Crowe – are better at showing moral frailty.
Sorry about mixing up Nicol Williamson’s first and last names in the last post.
I know it’s probably a sin, but I’ve never seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights, so I’ve never had a chance to see Stewart knocked off a pedestal.
Although as regards starship captains, I am more of a Kirk sort of guy. I’d like my starship captains to be a little less in touch with their feelings.
Kirk?
James T. Kirk?
James Tiberius Kirk?
The narcissistic, histrionic, self-aggrandizing, bombastic, rude bag of wind that walks as a man?
That Kirk?
Don’t bad-mouth Kirk! The man scores with alien women with monotonous regularly. heh
Oh yeah, how could I forget?
The single greatest vector of STD’s from one end of the galaxy to the other?
That Kirk?
PS Like the new avatar. Nice fashion statement with the designer glasses and the shiny teeth.
Well, I like the character Kirk. I wouldn’t necessarily like the person Kirk. I think there’s a difference. And maybe I just liked the way Kirk embodied a starship captain, bold, brash, confident, just as willing to get into a scrap as to sit down & negotiate. The feel of the Original Series was of course much more frontier like & primitive than the Next Generation, which often times was way too civilized.
Although there were often episodes where the character of Picard was a real stand out, mostly I think because of Stewart’s acting ability, which is of course more refined than Shatner’s. Certainly Picard had much more depth to him than Kirk, but then the NG had more seasons to work with characters than did the OS.
Not that Shatner couldn’t act with depth when he needed to.
I remember seeing some out-takes where Shatner announces that he is doing a scene under protest because he didn’t think it was valid for Kirk’s character. I also remember seeing an interview with Shat himself where he recounted how shocked he was when Nichelle Nichols told him how everone hated him and his prima dona attitude.
Anyone listened to his album Has Been? Really, really excellent stuff.
“Please don’t correct me; it sickens me.”
Apparently what Shatner said to a crew member on Star Trek one time. I loved how they mocked that in Mystery Men.
Just goes to show in regard to Shatner that you don’t have to be too nice of a person to still launch a multi million franchise that’s lasted for 40 years or more.
revgeorge,
That is funny because I just quoted the same thing to my wife yesterday!
I think Mystery Men was great. Did you ever read them as a comic (Dark Horse I think)?
No, never read the comic; have only seen the movie tons of time.
Talk about hitting all the casting choices there. Everyone was great! I especially loved Wes Studi as the Sphinx. “We are #1; all others are #2 or lower!”
Great discussion everyone.
Victoria, I don’t like the cover either, but I guess they’ll get the chance to revamp it with their summer movie preview. Doesn’t make me interested in the issue, but that’s me.
I vote for Albert Finney in the recast Dumbledore contest. I really liked his bit parts in Erin Brockovich, The Borne Ultamatium, and Ocean’s Twelve. In my opinion, he would do the best job of bringing the criteria forward that revgeorge and red rocker have.
Lee and McKellen both have character persona that would probably keep me from enjoying them as dumbledore since all I would see is Count Dooku/Saruman and Gandalf, which I like them in those roles (Dooku was one of my favorite parts of the star wars prequels).
Crowe rubs me the wrong way. Not sure why. Maybe, because he plays brash characters. I like York, but maybe too comedic for me. I like powerful Dumbledore, but the time I really like that is the battle at the end of Order and I shouldn’t get started on how that was adapted. I haven’t seen much of chamberlain except he played a gay stepfather in desperate housewives last season, which might make the studios love him to play Dumbledore even more. And I really like Stewart as Capt Picard and as an actor in general but I think he’s just too stoic for dumbledore.
Just my thoughts.