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.

I like depressing books. It's a thing with me.

Okay. I like romance novels because you are guaranteed a happy ending. Also, I used to read the ends of novels first, so that I would know whether or not I'd want to read the whole thing. But that was before I discovered the genre built around happy endings.

I do occasionally watch depressing movies, though. I'm not sure why.