PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter



p.paully
2004-Nov-27, 07:00 AM
What did you feel different about a book and a movie of Harry Potter?

Humphrey
2004-Nov-27, 07:10 AM
I like the books far more. But thats nearly always true with all movies. You can say alot more in a book. But the movies have followed very closely to the books, and ive noticed that the later books have become more "movie oriented". Meaning , they are easier to turn inot movies than the earlier versions.

iFire
2004-Nov-27, 09:04 AM
I pretty much gave up on the first movie. Precious few books make great movies, eg. Lord of the Rings.

p.paully
2004-Nov-27, 09:17 AM
I like the books because all the story is my imagination.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-27, 09:33 AM
I liked the books so much I watched the movies just to get more of the same. It is just such a wonderful fantasy world. :D

p.paully
2004-Nov-27, 04:51 PM
Yeah! Wonderful fantasy world.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-27, 05:36 PM
I personally can't wiat for the next book. I also really hopoe there will be a spinoff series. Its a fantastic world, with thousands of possibilities for future books.

Paul Beardsley
2004-Nov-27, 08:55 PM
I've read the first three books, and I enjoyed them, and I'm looking forward to reading the fourth and fifth (when I find the time).

BUT, based on my reading so far and based on the comments of several people who have read the later volumes, I'm inclined to think that they are increasingly in need of an editor.

I thought the first movie was excellent. Beautifully filmed, with an attention to detail creating a world that looked real and lived-in. The second movie was... quite good. A bit full of itself, with some credibility-damaging silliness such as Ron hitting a man on the head with a rock, and apparently trying to land his car on the Hogwarts Express for absolutely no reason. Hardly any of the children apart from the main three are given any real presence. Ron's father's fascination with muggle technology is woefully underused. The ending - Hagrid getting interminable applause for being vindicated - struck me as a very dull finish. But it certainly had good bits, and on the whole was a good adaptation of a relatively weak book.

The third movie was, to my mind, the best. Hogwarts was reimagined, to good effect. Snape, who always comes across better in the films than in the books, came over very well here. He actively dislikes Harry, Ron and Hermione, but when there is danger he immediately, unthinkingly moves to defend them, even at risk to himself.

It's not explained why Harry thinks a glowing stag is his father - you have to have read the book to know that. Although Lupin comes over well as a teacher in the movie, it doesn't quite capture his greatest virtue - his ability to bring out the best in people, so that even the likes of Neville look heroic.

Other than the stag business, the third movie is more of a movie in its own right than a slavish adaptation. It follows the book fairly faithfully, but the plot has been made to seem much tighter. In fact, it's almost the plot JKR might have used if an editor had asked her to make the book a bit leaner...

One nitpick, though - Harry Potter 3 is one of those films that confirms my theory that only invisible people leave footprints.

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-27, 09:04 PM
Read a few of the books, gave up on them. Later books were pretty dark, but they kept the absurd magic system and general sillyness of the earlier books, which made them seem pretty stupid.

(Saw the first movie... Bloody awful.)

Andromeda321
2004-Nov-27, 09:24 PM
I've read Harry Potter before they were even popular which is saying something! Have read all of the books/ seen all the movies but it was a bit more fun when no one else knew what HP really was.
I wrote a rather nice editorial for my school paper when the first movie came out on how sad I was because it wrecked Harry Potter because I could no longer, for example, really debate just what Hermione looked like with my brother and sister. Some things are better left to the imagination.

JonClarke
2004-Nov-28, 09:02 AM
Great movies (just finished rewatching the first one), the books are simply superb. A brilliant combination of humour and drama with a nicely evolving and well naunced development of the imagined world. I would give the films 9 out of 10 as adaptations. Vastly better that Jackson's butchering of LOTR :evil: - but that is another story.

Better go - she who must be obeyed has started the second one!

Jon

2004-Nov-28, 09:35 AM
I've read and enjoyed all of the Harry Potter novels...As others have pointed out, the book is generally better than the film. I suppose that, however good the special effects are - the mind's eye is better...

It's the opposite of real life though, I find... :D

Paul Beardsley
2004-Nov-28, 10:19 AM
Vastly better that Jackson's butchering of LOTR :evil: - but that is another story.

One for another thread, perhaps?

I was initially sceptical of Jackson's efforts, but I am now totally convinced that he had an impossible task but managed it anyway. He faced the conflicting demands of being faithful to the book and creating a film that worked on its own terms. Quite honestly, I cannot imagine anyone achieving this as well as Jackson did.

AGN Fuel
2004-Nov-29, 05:51 AM
Ron's father's fascination with muggle technology is woefully underused.

Agreed! I found that really amusing and worthy of further exploration.


Snape, who always comes across better in the films than in the books, came over very well here. He actively dislikes Harry, Ron and Hermione, but when there is danger he immediately, unthinkingly moves to defend them, even at risk to himself.

A little OT, but man! ...... how good is Alan Rickman?? I have yet to see him in anything where he didn't steal the film.

There is one scene in 'Truly Madly Deeply', where he had discarded an old, motheaten rug from his girlfriend's flat. When she objected that she liked that rug he answered, in shocked surprise and only half in jest, "Don't be perverse!". His delivery of that single line tells more of the relationship between those two principal characters than any other scene in the whole movie.

Wonderful actor.

gethen
2004-Nov-29, 02:23 PM
A little OT, but man! ...... how good is Alan Rickman?? I have yet to see him in anything where he didn't steal the film.
...Wonderful actor.
Amen! Anyone who can deliver a line about cutting out someone's heart with a spoon, ( "Because it'll hurt more, you twit!" (Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves) ) gets my vote. He's stolen more than a few movies.
And I agree that Snape came off as a more believable character in the third movie, physically defending the kids he really dislikes. I thought that was a good bit of foreshadowing, considering what Harry later learns about Snape and his own father's treatment of him.

mid
2004-Nov-29, 02:25 PM
I wasn't overly impressed with the first novel, as it spent far too much of it time with the business of "Oooh! Magic! Wow!", when it was all rather stock wizarding cliché for anyone who has read a fantasy novel before. The sequels (apart from the shocking lack of editing on book 4) are generally very readable fun, however.

As for the films, I sat through the first two and didn't particularly enjoy them. I hate (hate, HATE) Chris Columbus anyway, so I wasn't expecting much. However, they really are just dull "Cliffs Notes" versions of the books, and treat them with such reverence that they don't work for me as films.

The third one is a dramatic change of form, however - its one big problem is that it demonstrates so clearly that even the younger fans can see what a wasted opportunity the previous ones were. With a decent director on board, Azkaban actually feels like a proper film in its own right; pacing is leagues ahead in particular, the cinematography is marvellous, and Radcliffe and co. bring far, far more depth to their roles.

captain swoop
2004-Nov-29, 02:49 PM
I like the first film because Hogwarts Station is about 5 miles from where I live. It's also the station in Heartbeat and was regularly in All Creatures Great and small. It's Goathland on the North Yorkshire Moors railway.

captain swoop
2004-Nov-29, 02:53 PM
I didn't like the third film. Our 3 leads are turned into standard sulky US teenagers and the whole film seems more like a standard action type film. Not British enough anymore.

Sniff :wink:

TimH
2004-Nov-29, 06:00 PM
Read a few of the books, gave up on them. Later books were pretty dark, but they kept the absurd magic system and general sillyness of the earlier books, which made them seem pretty stupid.

(Saw the first movie... Bloody awful.)

