Emma Watson's hair in the first movie was a lot bushier, and she had a sort of scrunched-up face as a 11-year-old--cute as a button, but not what I would call a beautiful child. She really blossomed in the third movie, and... well, I'm sure the producers of the films are not overly lamenting the fact that Watson is turning into a knockout.
I don't mind the down-playing of her booksmarts as long as we are shown her intelligence in action in other ways. I ADORED the take-charge Hermione with the time-turner in the climax of the third flick. Smart chicks are so hot. [/Xander]
I just hope that they show her being
unreasonably jealous of the HBP
in the adaptation of Book 6. That's a good example of her stubborness in adhering to the rules, which they didn't show in the movie version of PoA (since they took out the whole "where did the Firebolt come from" issue).
Her very bushy hair is mentioned over and over again, throughout the books. She's never described as pretty, though she's also never described as ugly, really.
Okay, but Emma Watson does have the bushy hair (especially in the first two movies). And anyway, I have fairly bushy hair, so am somewhat less inclined to read that as shorthand for not-pretty.
I tend to follow the argument that this is partly because Harry isn't attracted to her, and the book takes his perspective on appearances. I've always imagined her character to be fairly pretty,
That makes sense to me. After all, Ron is fairly taken with her--not to mention Viktor Krum, who must certainly have his pick of groupies--and
doesn't one of the Slug Club develop a thing for her too
?
though Emma Watson gorgeous is another thing.
Hmm. I think Emma Watson is plenty pretty, but she hardly strikes me as head-and-shoulders above every other girl her age in the world.
I got the not so pretty (really, mostly taken in a "mostly not so concerned with or spending time on looking pretty") impression from the supposed transformation of the ball (which would be far less striking for someone who did themselves up on a regular basis)
I read that as "Hermione brushes her hair, fixes her teeth, and puts on a dress, and suddenly is totally HOTT", which says to me that the raw material there is pretty good to begin with. Though I think your interpretation also makes a lot of sense.
And, psst, Debet, you are pretty! So wanting Hermione to be not pretty because you identify with her is not of the sense-making
Heee. That's funny, because "Debet, you're pretty!" was my immediate reaction to her complaint for some reason. I have no idea why. Maybe I think telling a girl she's pretty solves all problems.
Daniel Radcliff? Such a cutie-pie.
Hands off! Once he's legal, he's mine!! Heehee.
Allow me to jump on the "let's make Debet blush" train by chiming in with Raq and P-C.
Oh, it's not me-now so much as me-in-school that identifies with Hermione. Me-in-school wore blue jeans and an over-sized t-shirt everyday, and never did anything more than put her hair in a pony-tail. (Me-in-school very much did the "where did that come from?" when I dressed up for prom-n-stuff.)
And, yes, that's definately influencing my reading of the character.
But it's all kind of cumulative. She's less of a demonstrated stick in the mud (with school work, rules following, eye-rolling-ness at the boys, etc), and more of a Veronica Mars/Buffy/etc etc type of character (with the active interest in pretty, and the focus on take-charge-ness-as-cool (rather than being viewed as vaguely annoying/bitchy, which was much more the sense I remember from the book), and the "bloody brilliance" of slugging Draco). It's a perfectly legitimate character type, and one I like, even. But it's not Hermione. Hermione is, as JKR said, a very specific type, who actually exists in the world, and isn't so represented in fiction (especially modern fiction), as the MovieHermione type.
And, given how much I felt like the movies have been made largely because it seemed like a good idea to the studio (as opposed to, LotR, which seemed like a good idea to the Director), and so were done now, rather than a generation from now, it seems like a rejection of world of Book (which Hermione is very tied to, in a broader sense) in favor of the world of Film (which is where a lot of the changes to MovieHermione's geneology lie, IMO).
Yeah, I'm invested because it feels like they're actively smacking down the heroification of that type of girl, rather than passively ignoring her/us like they normally do. But I think it's a legitimate gripe.
Sounds like a legitimate gripe -- I don't have a horse in that race -- but a hopeless one. There is no heroic shlub of novel fame who has not been de-shlubified for the movies. For varying values of de-shlubification, if that's a comfort, but, yeah.
For historical/comparative purposes, I should disclose that I did not understand what people meant by "awkward stage" until Chelsea Clinton was in the media eye. I was just enough older than she to see that her awkwardness was indeed temporary, and that people being cruel about her looks (as many were, in 1996) were doing the equivalent of begrudging the rain its right to fall.
And, given how much I felt like the movies have been made largely because it seemed like a good idea to the studio (as opposed to, LotR, which seemed like a good idea to the Director), and so were done now, rather than a generation from now, it seems like a rejection of world of Book (which Hermione is very tied to, in a broader sense) in favor of the world of Film (which is where a lot of the changes to MovieHermione's geneology lie, IMO).
This is really well put.
Another friend just watched the trailer and commented that Hermione was prettier than Fleur.
And I hate to say it, but I think they made Ron uglier. And the hair in GoF isn't helping.
