Emma Watson. Really? - Ballet Shoes (2007) Discussion

[–] slayingsavagegiants 17 years ago

I agree, she'll ruin this role like she does Hermione.

It's terribly tragic..

http://www.myspace.com/remembersylvia<--add it, for Sylvia!
look closer..

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] groovygarden 17 years ago

When an actor or actress does a TV version of a much loved book, they have to expect that a lot of people are going to have doubts. Part of the job.

This is one of my favourite childhood books - I want to love the adaptation, but Emma Watson really doesn't fit the description of Pauline in the book, so I have some misgivings. Lets hope she proves me wrong

reply

[–] Twinkles_Starlight 17 years ago

Are you KIDDING me!!! This is my favorite book in the world (I have read it 14 times and the book is practicly falling apart) and Pauline is my favorite part and Emma Watson is going to RUIN it!! She is fine as Hermionie but she is NOT Pauline. I really just want to go and cry now this upsets me SO much. I don't know any of the other actors so I acn't say anything about them but I am upset about this VERY much!

reply

[–] hannah728 17 years ago

"She looks all wrong for the role. In the book Pauline is a very pretty child who grows into a stunningly beautiful young woman, whose looks are commented on in her press reviews."

are you kidding me? emma watson is beautiful!

reply

[–] daizz 16 years ago

please tell me you're not serious when you say that! She's nothing special at all, very mediocre, and if you try to make out she;s anything more, you're deluding yourself. She's not pretty particularly, and she's all wrong for the part. Someone messed up big time with the casting.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bishoujo 16 years ago

You guys make it sound like the freaking end of the world... honestly, get a life!

Emma is a wonderful actress and she's far from ugly, so shut your little lips and let it be! she's going to make a great job and... for gods sake it's just a film!

reply

[–] TresIzy674 16 years ago

elijahbarber: She hasn't been in Vogue, wtf are you smoking? And Teen Vogue is about the lowest of the low in the magazine industry. Lily Donaldson is in Vogue all the time and she's not pretty.

It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TresIzy674 16 years ago

elijahbarber, you idiot, Vogue and Teen Vogue are completely different magazines. Oh, Lily Donaldson is a fantastic model, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Anja Rubik, Iekeliene Stange, neither of them are very pretty either, but they are still great models, and that's why their in Vogue.

Of course I'm jealous of super models; they're famous and lovely. But they are also talented. I'm not jealous of untalented people, because I'd rather have talent and not be famous than be a talentless little twat (like Watson) and be famous. But that's just me.

"I just googled her so thats how I know this stuff."
Lol you'd sound a lot more intelligent if you hadn't said that xD. Loser.

It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] madsic 16 years ago

you mean BITE your tongue...
wtf is bit your tongue?

I want to tango with you

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emeraldstar85 16 years ago

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

reply

[–] lfeldmar 16 years ago

Yeah....talentless... i mean who needs talent to get straight a's and be in a series of highly successful movies at the same time...obviously

reply

[–] takiko-1 15 years ago

> But they are also talented. I'm not jealous of untalented people, because I'd rather have talent and not be famous than be a talentless little twat (like Watson) and be famous. But that's just me. <

Beauty is subjective, and so is talent, since even if a person won an Oscar, there will be disputes over whether that person deserved to win it or not, or if someone else deserved it.

Anyhow, Italian Vogue even bothered to do a photoshoot with her, so they must see something in her. (Although Vogue magazines around the world have been catering to people that buy magazines with celebrities on the cover, because French Vogue did a cover with Paris Hilton before this one came out.) And honestly, there will be a certain amount of "people that are famous for being pretty" or "people that are famous for being famous". They will become filtered and forgotten in the long run if they don't have anything real to contribute. But Emma Watson hasn't become like Macaulay Culkin yet, so isn't she already a little better off?