I'm not trying to pick on you but isn't reading a book about a school of sorcery and complaining about magic a bit like watching the history channel and complaining that they are stuck in the past?

On another note... It seems like the books target audience gets progressively older. They get a little more dark - or intense each time out. So if a child starts with the 1st book and reads them in order (1 per year perhaps) the stories will always be at least close to 'appropriate' for the child

Russ
2004-Nov-29, 10:40 PM
To bring this thread on topic...I have a whine about all three movies. When they show the night sky, the stars have no recoginzable paterns. It looks to me like they just poked random holes in dark blue paper and ran with it. :x

As far as the shows in general, I liked the first two, the third turned a little harsh for my taste but is still entertaining. The tone of the first two was what made me prefer the HP movies over the LOTR's. That and they weren't so long that you had to bring survival gear and food to get through them. ;)

Makgraf
2004-Nov-30, 12:35 AM
The third movie left me cold. I was apprenhensive when I heard that the director of Y Tua Mama Tambien (Am I the only one who thought that should've been translated as "Yo' Mamma"?) was doing the third movie. And to be fair, there was no sex-filled roadtrip with Harry, Ron and Hermione. But there was that excredible freudian opening with Harry playing with his wand under his sheets. Wow, who cares that any magic in Harry's house brings down the wrath of the MoM, let's make a cheap joke at the expense of continuality. And as for the rest of the movie, it seemed to be just to be a montage of staggered scenes. I saw it with someone who hadn't read the books and she was completely lost 10 minutes in. The flip side of that is if you're going to make a movie aimed at the fans, you should keep it more literal to the source material. Of course this could be my anal retentiveness talking, but I cringed at every deviation, or worse- addition (we could've had x more seconds of quidditch if we'd gotten rid of the stupid "I'm the King of the world" scene). And am I the only one disappointed by the way he did the Dementors. They looked like flying hobo ice-monsters. Plus the ending was completely incoherent.

Here's my idea for a movie. Now sticking to the book stiffles a director's creativity but departing from it upsets compulsive fans such as myself (and we are legion). Why don't they make a James Potter movie? You have a rough outline of what happened sketched out, but there's so much that a director can fill in. There's not the problem of trying to cram everything in a book in, because the director can choose how much material he (or she) wants. You've got adventure, prankstering, romance and quidditch (I would honestly watch a conventional sports movie that was just quidditch). Plus, you've got the tragic irony that most of the main characters will end up dead (opportunity for a "Oh, Anakin you'll be the death of me" moment). James would be far more of an antihero than Harry, so there's a lot of dramatic opportunity there.

Oh also, I hated the muggle clothing in the PoA movie.

mid
2004-Nov-30, 10:50 AM
Actually, one of the single most obvious things I liked about the third film was the lack of Quidditch. Lucas did the whole "pointless special effects scene that doesn't actually do very much to move the plot forward, but has plenty to keep the surround speakers working" thing so much better with Pod Racing.

Plus there is the fact that its just such a monumentally broken game mechanic, without any semblance of balance. The ridiculous number of points for catching the Snitch makes the actions of the remaining players pretty pointless.

Oh, and if you were looking at Cuarón's back catalogue, I'd suggest that his version of A Little Princess was rather more appropriate to the discussion, dealing as it does with an orphan at a boarding school.

captain swoop
2004-Nov-30, 01:41 PM
[quote="mid"]

Plus there is the fact that its just such a monumentally broken game mechanic, without any semblance of balance. The ridiculous number of points for catching the Snitch makes the actions of the remaining players pretty pointless.

quote]

I think the point is that it's supposed to be almost impossible to catch the Snitch, it's just that Harry is very good at it.

mid
2004-Nov-30, 02:07 PM
Except that no game of Quidditch ends until that event has happened. So while it is indeed meant to be very difficult, sooner or later every game will be pretty much decided by the snitch catch.

parallaxicality
2004-Nov-30, 04:00 PM
Not necessarily. Quidditch games can go on for three months. With each goal scoring ten points, and with each side regularly scoring seven goals in an average 2-hour game, over the course of three months the scores can become astronomical. By that time the 150 points earned by the snitch are pretty much a formality.

In book 4 there's an international Quidditch game in which the snitch is caught by the losing team.

SeanF
2004-Nov-30, 04:04 PM
In book 4 there's an international Quidditch game in which the snitch is caught by the losing team.
Hmmm. Perhaps the Seeker should be making an effort to keep track of the score, eh? :)

Moose
2004-Nov-30, 04:20 PM
Nah, it was intentional. They had the best seeker in the league, but the other team had a far more effective offense overall.

The hope was that the seeker could get the snitch before the other team got a 150 point lead. They failed to do that, so they ended the game before the score got too far separated.

Glom
2004-Nov-30, 10:50 PM
But in that case, wouldn't it be prudent for the seeker of the lagging team to just try and stop the other seeker from getting the snitch to prevent the game from ending until they've caught up?

I was also a little bewildered by the role of the snitch in the game... aside of course to give Harry the chance to be the sole hero of the match (all he has to do is catch it early on and the other players can go to hell since all they've been doing is playing a friendly game of catch).

MITHRANDIR
2004-Dec-01, 01:08 AM
[deleted -- double post ] :-?

MITHRANDIR
2004-Dec-01, 01:11 AM
Here's my idea for a movie. Now sticking to the book stiffles a director's creativity but departing from it upsets compulsive fans such as myself (and we are legion). Why don't they make a James Potter movie?

Excellent idea.

I found very little astronomy in HP. As another person mentioned, I also tried to make out some concellations when shots of the night sky were visible. However, I did notice references to astrology and mythology in HP.

IMO, the movies were enjoyable and I was not as vexed by changes/additions to the book as I was with LOTR. (Probably since I am more familiar with LOTR than HP, so it is easier for me to notice differences from the book in the movie.) ;)

p5

JonClarke
2004-Dec-01, 05:49 AM
The difference between changes/additions in the HP filsm and changes in LOTR was that in HP they, for the most part, made sense within the constraints of adaptation. When they did not, because the story and characters remained true to the books, they can be more easily overlooked/forgiven.

Jon

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-01, 06:15 AM
I just saw the third film this past week, and I thought it was one of John Williams' best scores in recent memory.

I also loved Gary Oldman's performance, and I didn't think I would. He was funny and tragic and insane with heart. I was impressed.

As to the book to film thing, I just look for the things I like at this point. I love the books, and I love the casting of the movie, so it doesn't have to have every scene from the book.

So far, I think Azkaban is the best of the three films.

captain swoop
2004-Dec-01, 11:41 AM
My 5 year old likes the first one best but he does like the flying car in the second one.

Fram
2004-Dec-01, 02:13 PM
I have read all the books and seen only the first movie. Movie wasn't good enough so couldn't bother with the next ones (even if the third one apparently was a lot better).
The books are allright, but nothing more than that. I'm still looking for the fundamental difference between book 1 and 2. I seem to have missed it and now mix them up all the time. I much prefer Tolkien and Pullman, and even the more comparable Horowitz. Books have to much flaws (character, repetitive plot, but also very inconsequential use of magic and interference with real world). And Quidditch really sucks.

