I really wish they had kept the same director as Prisoner,

My understanding is that Andrew Cuaron was so exhausted from making a big budget studio SFX picture that he didn't want to do it again, at least not right away.

As far as the competence of the new director goes, Mike Newell is an accomplished director with a penchant for fantasy and children's tales, as well as a good feel for more adult stories. I'd say there's a better than even chance of the movie being good.

Cashmere, thanks for the history lesson! I'm always fascinated by history. It seems that (you may want to wait until you've seen the movie yourself to read the whitefont) for the movie they compressed two kings into one, ditched the kid, and took some poetic license. Sybilla's guilt in real life makes sense, because she chose her husband unwisely, but in the movie, it makes less sense, I think. You'll have to tell me if you think she really had any choices, the way the movie was written; I don't think she did.

Robin, I also think she was supposedly feeling guilty over crowning Guy, but I don't see what choice she had, since Bailion refused her. I'm possibly wrong, but I think a regent is only named if the person taking the throne is non-competent (meaning a child). In the movie, no child, so Guy became was king. It's possible that Sybilla could have ruled herself as Queen and made Guy a Prince, like Elizabeth and Albert, but she didn't, so there must have been some reason she didn't. She surely could have done a better job! Also, she says to Guy, "If I have your army, you have your wife," which made me think she was planning some sort of military action (which would've been cool), but she did nothing with the army, so I don't even know what that line was supposed to mean.

I wish they'd given us the real history - it would have made both Guy's treachery and Sybilla's guilt more obvious. Then Bailion could have been Tripoli. (Is that his correct name?? I couldn't understand what they were saying half the time.)

Anyway. It was a good movie, and I enjoyed it, despite my teeth-gnashing over "morality". (And over how a peasant(-raised) blacksmith could have developed such skill at combat and battle strategy so quickly, before he ever went into a battle. But never mind.)

The simple fact that it will not be Christopher Columbus directing it gives me hope.

Zenkitty, in regards to your whitefont to Robin:I'm possibly wrong, but I think a regent is only named if the person taking the throne is non-competent (meaning a child). In the movie, no child, so Guy became was king. It's possible that Sybilla could have ruled herself as Queen and made Guy a Prince, like Elizabeth and Albert, but she didn't, so there must have been some reason she didn't. She surely could have done a better job! I don't think she had a choice. Since the Kingdom of Jerusalem was basically one of constant warfare, they didn't go for female rulers. Sybilla's job was to breed the next king, since Baldwin would never have a child of his own. A child ruler was just as bad--they needed a strong, military mind on the the throne and they didn't have that with Guy. The fact that she chose her husband over her son (and the regent chosen for him) proved to be the wrong decision--in real life, not the movie. I can see them chosing to telescope the events and ditch the boy king/regent issues to simplify the story. But from what I've read, historically, Sybilla wasn't as smart and savvy as Baldwin. She was spoiled and temperamental. No film tonight--maybe sometime this week.

Alibelle is me.

Except much cuter.

According to Pauline Baynes, the original illustrator, neither Pevensie girl is blonde.

The White Witch looks very properly seductive and terrifying, but I'm not so keen on the Lion. Really want to see (and hear) Tumnus and Mr. and Mrs. Beaver.

Oooh! Goblet of Fire! ::scampers back to Teaserland::

The simple fact that it will not be Christopher Columbus directing it gives me hope.

Oh, I have hope. Just not faith. I've only seen two of this guy's movies, and one of them was... okay but not exactly good (Mona Lisa Smile) and the other was eleven years ago (Four Weddings and a Funeral) and neither of them is remotely like a Harry Potter movie.

Also, I quite enjoyed Chamber of Secrets and have watched the DVD several times. It's nothing on Prisoner, which was one of the best movies of last year, but it was a perfectly decent adaptation if still somewhat lacking in magic. I thought CC did quite a nice job with it, especially considering it's my least favorite of the books. If GOF is that decent, I'll be satisfied, if not amazed as I was last time.

Thanks, Sean. I really, really want Goblet of Fire to be good, since it was my favorite book, by far. The thing that worries me is what they might cut, or water down, in order to get a PG rating, since everyone knows Harry Potter is only for little kids, clearly. And I want all my favorite scenes to be as intense as they can be.

Totally agree. I have exactly those same fears in relation to Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, too, but I've pretty much given up hope that it will be as depressing as the book.

I'd have to say that Goblet of Fire is tied for my favorite. I still haven't been able to choose between it and Order of the Phoenix.

Also, YAY for book six coming out in July!

Order of the Phoenix was the most depressing downer of a book. I was irritable the entire weekend I read it, since it was just incredibly frustrating, and sad. I completely understood why the cover was all in navy and black. I have no idea how they will go about adapting that book for the screen. But yes, definitely yay for book six.