reply

[–] madeleine_tuz 16 years ago

She's not ugly...but she is not Pauline.
The people in charge appear to have cast only 'faymuss' people, e.g. Emma Watson and that girl from the Sarah Jane adventures, and the girl from Beatrix Potter film. How does one become famous now, when new talent is ousted for those who have appeared in other productions?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] odd_duck06 13 years ago

I personally think she is very beautiful, gorgeous, etc. So in that respect, if Pauline was supposed to be strikingly beautiful, then she definitely is! I think she is classically good looking. BUT I will admit, even though I am a HUGE fan of Emma, that she is definitely an average actress. She still moves her eyebrows too much...alhough she's gotten better with not doing that in the Harry Potter movies. But the truth is, she's just not that convincing. I have to TRY to believe her, which I'm sad about because I really do like her. She seems like a genuine, sweet, hard-working girl. And she definitely has charisma.

Btw, what happened with Macaulay Culkin?

reply

[–] Drewy 11 years ago

I really just want to go and cry now this upsets me SO much.

I hope you're no older than 13. (If you are 13 or under, trust me - it will get better. Well, you won't be now - your post was 5 years ago!)

I am always very frustrated by people who read a book and get such a vivid picture in their head that they can't be satisfied with any film version because it wasn't exactly like their image. (It's possibly a testimony to the author that they have painted such a clear picture.)

I remember the kerfuffle from some Stephen King fans when Morgan Freeman was cast to play the part of Red in The Shawshank Redemption. In the King short story Red is a red-head of Irish descent. Morgan Freeman is not! But Freeman was excellent in this role.

Film is a different medium from literature. Enjoy (or don't enjoy) the film for what it is.

And to the posters who say Emma Watson isn't attractive enough to play this role...you are the ones deluding yourselves. She is a very pretty young woman.

reply

[–] daffymaiden 16 years ago

......Pauline is meant to be Vivien Leigh! In the later books she is mentioned playing Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind, and starring in a film called Look Up and Laugh. That describes only one person I can think of. ;-)

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faiqah1610 16 years ago

awwwww... come on! give her a chance! we've never really seen her act other roles than hermione in harry potter... she may be great!

reply

[–] ColinBaker 16 years ago

I suspect there's a bit of jealousy here of all the frankly unhealthy attention Emma Watson's looks have attracted. My son has a particular fascination with her.

I speak as one who felt she was wrong for the role of Hermione because she was too pretty. Hermione is supposed to have bushy hair and long teeth. Emma Watson's only flaw is her wardrobe, which unfortunately has resulted in some rather seedy videos ..... apparently.

reply

[–] Tiffany1567 16 years ago

That's what I thought, Emma too pretty for Hermione, I think all these people are crazy saiying she looks like Hermione. Emma looks nothing like Hermione should, brown hair, brushy hair, plain looking, not that noticable, long teeth, etc. Emma's glam, pretty, blonde, straight hair, etc.
I think it werid.
I thought that she did that great of a job as Hermione, Hermione was suppose to smart and etc. Emma as Hermione came off as emotional, not that smart, and just another person. <That could be because of the writting though.

reply

[–] sanmi 16 years ago

Look, People do not want to watch Ugly people. If the big-screen Hermione was made to look exactly like her literary counterpart, trust me, it would have sucked. Besides, she got better as the books progressed. Her character did end up to be quite good looking. And so did the big-screen Hermione. She has gotten more and more beautiful as movies have been coming. She just had a better start.
If you want to counter that, all i have to say is that Betty Suarez does not count (LOL).

I CAN NEVER SELL DRUGS TO MINORS.
I CAN DATE THEM BUT, GOD, I HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

reply

[–] Tiffany1567 15 years ago

That goes to show you how shallow you are, the rest of us would like it better, more real less fake. No one said her was ulgy but she was always and will always be plain and nerdy, and that not once has been shown seen the 1st two movies, and she doesn't become unplain or unnerdy that just who she is. & Yes Betty does count, and so does Tracy from Hairspray people like REAL.