Glom
2004-Dec-01, 09:02 PM
Having read most of the first book of LOTR, I felt that there were some things that the movies did better. Particularly in the case of Gandalf talking to Frodo. There was that chapter 2 which is all just Gandalf and Frodo talking about the plot and Gandalf said all those important things that he said throughout the FOTR movie, which seemed a bit sloppier. Particularly in the case of that philosophy of life thing "All you have to do is to decide what to do with the time that is given to you." It meant more when Gandalf said that to him in Moria because Frodo had already been through some crap and so did have reason to regret what had happened rather than in the book where basically his regret is because it doesn't sound very nice.

SSJPabs
2004-Dec-02, 01:09 AM
Harry Potter... whee.

I couldn't finish the first book though I tried. Had to give up on it, it was so damn LAME. I don't think less of anyone for reading it though, I've read plently of lame fantasy books in my time too.

My girlfriend really enjoys it though and has all the books and the movies. Everytime we watch a Harry Potter movie, I fall asleep on her lap. I've never actually seen the whole movie at once because I fall asleep.

Sorry if I offended Harry Potter fans, but its my opinion.

Makgraf
2004-Dec-03, 07:49 AM
The thing about Quidditch is that orginally it just a contest to get the snitch (which at that time, was alive!). The other players were added in later probably to give people something to look at (a bunch of guys circling around squinting is not great entertainment).

Wizarding society is very inegalitarian; the rest of the team are second-string players to the seeker. But they can have impacts on the margin.
First, as people have pointed out at the Quidditch World's Cup the loosing team got the snitch (same thing happened in Book V with the Gryffindor Team). Quidditch is a game where you can rake up a lot of points and 16+ leads are not uncommon.
Second, (at least at Hogwarts) the championship is based partly on cumulative points. So those goals you get as chaser add up to allow your team to have a shot at the championship game.
Third, the beaters can target and harass the seeker. This offers teams a strategic choice, deploy your beaters against the enemy seeker or chasers. If you have them attacking the seeker you may be able to keep him off balance, but then the chasers can slip through and have an easier time scoring goals.


But in that case, wouldn't it be prudent for the seeker of the lagging team to just try and stop the other seeker from getting the snitch to prevent the game from ending until they've caught up?
As Moose pointed out they were down by a lot. Also, Krum is a jerk. Maybe his team might've recovered enough for the snitch to tip the balance. But Krum would rather "end the game on his terms" with his team loosing but him getting the glory of grabbing the snitch. Plus if he hadn't gotten it, Ireland might've and then not only is Krum embarassed but Bulgaria looses by a landslide.

SciFi Chick
2004-Dec-03, 02:42 PM
Also, Krum is a jerk. Maybe his team might've recovered enough for the snitch to tip the balance. But Krum would rather "end the game on his terms" with his team loosing but him getting the glory of grabbing the snitch. Plus if he hadn't gotten it, Ireland might've and then not only is Krum embarassed but Bulgaria looses by a landslide.

Okay, calm down Ron. :wink: You don't know for certain that Krum did it for the glory. His coach may have told him to do that. Not only that, he's not a jerk. His headmaster is though.

Makgraf
2004-Dec-04, 01:10 AM
Also, Krum is a jerk. Maybe his team might've recovered enough for the snitch to tip the balance. But Krum would rather "end the game on his terms" with his team loosing but him getting the glory of grabbing the snitch. Plus if he hadn't gotten it, Ireland might've and then not only is Krum embarassed but Bulgaria looses by a landslide.

Okay, calm down Ron. :wink: You don't know for certain that Krum did it for the glory. His coach may have told him to do that. Not only that, he's not a jerk. His headmaster is though.
Well looking at it from Ron's perspective it's obvious that Krum is a jerk because Hermione wanted to spend time with him. :)

TrAI
2004-Dec-06, 02:02 AM
The spells are strange, most of them seems to be more for fun, even the curses(except "imperio", "crucio" and "avada kedavra", of course) seems to be there to annoy and humiliate an opponent, but then you have the seriously dangerous spells like "obliviate"(memory blocking) and "legilimense"(memory viewing) that there seems to be no control on using , it is a bit scary really. The "obliviate" spell seems to be so widely used that no-one seems to think twice about using it whenever they find it convenient, and there doesn't seem to be any widely implimented way to detect that it has been used or easy, safe ways to remove the blocking(Voldemort said that powerful wizards could break them, possibly it was related to his skill at legilimancy, but his victim had been seriously hurt by him breaking it, apperantly)

porky26030
2004-Dec-06, 04:09 AM
TrAI, you've hit on the main reason I despise the magic in Harry Potter: there's no apparent cost for using it. In every other scenario where magic is involved, there is a cost of some sort (conservation of physics, psychic torment, use of resources, etc.) but in Harry Potter the universe runs on the principle of "monkey say, monkey do," never clarifying the reason why difficult spells are difficult. Every spell just seems to be the caster pointing and saying something in pseudo-Latin. I fully understand these are kid's books and there isn't really a reason for developing a full magic system, but it looks like Ms. Rowling is making it so she can solve any problem in her universe with a certain tailor-made spell.

Ramblingly yours,
Porky

Fram
2004-Dec-06, 10:11 AM
Deus ex magica, so to speak :lol:

TrAI
2004-Dec-06, 01:28 PM
TrAI, you've hit on the main reason I despise the magic in Harry Potter: there's no apparent cost for using it. In every other scenario where magic is involved, there is a cost of some sort (conservation of physics, psychic torment, use of resources, etc.) but in Harry Potter the universe runs on the principle of "monkey say, monkey do," never clarifying the reason why difficult spells are difficult. Every spell just seems to be the caster pointing and saying something in pseudo-Latin. I fully understand these are kid's books and there isn't really a reason for developing a full magic system, but it looks like Ms. Rowling is making it so she can solve any problem in her universe with a certain tailor-made spell.

Ramblingly yours,
Porky

To me it seems like the vocalized spells focusing tools, not the real working of the magic, the experienced wizards often does not say the words when casting, it seems. The magic users seems quite able to use magic without a wand too, but it seems like it require either extreme emotion or mental control(apparation seems to be wand-less, but you need to focus, apparently). The wand may be some sort of amplifier, but still, we do not hear much about the costs, the energy must come from somewhere...

It is also strange how apparation is blocked at Hogwarts, but Dobby and Fawkes can use their species variations on the theme freely, it implies that their kind of magic is different, but Harry did get in trouble when Dobby used magic in his house, Of course he might have used a human spell, but to do one of those without a wand seems to imply skill, and the ministry is tracking unskilled wizards, very strange...

Moose
2004-Dec-06, 02:18 PM
I'd suggest there is a "cost" of some sort to casting, though it's definitely understated.

TrAI suggested some wizards cast without wands or even vocalization. McGonagall and Dumbledore are never seen to use wands, no matter what they're up to. Snape uses his, and so does Sprout and Lockhart. Moody doesn't seem to need it, and I'm not sure if Lupin ever does. Malfoy the elder definitely seems to need it while Dobby does not.

Then there's the Patronus spell. Lupin says straight out that it is a rare wizard that can successfully cast one. It seems to be partially because of the lack of a defining experience capable of generating the necessary concentration, partly because of a lack of skill, and partially/seemingly because of a lack of some sort of zorch, whatever spark grants magical ability.

Neither Ron nor Hermione are likely to ever be able to cast the Patronus.

Rowling hints repeatedly, mostly through Dumbledore and Lupin, and somewhat through McGonagall, that Neville may have the deepest natural spirit of all the students, and likely most of the adults as well, and that his lack of confidence is the only thing holding him back.

Mark me: Neville will one day be one of the greats.

