Yes, I'm totally serious. I'd never judge a child by his looks - I'm not so shallow. I certainly don't think looks are anything but a pleasant extra - they're certainly no substitute for a good performance. I meant Ron's was the more attractive character by far. Harry can be quite wry in the books, but that doesn't come across in the films. Remember, when I said Ron was the best actor, I was talking about the first film (though I still think he is the best of a very modestly talented trio.)

In the first film (indeed all of them, imo) Dan frequently doesn't act unless he's actually speaking. He seems a really great person in real life, but I do watch him very carefully and he still often doesn't react if he's not directly involved - we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I hear he's very good on stage, but am not interested in seeing him there. I can only judge him by Harry Potter. Apparently he and Emma had an 'understanding' during filming of the third film, which did come across. However, by Phoenix, any screen chemistry was history, and the Horcrux kiss, as with Cho and Ginny,was hardly convincing. (Emma did try, I admit!) In their little dance, it didn't come across as either platonic or romantic. The way he was looking at her was quite creepy and off putting.

Also, just because Rupert can make funny faces, doesn't mean he should constantly do so. This wasn't a Nativity play starring and directed by a bunch of 10 year olds. The scriptwriter/Director should have tried to create well rounded three dimensional characters out of all of them. They had proof of Rupert's ability, yet made some uncreative decisions.

Back on topic, I agree we can't be sure how many of Ron, Harry and even Dumbledore's stolen lines were given to Hermione by Kloves or by Directors etc. Some of them have to be the script, because there was nothing about Emma's acting that justified her part being enlarged to that extent while on set. The films changed Hermione from a developed character who was accademically brilliant and clung to that to hide her insecurities about other things, to a typical fan fiction Sue. Her character suffered as much as Ron's, despite her getting extra attention. However some people think number of lines is more important then developing a genuine character. In later films, in order to fit into the plot, both characters are all over the place. The filmmakers may not have originally known how the story would end, but surely that was more reason to try to be as true to what was in the book? Also, Kloves did know more than most about what would happen, so why did the scripts not reflect that knowledge of characters and events?

I said in my first post that the film makers/financiers have to share the blame. Even a good script can be sabotaged by them. However, no matter how well the lines are (or aren't) delivered, these aren't good scripts. The humour is usually cheesy and unlike the source material, the dialogue is average, no matter who's delivering them and it's a shame.