Final-Distance.net :: Your Number One Source for Harry/Hermione

reply

[–] jennababy664 16 years ago

wtf yor son?
jesus lady get the bloody hell of forums.
too old to be on.

reply

[–] ColinBaker 16 years ago

Stupid message. Last time I checked, I was a bloke.... and if you can point me towards any age limit on message boards, perhaps I can steer you to rules about proper spelling and grammar.

reply

[–] hogwarts_honey0890 16 years ago

I totally agrre. This is Emma's first post harry film, so it was probably hard for her to adjust. I think we should just wait until the movie comes out until we start passing judgement.

"Wit beyond measure is man's greatest tresure."

reply

[–] pinkxsunlight 16 years ago

I love all the Emma Watson fans who are so obsessed with her. They just jump out of nowhere and start yelling.

"She's the most beautiful girl everrr!!! AND she's the best actress in the world"

Puh-lease. Gag me.

I agree with you groovygarden. She is all wrong.

reply

[–] stonewar 16 years ago

I don't know about you.
But I think that this http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbcone/2120386384/in/set-72157603454081106/ a pretty girl.

If anything from the stills she looks too old for the part not "too ugly"

reply

[–] emidot 16 years ago

I have nothing against Emma Watson, I think she's competent in the Harry Potter films, and whilst not stunningly beautiful she's pretty enough. But her as Pauline? She might be alright but I won't be able to enjoy the film as much, a) because she just looks wrong and b) because the whole time I'll be thinking "That's Hermione" - which I suppose is why she got cast, because she's famous, not because she's right for the part. I guess it'll be a test of her acting ability to see if she can seperate herself from the role which has difined her career, but I don't think she a good enough actress and ,to end on a slightly petty note, her voice annoys me.

reply

[–] perfect_angel93 16 years ago

she looks like the girl from same difference in the x factor shes creepy

reply

[–] IceElfinPixie 16 years ago

OMG Im so glad someone said she looked like the girl from same difference its been annoying me for ages!

I dont really like Emma as I feel shes rather bland as an actress and never seems to add depth to her character.....

reply

[–] bellababz 16 years ago

she is bland both in acting and looks

however, it makes total sense for the bbc to do this because they have such a limited budget. the fact that emma watson is doing it means they will have a guaranteed international fan base and will therefore be able to sell it abroad..

that is why she was cast.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kooky_chick82 16 years ago

well...people moaned about Dan Radcliffe before they saw him in December Boys and My Boy Jack and then he got rave reviews....same for Rupert Grint. Everyone moaned and then he did Driving Lessons (sp?) which he was rather good in...very sweet and under played role. This is Emma's first major role outside of the HP world. Give her a chance.

As for not fitting the description of Pauline...I don't think she's bad looking at all.

She's young for goodness sake...let her be.

reply

[–] sanmi 16 years ago

'because the whole time I'll be thinking "That's Hermione" - which I suppose is why she got cast, because she's famous, not because she's right for the part.'

Look, all producers want is an audience. An AUDIENCE. Thanks to Emma, that is already guaranteed. A lot more people will see it than is expected for a tv movie of this kind. Everyone on this thread is probably going to watch the film when it airs. So that is a win for the film.

About Emma acting, she looks good. Definitely like someone who can step into make-up and come out looking as stunning as her character is expected to be. That, after all, is what an actress needs to be as for as her looks are concerned.

This is her first non-HP role. The first one ever. If you love the book so much, then no actress is going to satisfy you so you might as well just enjoy the film the way it is.

Just enjoy the movie.
I CAN NEVER SELL DRUGS TO MINORS.
I CAN DATE THEM BUT, GOD, I HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

reply

[–] pete-293 16 years ago

Some people say Emma is very good in "Balet Shoes." Check out the following link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk52/feature_balletshoes.shtml

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crunchy and taste good with catsup

reply

[–] Dilest 16 years ago

I used to think that she was a pretty bad actress untill OP. she seemed to have gotten a lot better. just my opion, so don't loose your head, but I think she will do pretty good.