TrAI
2004-Dec-06, 03:04 PM
I'd suggest there is a "cost" of some sort to casting, though it's definitely understated.

TrAI suggested some wizards cast without wands or even vocalization. McGonagall and Dumbledore are never seen to use wands, no matter what they're up to. Snape uses his, and so does Sprout and Lockhart. Moody doesn't seem to need it, and I'm not sure if Lupin ever does. Malfoy the elder definitely seems to need it while Dobby does not.

All the older wizards have used their wands, I think... For example, Dumbledore does use his wand when drawing chairs, casting "enervate"
and "lumos", but rarely seems to vocalize spells, perhaps he is just strong enough and have the experience to do this. The animagus transformation does not seem to need a wand. Dobby is not allowed to use a wand, of course...


Then there's the Patronus spell. Lupin says straight out that it is a rare wizard that can successfully cast one. It seems to be partially because of the lack of a defining experience capable of generating the necessary concentration, partly because of a lack of skill, and partially/seemingly because of a lack of some sort of zorch, whatever spark grants magical ability.

Neither Ron nor Hermione are likely to ever be able to cast the Patronus.
Yes, the patronus seems quite hard to do, especially when faced with dementors. Hermione does learn to cast it in book 5, I seem to remember that it was an otter, but she was not fighting dementors, so she might not be able to do it in a real fight...


Rowling hints repeatedly, mostly through Dumbledore and Lupin, and somewhat through McGonagall, that Neville may have the deepest natural spirit of all the students, and likely most of the adults as well, and that his lack of confidence is the only thing holding him back.

Mark me: Neville will one day be one of the greats.

Hmmm... Perhaps, he might be a strong wizard, and his confidence is the only thing preventing him from realizing this, perhaps he has an unconscious aversion to magic or something after what happened to his parents... Book 5 does have some interesting passages about him...

Moose
2004-Dec-06, 03:25 PM
I've just had a thought. (Brace yourselves. [-( )

Perhaps the reason the mechanisms of magic aren't defined in terms that we prefer is that magic and science are somewhat anathema in Rowling's world.

According to book 5(?), muggle technology doesn't work well (if at all) in high magic environments like Hogwarts or the MoM. I think I remember Harry suggesting a high-technological solution to some problem or other at the school. (I really have to re-read the series again. I'm forgetting details.)

Anyway, my point is that with technology having little effect in the wizarding world, perhaps the scientific method also has limited currency as well. The mechanisms of magic may not be well understood and certainly don't appear to be quantified to any real degree.

TrAI
2004-Dec-06, 05:53 PM
I've just had a thought. (Brace yourselves. [-( )

Perhaps the reason the mechanisms of magic aren't defined in terms that we prefer is that magic and science are somewhat anathema in Rowling's world.

According to book 5(?), muggle technology doesn't work well (if at all) in high magic environments like Hogwarts or the MoM. I think I remember Harry suggesting a high-technological solution to some problem or other at the school. (I really have to re-read the series again. I'm forgetting details.)

I think Harry was talking about "bugging" and Hermione said that such technology would not work around hogwarts in book 4.


Anyway, my point is that with technology having little effect in the wizarding world, perhaps the scientific method also has limited currency as well. The mechanisms of magic may not be well understood and certainly don't appear to be quantified to any real degree.

There is the possibility that these things just are so obvious to the magic users that it is not really something they think about. Well, The books are mostly from Harry’s view, so it may just be that he does not really think about these things...

Ilya
2004-Dec-14, 02:45 AM
The spells are strange, most of them seems to be more for fun, even the curses(except "imperio", "crucio" and "avada kedavra", of course) seems to be there to annoy and humiliate an opponent,


That makes perfect sense if wizards are mostly individualistic lot, and are prone to work out their differences in duels rather than "civilized" procedures. Non-lethal curses enable wizards to fight without killing each other.


but then you have the seriously dangerous spells like "obliviate"(memory blocking) and "legilimense"(memory viewing) that there seems to be no control on using , it is a bit scary really. The "obliviate" spell seems to be so widely used that no-one seems to think twice about using it whenever they find it convenient, and there doesn't seem to be any widely implimented way to detect that it has been used or easy, safe ways to remove the blocking

"Obliviate" is used widely on Muggles. This also makes sense if wizards see themselves as superior to Muggles, and patronizing -- "it's for their own good". I am not saying this practice is right or moral, but it is logical. As for "legilimense", we actually only see it used in training, and when Dumbledore interrogates a house-elf (another "lesser creature"). While "imperio", "crucio" and "avada kedavra" are unforgivable curses -- earning an automatic life sentence, -- it is logical to assume that less destructive but still dangerous spells like "legilimense" have SOME restrictions on their use.

Mainframes
2004-Dec-14, 05:32 PM
All the older wizards have used their wands, I think... For example, Dumbledore does use his wand when drawing chairs, casting "enervate"
and "lumos", but rarely seems to vocalize spells, perhaps he is just strong enough and have the experience to do this.


There is a point in OotP where one of the death eaters tries to curse Hermione but cannot speak and so is forced to do it silently. From descriptions in the book this is likely to have taken enough power from the spell to save her life, although still at a hefty cost to her short term health........

TrAI
2004-Dec-15, 03:13 PM
That makes perfect sense if wizards are mostly individualistic lot, and are prone to work out their differences in duels rather than "civilized" procedures. Non-lethal curses enable wizards to fight without killing each other.

That reminds me of how Harry gets in trouble for his display of "muggle dueling" after beating up Draco in book 5, perhaps the wizard duels does about the same thing as taking the argument outside for non-magic folk...



"Obliviate" is used widely on Muggles. This also makes sense if wizards see themselves as superior to Muggles, and patronizing -- "it's for their own good". I am not saying this practice is right or moral, but it is logical. As for "legilimense", we actually only see it used in training, and when Dumbledore interrogates a house-elf (another "lesser creature"). While "imperio", "crucio" and "avada kedavra" are unforgivable curses -- earning an automatic life sentence, -- it is logical to assume that less destructive but still dangerous spells like "legilimense" have SOME restrictions on their use.

Memory charms seem to get more dangerous to the victim when it is an emotionally powerful memory one tries to block. The side effects seem to include things from slight disorientation to permanent damage to the victim’s ability to remember things.

You do have a point; we never see much of the legal aspects of the wizard community for such things. And I guess that the thing that Dumbledore allows the use of spells like "legilimense" doesn't mean it's use is not restricted, it seems he does pretty much what he feels is necessary for the situation, he never seems to bother with the fact that the use of port keys needs authorization, for instance.

I expect that Lord Voldemort might have used legilimense on the witch in book 4 to break the memory charm placed on her, but as I remember, he indicated that breaking the charm had damaged her mind, and killing her had been the merciful thing to do. The side effects of the charm itself was rather bad too, if I remember correctly.

TrAI
2004-Dec-15, 03:35 PM
There is a point in OotP where one of the death eaters tries to curse Hermione but cannot speak and so is forced to do it silently. From descriptions in the book this is likely to have taken enough power from the spell to save her life, although still at a hefty cost to her short term health........

That spell was rather strange though, if I remember correctly it made pits in the stone it hit, and was supposedly lethal, but Harry was able to protect himself with the shielding spell "protego", I think this spell is only meant to be used against lesser curses... There is the possibility that almost all spells are vocalized, but it is just not remarked in the books, I don't remember the words for that "beam" spell ever being stated...

