Ugh. Let me guess, Griffiths' idea was to add depth to an otherwise flat character? I understand not wanting the film company to make a mockery of her creation, but there really is no point in having the movies exactly the same as the books, and that includes characterisation. I like that WB are actually keeping Ginny as a relatively normal, shy girl with a crush and not turning her into Quidditch goddess extraordinaire. I think Evanna Lynch is a sweetie, but it's obvious why Rowling likes her so much - she doesn't deviate from the Luna of the books, and doesn't want to either. This isn't so bad as Luna isn't the most obvious character you point to when asked 'which character could be written better?', but it shows such blatant favouritism towards certain cast members. Poor Bonnie barely gets a look-in when Rowling's on set.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 08:17 pm (UTC)I understand not wanting the film company to make a mockery of her creation, but there really is no point in having the movies exactly the same as the books, and that includes characterisation. I like that WB are actually keeping Ginny as a relatively normal, shy girl with a crush and not turning her into Quidditch goddess extraordinaire.
I think Evanna Lynch is a sweetie, but it's obvious why Rowling likes her so much - she doesn't deviate from the Luna of the books, and doesn't want to either. This isn't so bad as Luna isn't the most obvious character you point to when asked 'which character could be written better?', but it shows such blatant favouritism towards certain cast members. Poor Bonnie barely gets a look-in when Rowling's on set.