"If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair"

reply

[–] faeryemo 16 years ago

I'm so annoyed that they are even making a re-make of Ballet Shoes in the first place! The original movie is classic and I have a feeling this one will be somewhat disappointing.

As for Emma Watson playing Pauline, there's no doubt about it; Emma is beautiful (thus her being chosen as the new face of Chanel) but she doesn't have that classic beauty that the part of Pauline requires. When you think of Pauline aspiring to be an actress, you think of that classic movie look and hmm...

Yeah, well, we'll have just to see when it airs I suppose :)

reply

[–] babelfish1 16 years ago

I have to first say that this was my favourite book when I was a child and I suppose I am going to be disappointed with a lot of the adaptation to be frank. I kow there is no getting away from this, although I do believe that Emilia Fox will pull off Sylvia, as she's normally quite brilliant.

I have to admit that the casting of Emma Watson has a big no from me, and I know that I shouldn't really say that until I have actually watched the show, so I'll withhold all further speculation until I have seen it. The thing I can't get over is that, only one of the three main Harry Potter kids can act in the slightest and that's Rupert Grint.

Twelve times did the iron register of time beat on the sonorous bell metal

reply

[–] ali_butterworth 16 years ago

I think the people who are making a song and dance about Emma not being beautiful enough need to lighten up a bit! Shallow much? Maybe to avoid disappointment the aforementioned people should watch the film first with the idea in mind that it is a film production and NOT an exact presentation of the book. THEN make a judgement about the performance, which if you don't mind me saying (which you will) would make you seem a lot less narrow minded and old fashioned.

This is based on the assumption that the hardcore 'Ballet Shoes' fans making a fuss, are mentally middle aged (or maybe you are middle aged. This I don't know) ... ahem. I'm not having a go however; opinions are opinions, I just find a few on here a tad frustrating.

Anyway, personally I think Emma Watson is very beautiful, and she's only 17 for heavens sake. It's great that she's getting the opportunity to prove herself in a different film genre so give her a bloody chance.

reply

[–] tigerlily141 16 years ago

hmmm...has anyone seen the original movie? the girl who played Pauline wasn't strikingly beautiful either...why the fuss now?

reply

[–] sanmi 16 years ago

Ok look, babelfish, you and a lot of other people keep saying that Rupert is the best actor of the three. I love watching all three of them (hardcore HP fan I am) but i could never really get my head around it. I mean sure his character is the most expressive of the three so Rupert also has to be expressive. But now that i think of it, the literary characters are all quite expressive and animated, and rupert is the only one who translates that to the screen. WOW. He really is the best of the three. No wonder Alphonso Cuaron called him the biggest future star of the three.

I CAN NEVER SELL DRUGS TO MINORS.
I CAN DATE THEM BUT, GOD, I HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

reply

[–] ThatsHot-x 16 years ago

I havn't red the books or anything and yeh i like emma but i duno... I just think of her as Hermionie (sp lol) and i no that's wrong, but her own personality and the characteristics of hermionie seem to be so similar that whenever she will do anything else i will just think hmm hermionie (sp don't have a clue how to spell that lol) so i don't think it'l work for me lol. but you never know... will just have to wait and see!

NEW* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAckWf6q3IA Please Watch**

reply

[–] pixycorpse 16 years ago

everyone has a different idea of how a character looks like, so when a book is made into a film or tv programme or whatever, most people are disappointed, because the actor/actress cast is not how they imagined them to look like. having never read the book (i wasn't even aware that it was a book), i have no idea what pauline is meant to look like or her personality etc. however, from the trailers and what ive read about pauline on this thread, i think that emma is a good choice for the part.

i am aware that people are going to diagree with me, but i dont really care because people are entitled to their own opinion.

also, with everyone saying that they will be thinking "Hermione" when they see her, i will probably do the same. you always associate an actor/actress with the first film you saw them in or the first film you saw they made an input on you in. for instance, everytime i see john travolta in a film, i think of him as danny zuko.

and yes, emma watson is pretty, in a typical english way.

reply

[–] ausfi 11 years ago

"Maybe to avoid disappointment the aforementioned people should watch the film first with the idea in mind that it is a film production and NOT an exact presentation of the book."