As a side note, I found it strange that Harry and the others left the wands of their incapacitated enemies... It does seem unwise to leave the weapons of your enemies laying about where they can reclaim them when they have recovered... I think it would have been quite easy to grab/summon them before going on

Ilya
2005-Feb-27, 12:26 AM
One detail which I always thought was completely inconsistent with the rest of "magic system" (such as is! :lol:) is Marauder's Map. It provides locations and true names of everyone on Hogwarts' grounds. If you think about it, it is an unbelievably powerful magic item.

First, the entire Hogwarts is explicitely protected against magical snooping. Marauder's Map might get around this if it only works while already on the grounds (i.e. inside the barriers), but didn't Harry use it in Hogsmeade at some point? Not to mention that Dumbledore's office has even more protections on it, yet the Map sees in the office too.

Second, the names (or even existence) of some individuals Map displays are not known to anybody else in the world, so the Map must read their minds -- yet many wizards take precautions against exactly that, and even those who do not are instantly aware if someone tries to read their minds. Yet everyone is completely oblivious to the the Map. All in all, Marauder's Map sounds like something far beyond the ability of four student wizards to create.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-27, 04:56 AM
actually, that was one of the points that annoyed me about the third movie--finding "Peter Pettigrew" on the map. not in the book.

the other thing that really annoyed me was that they never actually explained who Messers. Padfoot, Wormtail, Moony, and Prongs were. that would've taken, what, fifteen seconds?

my problem w/the second movie was the interminable flying car sequences instead of the important plot points that only appear in the deleted scenes. we didn't need that much flying car, did we?

I saw the first movie in the theatre w/three people who hadn't read any of the books and one who spent the whole movie whispering to me every time they got something wrong. wow, was that frustrating. we all liked Alan Rickman, though my best friend (the one who'd read the book) said I couldn't have one, because they'd only ordered the one and were out of stock. no fair.

actually, I got college credit for reading Harry Potter--banned books. I hadn't read them until then because I tend to distrust fads, but one of my roommates talked me into it--and loaned me her copies.

Makgraf
2005-Feb-27, 08:35 AM
One detail which I always thought was completely inconsistent with the rest of "magic system" (such as is! :lol:) is Marauder's Map. It provides locations and true names of everyone on Hogwarts' grounds. If you think about it, it is an unbelievably powerful magic item.

First, the entire Hogwarts is explicitely protected against magical snooping. Marauder's Map might get around this if it only works while already on the grounds (i.e. inside the barriers), but didn't Harry use it in Hogsmeade at some point? Not to mention that Dumbledore's office has even more protections on it, yet the Map sees in the office too.

Second, the names (or even existence) of some individuals Map displays are not known to anybody else in the world, so the Map must read their minds -- yet many wizards take precautions against exactly that, and even those who do not are instantly aware if someone tries to read their minds. Yet everyone is completely oblivious to the the Map. All in all, Marauder's Map sounds like something far beyond the ability of four student wizards to create.
Ah but remember these are a bunch of incredibly brillant wizards here. All of them manage to become animagi while they're at school. There's a prefect and a headboy in their ranks and they all seem to be pertty well academically. We see the current crew at Hogwarts creating some pretty powerful spells as well (Patronus, Fidelus, Crucio :) etc).

I have no evidence for this, but isn't it possible that the anti-magic snooping powers of Hogwarts is what fuels the map. If the Maurader's managed to "hack" into the system somehow, then they could use the information Hogwarts keeps for their map (if it works outside then this theory is wrong).

Finally, there still may be more relevations about the map. Arthur Weasley said (paraphrasing) "don't trust anything if you can't tell where it keeps its brain". Well we don't know where the map "keeps its brain" and this may still be revealed (The only surviving non-evil member of the Maurader's is Lupin, and we know he's kept secrets before. Could he be hiding something about the map?).

Ilya
2005-Feb-27, 06:21 PM
that was one of the points that annoyed me about the third movie--finding "Peter Pettigrew" on the map. not in the book.

Actually, I was thinking of the scene in the fourth book where Marauder's Map shows Barty Crouch -- whom everyone thinks is dead AND is disguised as Mad-Eye Moody.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-27, 10:56 PM
I know, and I remember that scene, too, but it was a nice segue into me grousing for five paragraphs. also, isn't it possible that it had been too long since he'd taken his potion? it was in the middle of the night, after all.

mid
2005-Feb-28, 11:10 AM
Yes, but the scene in Book 4 demonstrates that the existence of Pettigrew on the map isn't against the canon description of the map's operation - he would have shown up there.

Rowling is on record that there are a few things that happen in the film that she hadn't written, but match things she was going to do in books six and seven; it's my guess that this is one of them.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-28, 03:10 PM
(The only surviving non-evil member of the Maurader's is Lupin, and we know he's kept secrets before. Could he be hiding something about the map?).

You don't actualy think Sirius is dead do you?

gopher65
2005-Feb-28, 05:56 PM
Personally I think he is actually dead. I see no reason to bring him back.

Gillianren
2005-Mar-01, 12:44 AM
Sirius has gone beyond the veil. no proper Victorian would doubt what this meant; I don't think she means us to.

then again, before OotP came out, I was adamant that she could't kill Sirius, because she couldn't kill Harry's alternate father figure. apparently, I stand corrected. (but in my heart of hearts, I hope--I cried, the first time I read it.)

One Day More
2005-Apr-24, 05:16 AM
:oops: ...and so it is. 8-[


Sirius has gone beyond the veil. no proper Victorian would doubt what this meant; I don't think she means us to.
quote]

Actually, according to http://www.mugglenet.com/books/futurebooks/book6facts.shtml :

[quote]In books 6 and 7 we will find out exactly why JK killed off Sirius.

:( I hope she might.
Sirius' death made me ---> :cry: I think it did that for nearly everyone.

Yoshua
2005-Apr-24, 06:12 AM
Maybe I am just in denial, but I have a feeling Sirius might be brought back. He wasn't exactly killed, rather sucked into death's realm while still alive. I'd say the possibility exists to bring him back if Rowling chooses to.

As for the movies, I liked the first one best. The second one was ok, but there were things I'd have done differant (in the books, Harry could always understand the snake, we saw what the snake was saying, we don't even get subtitles in the movie).

The third, was in my opinion, awful. It's like they took the cliff notes to the third book, hacked it into little pieces with a battle axe, threw the whole mess in the air and formed a screenplay from the bits they were able to catch. The first two movies didn't really change much, there were abridgements sure, but the story, plot events and such were still intact. The third movie not only cut out huge swathes of the plot but makes some rather large changes. Though I knew when I saw it at the theatre that I was going to be disappointed. I noted just before going in to see it that the running time was about an hour shorter than the previous two films. Considering the book was longer than the previous two, I knew they would have to comprimise the story horrible to squeeze it into that little time.

I know the theatres don't like running long movies. But it's not like a story has to be released as one movie. Kill Bill and the last two Matrix movies have shown you can release a movie in two parts in the same year and do well (say what you will about those movies, they did do well at the box office, which is the point I am making). I would hope they do this for the fourth book, which is even longer than the third. Otherwise it will be butchered worse than the third.

mickal555
2005-Apr-24, 07:16 AM
I didn't like the 3rd movie.....

See http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html
For all the information reated to HP

Here's two essay's on the magic :

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/magic_theory1.html


http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/magic_theory3.html

Glom
2005-Apr-24, 11:57 AM
Does anyone else keep connecting Harry-Ron-Hermione with Archer-Tucker-T'Pol?

Yoshua
2005-Apr-24, 12:05 PM
Does anyone else keep connecting Harry-Ron-Hermione with Archer-Tucker-T'Pol?

Not being an Enterprise fan, no. :)

Gullible Jones
2005-Apr-24, 12:14 PM
Ye gods, no.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-25, 11:51 AM
Ithought the Prisoner was the best of the three, it was more of a movie and less of a book with pictures.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-25, 01:08 PM
Ithought the Prisoner was the best of the three, it was more of a movie and less of a book with pictures.

I'm with you captain. I thought it captured the essence of the book, and it was also the best for people who haven't read the books to be able to follow what's going on.

There's always going to be one or two scenes I would have liked to have seen in the films, but I'm certain we'd all have different ones that are important to us, and that would be ridiculously unwieldy for film.

TheGalaxyTrio
2005-Apr-25, 01:59 PM
It would make a good animated series if you got a good Japanese studio to do it.

Get Peter Chung (Aeon Flux) to do the character designs, you'd be in the realm of the surreal.

I wish I were a billionaire. I'd fund stuff like this.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-25, 03:18 PM
Why turn it into a cartoon?

I don't understand people who want films to be word for word literal translations from book to film.

If that's what you want then READ THE BOOK!

I think that Goblet of fire could be the best of the whole series, it's certainly my fave book.

Glom
2005-Apr-25, 05:36 PM
That books looks very thick. Surely their can't be that much irrelevant material to prevent the single film from being a bit thin.

Moose
2005-Apr-25, 05:50 PM
That books looks very thick. Surely their can't be that much irrelevant material to prevent the single film from being a bit thin.

Actually, it should translate to a movie quite well. What, five "money" action scenes even when you remove all the "I'd rather procrastinate" chapters? And there are plenty of incidental revelation scenes to keep the cauldron boiling.

gethen
2005-Apr-25, 06:13 PM
I liked the third movie best as well. I think it's almost never a good idea to translate a book literally onto the screen. Too many quidditch matches, for example, would get pretty annoying. And sometimes you have to change things if you want the movie audience to have a clue what's going on.
So--who's going to rush right out and buy the hardcover? I haven't yielded to that urge yet, but only because I've been able to borrow one from my kids to read the book initially and then actually buy them when they come out in paperback.

Moose
2005-Apr-25, 06:39 PM
So--who's going to rush right out and buy the hardcover? I haven't yielded to that urge yet, but only because I've been able to borrow one from my kids to read the book initially and then actually buy them when they come out in paperback.

For the first time in my life, I've pre-ordered. Don't really care if it arrives "first", just so I don't have to fight for it when it comes out.

gethen
2005-Apr-25, 06:43 PM
So--who's going to rush right out and buy the hardcover? I haven't yielded to that urge yet, but only because I've been able to borrow one from my kids to read the book initially and then actually buy them when they come out in paperback.

For the first time in my life, I've pre-ordered. Don't really care if it arrives "first", just so I don't have to fight for it when it comes out.
So, can I borrow it when you're done reading it? :wink:

Humphrey
2005-Apr-25, 09:40 PM
Gethen, i preordered it because Borders was giving a 40% off cover price for preordering.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-25, 09:41 PM
So--who's going to rush right out and buy the hardcover? I haven't yielded to that urge yet, but only because I've been able to borrow one from my kids to read the book initially and then actually buy them when they come out in paperback.

For the first time in my life, I've pre-ordered. Don't really care if it arrives "first", just so I don't have to fight for it when it comes out.

I did that last time. Then, I happened to go to the grocery stores, and there were loads of them there. :lol:

I'm not doing it this time, simply because I don't know how swamped I'll be by Calculus, so I may have to wait to read it. I don't know if I can though! I do so hate to be spoiled, so I like to read them right away. And, I just like to read them right away anyway. :D

Glom
2005-Apr-25, 10:32 PM
So who has seen the films but not read the books like me? I'd like to get impressions from like minded people.

Moose
2005-Apr-26, 12:13 AM
Gethen, i preordered it because Borders was giving a 40% off cover price for preordering.

Yeah, that's why I chose to pre-order rather than wait for the book to actually come out. I also get in on free shipping because I rolled it in with a larger book order. So, I get it cheaper than local, just as quick (and arguably quicker, since things tend to take a week or so to show up here), and I don't have to keep track of the date. It'll arrive when it's good and ready.

Gethen, as long as you promise to return it in the same condition, then of course you can borrow it. (And no, I'm not joking. Not much, anyway. Just PM me with an address if you decide you want to take me up on this.)

gethen
2005-Apr-26, 02:10 PM
Thanks, Moose, but I'll probably pry open my wallet and buy it. :wink: I'm just as eager to read it as anyone else and if I can find a deal like Humphrey found, it wouldn't be so hard.
Has there been any consensus as to who the "Half-Blood Prince" might be? My vote is for Hagrid, who is known to be a half-giant.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-26, 02:20 PM
Thanks, Moose, but I'll probably pry open my wallet and buy it. :wink: I'm just as eager to read it as anyone else and if I can find a deal like Humphrey found, it wouldn't be so hard.
Has there been any consensus as to who the "Half-Blood Prince" might be? My vote is for Hagrid, who is known to be a half-giant.

I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus. :)

My vote is Neville.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-26, 02:53 PM
Who else is Half Blood apart from Harry and Hagrid?
I can't think of anyone.

gethen
2005-Apr-26, 03:00 PM
Me either. Of course, it's possible that it will be an entirely new character.

Humphrey
2005-Apr-26, 03:03 PM
Hagrid might be right about the half -blood prince, but since when does the half-blood prince have to be a good guy? Why can't it be a new badguy, or a enemy of Harry and his friends?

Random thought of the furute of Harry potter series:
I have always had the belief that Dumbledore is a elderly and powerful Nevil who traveled back in time to help harry win against Voldemort.


[edit: removed quotes since its been confirmed that above is incorrect. ]

Humphrey
2005-Apr-26, 03:08 PM
Gethen current prices:

barnes and noble: $18 Link (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=My7m2pxAPV&isbn=0439784549& itm=1)
Borders: $17 Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0439784549/qid=1114527971/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-7512326-0353439?v=glance&n=507846)
Books a million: $18 Link (http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=0439784549&id=3145279938505)

gethen
2005-Apr-26, 03:14 PM
Gethen current prices:

barnes and noble: $18 Link (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=My7m2pxAPV&isbn=0439784549& itm=1)
Borders: $17 Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0439784549/qid=1114527971/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-7512326-0353439?v=glance&n=507846)
Books a million: $18 Link (http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=0439784549&id=3145279938505)
O.K. I've done it. Your fault, Humphrey. :wink:

Humphrey
2005-Apr-26, 03:15 PM
Muuuuahahahahahah! :-P



P.S... Darnit! my perveious "Spoiler" above Will not be true according to the j.k. rowling website. She says that no person in the books comes back from the future. Doh!.

Ill remove the quotes from it.

gethen
2005-Apr-26, 03:22 PM
Muuuuahahahahahah! :-P



P.S... Darnit! my perveious "Spoiler" above Will not be true according to the j.k. rowling website. She says that no person in the books comes back from the future. Doh!.

Ill remove the quotes from it.
Yeah, but Dumbledore wouldn't be coming back from the future. He'd be coming forward from the past. :wink:

Moose
2005-Apr-26, 03:23 PM
My vote is Neville.