Exactly! It is funny writing this almost 6 years later how people expected Emma to look the same as in the HP films, they cannot know what she will look like with different hair and makeup. Like someone wrote "what about blond hair?" or something like that. Hair color is not fixed! She had not seen the film yet, surely people did not expect her to look the same as Hermione.

reply

[–] GonzoBarbossa 16 years ago

she isn't the new face of Chanel, Kiera Knightley is the face of Chanel. And she has been chosen to play her in a film about her life.

Emma just gets a catalogue of designs from them (which anyone with a fat pocketbook can get) and wears the dresses all the time. either she likes the dresses or it's a sad attempt at lobbying to be their face. (they are in love with Knightley right now)

and I find Emma plain. Not extrodiarily pretty, but not ugly either. she gets made up and airbrushed an looks ok.

"What? No. We Can't Stop Here. This is bat country."-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

reply

[–] sanmi 16 years ago

Excuse me, but i don't think you have seen many actresses off screen without make-up. For a lot of them, plain is exactly what they are. And the make-up does wonders that you cannot imagine. As far as actresses go, Emma is beautiful. Take it or leave it.

I CAN NEVER SELL DRUGS TO MINORS.
I CAN DATE THEM BUT, GOD, I HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

reply

[–] Willowpuff 16 years ago

I'm going to try and NOT argue with everyone here.
But I jsut want to say, I was very much looking foward to this film. I turned it on just 15 minutes ago. And lo and behold, Emma Watson was in it.

I went, "What!?" outloud and thought this is utterly rediculous. She is stunning as is Pauline, but she is just the most appauling actress. She was... mediocre as Hermione - still nothing like my imagination of the character, but that's my opinion - and she's just going to ruin this film for me because all I ever think when I see her act is "STOP MOVING YOUR BLOODY EYEBROWS".
She acts everything as though she's in a horror movie - panting, stern expression etc etc -and although she can't help this bit yet it infuriates me is her pure Queen's English accent. I'm well spoken, but I do miss of the "t" in What. She however doesn't and it just gets to me.

Oh my god what's wrong with me. Why have I written all this out??? How embarassing. Well... At least people know just how much I cannot STAND Emma Watson and how much she's going to ruin this film.

Fell free to argue and pick this thing apart, I won't read it or reply.

reply

[–] RedemptionFalls 16 years ago

I'm felling free!

I didn't think she was too bad. She does over-act somewhat, I find that rather than actually speaking her lines she seems to exhale them- if that makes sense. But it was ok in this film because you would expect the girls in the novel to be all Queen's English and that given the period it was set in and the world they lived in.

Strangely I think she was at her best when she was being spoilt and demanding her sisters to run around after her. I can see her playing a baddy really well in a role sometime, then the over-acting wouldn't matter so much either! Also, I thought she was maybe a bit nervous in the beginning of the film.

The other two girls were brilliant. I enjoyed it, but then I can't remember the book- I read it so long ago so I can't say how it compared! And as I have a bad cold- booooo!- I was in a happy cloud of painkillers and echinacea so it could well have been rubbish and I may not have noticed!

Just noticed Willowpuff that you say you won't read or reply to my reply. That's ok, I doubt I'll remember even writing this!