I don't know if Neville is THBP, but I do feel that the wizarding world is going to rock to its very foundations should he finally find his confidence. Rowling's dropped a few pebbles down his well from time to time, and as far as I can tell, we've never heard a splash.

Personally, I'd put quatloos on Neville eventually becomming Headmaster of Hogwarts (perhaps after McGonnogal and maybe one ineffectual caretaker from the Ministry of Magic.)

Obviously, Harry will be the one to finally off Voldemort.

Moose
2005-Apr-26, 03:25 PM
Yeah, but Dumbledore wouldn't be coming back from the future. He'd be coming forward from the past. :wink:

Aren't we all? :wink:

( Lousy flood filter )

HenrikOlsen
2005-Apr-26, 03:59 PM
Who else is Half Blood apart from Harry and Hagrid?
I can't think of anyone.
As far as I remember, Harry's pureblood wizard.

Wasn't Voldemort halfblood?

Metricyard
2005-Apr-26, 05:16 PM
I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus.

My vote is Neville.

Nope, the Longbottoms were a pureblood family.


As far as I remember, Harry's pureblood wizard.



Nope, Harry's mother (Lilly Evens) was a muggle born.
Harry's father was a pureblood though.

My vote for the half blood prince will be Seamus Finnigan, or some character that hasn't been mentioned yet.

I can't wait for HBP to be released. I know my neice will get a hold of the book pretty quickly, and she is so easily bribed. A couple of bucks and the book is in my hands.
:P

Roving Philosopher
2005-Apr-26, 05:20 PM
Who else is Half Blood apart from Harry and Hagrid?
I can't think of anyone.
As far as I remember, Harry's pureblood wizard.

Wasn't Voldemort halfblood?
Harry is a pureblood, though the line on his mother's side is very short. And Voldemort is indeed a half-blood (magical on his mother's side).

By the way, Neville is a pureblood as well. Both of his parents were Aurors, if I'm not mistaken.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-26, 05:24 PM
Who else is Half Blood apart from Harry and Hagrid?
I can't think of anyone.
As far as I remember, Harry's pureblood wizard.

Wasn't Voldemort halfblood?
Harry is a pureblood, though the line on his mother's side is very short. And Voldemort is indeed a half-blood (magical on his mother's side).

By the way, Neville is a pureblood as well. Both of his parents were Aurors, if I'm not mistaken.

Nope, harry is a halfblood. See post above. Lily Evens was a muggle born(mudblood) She is the first in her family to be a witch.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-26, 05:46 PM
Nope, harry is a halfblood. See post above. Lily Evens was a muggle born(mudblood) She is the first in her family to be a witch.

But once you are a witch, if you marry a warlock, your children are purebloods. That's why Malfoy is always harping on Hermione being a mudblood, not Harry.

Roving Philosopher
2005-Apr-26, 05:46 PM
Who else is Half Blood apart from Harry and Hagrid?
I can't think of anyone.
As far as I remember, Harry's pureblood wizard.

Wasn't Voldemort halfblood?
Harry is a pureblood, though the line on his mother's side is very short. And Voldemort is indeed a half-blood (magical on his mother's side).

By the way, Neville is a pureblood as well. Both of his parents were Aurors, if I'm not mistaken.

Nope, harry is a halfblood. See post above. Lily Evens was a muggle born(mudblood) She is the first in her family to be a witch.

There's the question, though. Lily was muggle-born, but she is a witch. So both of Harry's parents were magical. Hagrid has a magical mother and a non-magical father. Hagrid's situation seems to better fit the idea of half-blood than Harry's. I suppose it depends on how far back in the line you have to go to be considered pureblood.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-26, 05:49 PM
I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus.

My vote is Neville.

Nope, the Longbottoms were a pureblood family.



I'm not assuming that the word "halfblood" refers to muggle versus magic or giant versus magic. I'm thinking it could possibly refer to something else. What? No idea. I'm just ready for Rowling and her twisty turns. :D

Metricyard
2005-Apr-26, 05:53 PM
I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus.

My vote is Neville.

Nope, the Longbottoms were a pureblood family.



I'm not assuming that the word "halfblood" refers to muggle versus magic or giant versus magic. I'm thinking it could possibly refer to something else. What? No idea. I'm just ready for Rowling and her twisty turns. :D

From JK Rowlings web site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=58)

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-26, 05:57 PM
I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus.

My vote is Neville.

Nope, the Longbottoms were a pureblood family.



I'm not assuming that the word "halfblood" refers to muggle versus magic or giant versus magic. I'm thinking it could possibly refer to something else. What? No idea. I'm just ready for Rowling and her twisty turns. :D

From JK Rowlings web site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=58)

Okay. Good point. But how can it be Harry? Wouldn't the title have to be, Harry the Half Blooded Prince as opposed to Harry and the Half Blooded Prince?

Metricyard
2005-Apr-26, 06:22 PM
I think it's someone we know, but it won't be obvious. But no, there hasn't been a consensus.

My vote is Neville.

Nope, the Longbottoms were a pureblood family.



I'm not assuming that the word "halfblood" refers to muggle versus magic or giant versus magic. I'm thinking it could possibly refer to something else. What? No idea. I'm just ready for Rowling and her twisty turns. :D

From JK Rowlings web site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=58)

Okay. Good point. But how can it be Harry? Wouldn't the title have to be, Harry the Half Blooded Prince as opposed to Harry and the Half Blooded Prince?

I doubt that Harry wll be the half-blood prince. (I think JKR mentions that somewhere on here web site too) :lol:

I still think the half blood prince will be Seamus Finnigan. Why? He's the only other halfblood mentioned in the books, for the most part. But we only have 80 days left to find out..

Was there any mention of kings or queens in the books (Other than Wizards chess)?

Roving Philosopher
2005-Apr-26, 07:34 PM
*snip*

I doubt that Harry wll be the half-blood prince. (I think JKR mentions that somewhere on here web site too) :lol:

I still think the half blood prince will be Seamus Finnigan. Why? He's the only other halfblood mentioned in the books, for the most part. But we only have 80 days left to find out..

Was there any mention of kings or queens in the books (Other than Wizards chess)?
I don't recall any kings or queens mentioned in the books. At the moment, I'm kinda leaning towards the Centaurs, particularly the one that saved Harry in the first book. They strike me as a society that might have royalty, and the one that saved Harry (what was his name?) fits the role of the rebellious prince. Though I can't imagine what it would mean to be a half-blood Centaur. :-?

Humphrey
2005-Apr-26, 07:38 PM
Aren't centaurs by defenition half-blood? Half human, half horse....

Metricyard
2005-Apr-26, 08:06 PM
*snip*

I doubt that Harry wll be the half-blood prince. (I think JKR mentions that somewhere on here web site too) :lol:

I still think the half blood prince will be Seamus Finnigan. Why? He's the only other halfblood mentioned in the books, for the most part. But we only have 80 days left to find out..

Was there any mention of kings or queens in the books (Other than Wizards chess)?
I don't recall any kings or queens mentioned in the books. At the moment, I'm kinda leaning towards the Centaurs, particularly the one that saved Harry in the first book. They strike me as a society that might have royalty, and the one that saved Harry (what was his name?) fits the role of the rebellious prince. Though I can't imagine what it would mean to be a half-blood Centaur. :-?


Hmmm. That's a possiblity. Consider this, I must.