Soup, soup, a tasty soup, soup...

reply

[–] Lucy-Rose 16 years ago

I agree with Willowpuff; you have summed up in an excellent way exactly how I feel about her. She is a very pretty girl and can just about pull off saying a line in a way that does not sound as if it is being read off a page (which is what acting is in it's simplest form, surely), however anything more complicated and she struggles, and her age or experience can't really be blamed anymore. She is, in my opinion, diabolical as Hermione, but I was slightly more impressed with her as Pauline... when she breaks down in the bathroom for example. I feel a bit cruel saying all that, I'm sure she's a lovely girl!

reply

[–] scarlettbloodstone 16 years ago

"...her pure Queen's English accent. I'm well spoken, but I do miss of the "t" in What. She however doesn't and it just gets to me."

Her RP accent was one reason that she got the part. When casting the casting directors had issues because of the lack of young RP actors. She will find that RP is a great boon to her as she matures.

If you do not pronounce the 't' in 'what', I do not think you can really refer to yourself as 'well-spoken'. Perhaps you are just lazy.

I was pleasantly surprised by her performance - I only wish that they had cast an actor who could already dance, there are enough ballet-trained actors, for goodness' sake. Trying to teach actors ballet simply does not work.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mr_milbury 16 years ago

Raise your hand if you are a pedophile, please!

reply

[–] jeanniejampots 16 years ago

Some people on this thread are disgusting. She is 17 and only a child for gods sake. The Harry Potter fans think she is too pretty for Hermione, the Ballet Shoes fans think she is not pretty enough for Ballet Shoes.....well I am a fan of both and as someone pointed out ugly people in the movie would not work in HP......neither Harry or Ron are supposed to be handsome and sex symbols yet both are played by boys who are and no one complains about that.....and you know why? Because teenage boys don't get petty and jealous and post on boards while teenage girls do. So leave Emma alone.

I work in film and theatre and it is generally agreed amost people who know her and of her that she is one of the nicest, politest, talented young actresses out there and that she is beautiful into the bargin and will have a great future career.

So whos opinion counts more.....the vastly experienced and respected directors and producers of the Harry Potter films and Ballet Shoes.....[e.g. Alfonso Curon who said she is the most talented actress he has even worked with] or the teenage whiners on this board.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] walker_023 16 years ago

hahahahah!!! *beep* dat makes me laugh, its funny cos im actuali a m8 of hers and its tru lol i do wanna *beep* her :P xx well put *shakes hand*

reply

[–] velcronewsletter 16 years ago

thought she was the least suited to the role out of all the sisters to be honest

------------------------
OOOOH MATRON!

reply

[–] ForksForLovers 16 years ago

I agree. I actually think she is gorgeous. And very talented. Her performance in Ballet Shoes actually surprised me. She did a very good job.

"It won't be long, I belong,
Somewhere past the setting sun...."

reply

[–] hwypgirl 16 years ago

I'm glad it's not just me with the whole "eyebrow" thing. I don't know why but that really gets on my nerves. Don't know if your familiar but it soooo reminds me of Neve Cambell (sp?) - the one from the Scream movies. She does the same thing. I just watched Ballet Shoes and I did notice it at first. However, she did a better job then I thought she would. I think because of her hair style I could picture her in the 1930's. But I do think someone needs to pull her aside and say "Stop with the eyebrows already!".

reply

[–] edashwood 16 years ago

Emma Watson is extremely pretty, and I don't say that only because she looks like my daughter. She also has talent, but it mustn't be forgotten that she's still very young, and has basically done only one role. When she has more more experience, she'll be an outstanding actress, I think. I can't get my head around the idea of Rupert Grint being handsome, however: in fact, I've always thought he was so homely that his next part should be the title role in The Mick Jagger Story.

I've never read any of the Streatfeild books, so I won't have any expectations when I see this movie. Loving a book, however, usually means hating the movie. (My feel-better book when I was a rather unhappy child was Dodie Smith's The Hundred and One Dalmations; consequently, going to see the Disney cartoon version was a horrible experience.) Some notable exceptions, in my experience, have been the Ehle/Firth Pride and Prejudice, and the Zorah Clarke/Timothy Hutton Jane Eyre. Other than those, the movie of a beloved novel nearly always disappoints.

I hope Emma Watson has done this part well, as she has Hermione.

reply

[–] sgzax 16 years ago

Some notable exceptions, in my experience, have been the Ehle/Firth Pride and Prejudice, and the Zorah Clarke/Timothy Hutton Jane Eyre.

The version of Jane Eyre you love is Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. And, yes, he is pretty much the best Rochester I've ever seen.

Emma Watson was very good, in my opinion, and Ballet Shoes was a charming little movie.

reply

[–] maria-373 16 years ago

I don't get it.....what's wrong with her eyebrows?

Love. Think. Speak.

reply

[–] xHeffalump 16 years ago

I don't see there being anything wrong with speaking "Queen's English". I personally think it is the mark of someone who is most likely to be well educated, as far as the UK goes.

Evidently, Americans won't speak "Queen's English", and that does not mean that they are any less educated than those in the UK who do. However, you don't see complete chavs speaking as well as Emma Watson does do you?

And darling, you are not well spoken if you miss the "t" in "what".

Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit
http://www.myspace.com/cheer4evr

reply

[–] rayne_night 16 years ago

And this is the reason why child stars become such freaks when they are older. With all of this negativity about her acting and looks, it is a true wonder that Miss. Watson hasn't completely lost it. Personally I think you all should rethink what you say but that won't do any good.

reply

[–] prettycaitrin 16 years ago

i liked her in this movie. but is she what we would really call drop dead gorgeous? she's almost plain. she's pretty, but not remarkably so.

"Oh! Loup y'ais tu por moi."

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rayne_night 16 years ago

Well her character Hermione is supposed to be all prim and proper, but in the later books she begins to break out of her shell. Hopefully we will see that in the sixth and seventh movie.

"Don't try to fix me. I'm not broken."

reply

[–] perfect_angel93 16 years ago

blimey even the queen misses the t in what anyway
you dont have to pronounce the t in what to be well spoken, there is a difference between well spoken-ness and "ive got a pole up my arse and its making me stress every letter"

x

reply

[–] xHeffalump 16 years ago

Perfect_angel93,

There is a difference, between being well-spoken and sounding like a common idiot (not saying that you do, as I have never heard you speak).

What's the point in having those letters if they are not to be prounounced?

Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit
http://www.myspace.com/cheer4evr

reply

[–] perfect_angel93 16 years ago

There is also a difference between pronouncing every letter and overly stressing every letter. I have been told I'm well spoken by people and I don't speak a thing like Emma.

The reason the letters are there are so the words sound better and not broken, the difference between well-spoken-ness and Emma Watson is that she overly stresses every letter instead of just pronouncing them like everyone else.

reply

[–] musicbytes 15 years ago

Emma Watson is the best part of harry potter and is a better actress than any actor in harry potter, that is my humble opinion

reply

[–] Drewy 11 years ago

The reason the letters are there are so the words sound better and not broken, the difference between well-spoken-ness and Emma Watson is that she overly stresses every letter instead of just pronouncing them like everyone else.

If you haven't already done so, may I suggest watching the first Harry Potter film. A young Emma speaks far too quickly. It is a common speech quirk, almost a defect, often caused by shyness or nervousness. As with stutterers, there are exercises that can be done to modify the way Emma spoke in Philosopher's Stone, and one of those is to deliberately slow down and articulate more clearly. That is what you see when you says she stresses every letter.

As she grew up, she became more confident, and has needed to enunciate slowly less often. With it, I think she has gone from being a nervous little kid who remembered her lines, to a talented young actress. I think she was great in The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

reply

[–] BekahMLC 15 years ago

She's not ugly, she dyed her hair blonde and I enjoyed it. And she's not amazing as Hermione, but she looks like her.

"Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living and above all, those who live without love."

reply

[–] velcronewsletter 11 years ago

i thought she was terrible in the role personally. not a fan of her acting

reply