The Centaur that saved Harry was called Firenze.


Aren't centaurs by defenition half-blood? Half human, half horse....

Wouldn't that be half breed?

Damn, now I got Cher's song in my head.


Edit: fix quote

Glom
2005-Apr-26, 11:56 PM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-27, 12:23 AM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

Yes, it's rare but it happens. They (the non magic children) are called "squibs"


:o
Oh my, I've turned into a Harry Potter geek.
:o

Edit: spelling

Yoshua
2005-Apr-27, 12:25 AM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

They can, we meet at least two in the books. Filch is one and the other's name I forget, she shows up in the fifth book. They are called squibs.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 03:01 AM
I still think the half blood prince will be Seamus Finnigan. Why? He's the only other halfblood mentioned in the books, for the most part. But we only have 80 days left to find out..

Was there any mention of kings or queens in the books (Other than Wizards chess)?

Seamus would be a fine choice. I like him and wouldn't mind seeing more of him. The kid who plays him in the movies is just adorable, and I love his accent. :D

lti
2005-Apr-27, 06:10 AM
hogwarts seems to be the only school that teaches magic in england, and one of only 4 in the world. it has an intake of only 20 boys and 20 girls a year. way less than half of those would be mudbloods. basically, the majority of magic children born to muggles would remain in the muggle world and never learn magic.

there also appears to be way less magical people than muggles in total. i sont see the magic world ever overrunning the muggle world.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 06:13 AM
hogwarts seems to be the only school that teaches magic in england, and one of only 4 in the world. it has an intake of only 20 boys and 20 girls a year. way less than half of those would be mudbloods. basically, the majority of magic children born to muggles would remain in the muggle world and never learn magic.

Where are you getting your numbers from?


there also appears to be way less magical people than muggles in total. i sont see the magic world ever overrunning the muggle world.

Probably not. :D

lti
2005-Apr-27, 08:47 AM
Where are you getting your numbers from?
from the books. there are only 5 boys in Harry's dorm room. if we assume there are similar numbers in each house and there are equal numbers of girls we arrive at 40 people per year group.

Obviously children born to wizarding families will stay in the wizarding world, regardless of being excepted to such an exclusive school as hogwarts. but there are very very few muggle born children who ever cross into the world of magic courtesy of being accepted to hogwarts.

mid
2005-Apr-27, 09:15 AM
There's only 5 in Harry's room, but that isn't the only room in Griffindor House. I've a vague feeling the first book suggests at least 100 in the year.

lti
2005-Apr-27, 09:34 AM
no, there are other rooms in griffindor house. there would be 7 rooms for the guys and 7 rooms for the girls. 1 for each year for each gender.

if there are other first year gryffindors how come they are never mentioned. ever?

captain swoop
2005-Apr-27, 10:23 AM
Also looking at the fesats there would seem to be around a hundred or so at the tables. (in the film anyway)

Iwant to know how the Magic world can live with itself knowing it can cure deadly disease and illness but then keep it secret.

Also the 'Muggle' PM seems to know aboutthe magic world but also keeps it secret.

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 10:47 AM
Do they have loads of those common rooms because looking at that set, it seems like those small dorms are the only thing from that common room?

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 01:07 PM
A

Iwant to know how the Magic world can live with itself knowing it can cure deadly disease and illness but then keep it secret.

There's no telling the ramifications that would have. Keep in mind, we get everything from Harry's point of view, so in a sense, we're all fifth years. Maybe that will be explained at some point. It's possible they'd be running around doing nothing but curing ills, and why should they?

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 01:09 PM
no, there are other rooms in griffindor house. there would be 7 rooms for the guys and 7 rooms for the girls. 1 for each year for each gender.

if there are other first year gryffindors how come they are never mentioned. ever?

Good point. That answers a question I've always had about how they decided who should be roommates. I suppose this means the sorting hat is always going to put the same number of people in each house, so this means someone else became a slytherin because Harry didn't want to. :-k

gethen
2005-Apr-27, 01:28 PM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

Yes, it's rare but it happens. They (the non magic children) are called "squibs"

Now, for some reason, I thought that possibly Harry's Aunt Petunia was a "squib" and that his mother actually came from a magic family. Guess not.
Also, if Hermione, who is clearly muggle born should marry Ron, who is a pureblood, would their children be pure blood? Is Harry a pureblood even though his mother, a witch herself, is the child of muggles? Since so much emphasis put on the distinction between certain characters, I wonder how far back the pure blood has to go.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 01:34 PM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

Yes, it's rare but it happens. They (the non magic children) are called "squibs"

Now, for some reason, I thought that possibly Harry's Aunt Petunia was a "squib" and that his mother actually came from a magic family. Guess not.
Also, if Hermione, who is clearly muggle born should marry Ron, who is a pureblood, would their children be pure blood? Is Harry a pureblood even though his mother, a witch herself, is the child of muggles? Since so much emphasis put on the distinction between certain characters, I wonder how far back the pure blood has to go.

Click on the link provided earlier in this thread. Apparently, it's a statement against how the Nazis viewed Jewish people, in that, blood really has NOTHING to do with magical ability.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 01:39 PM
From JK Rowlings web site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=58)

Here it is gethen. :D

captain swoop
2005-Apr-27, 02:32 PM
Well, as it's a magic school I guess that the Dorms arrange themselves for the number of students. Just because there were only 5 in Harrys dorm doesn't mean there are only 5 boys at any time in any year.
Use your imagination, none of it has tomake any sense, it's fiction.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 02:43 PM
Well, as it's a magic school I guess that the Dorms arrange themselves for the number of students. Just because there were only 5 in Harrys dorm doesn't mean there are only 5 boys at any time in any year.
Use your imagination, none of it has tomake any sense, it's fiction.

Tere's no need to cast aspersions on my imagination just because I didn't come to the same conclusion you did. :o

I like hearing what everyone thinks, and that never occurred to me.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-27, 03:22 PM
Not casting any nasturtiums, not even my fave flower. Now a Lupin maybe :wink:

Vega115
2005-Apr-27, 04:43 PM
As for the number of students at Hogwarts, JK Rowling herself has said that there are around 1000 students at hogwarts.

Therefore, doing the math, roughly 40 students go into each house each year. Now, if you did the math with 14 going into each house each year (7 boys and 7 girls) you would get 392. Seeing as the author herself has said there are 1000, ill take that. Also, if she were to name every. single. student. that went into each house each year, each book would be 1000 pages long!

Plus, you gotta remember, the dorms are TOWERS, therefore, there must be more than one room for each year, and as the building is magical, rooms change around, rooms that you may not see, are really there (i.e. room of requirement).

So, final number is roughly 1000 students. Plus, why would they need a CASTLE if it were392 students?

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 05:02 PM
Also, if Hermione, who is clearly muggle born should marry Ron, who is a pureblood, would their children be pure blood?

Is there shippiness going around?


Click on the link provided earlier in this thread. Apparently, it's a statement against how the Nazis viewed Jewish people, in that, blood really has NOTHING to do with magical ability.

From reading that link, I see the Hitler himself would be considered contaminated.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-27, 05:08 PM
If some muggle parents can have magic kids, does that mean that some magic parents can have muggle kids? If not that would mean that the magic population would slowly take over the world.

Yes, it's rare but it happens. They (the non magic children) are called "squibs"

Now, for some reason, I thought that possibly Harry's Aunt Petunia was a "squib" and that his mother actually came from a magic family. Guess not.
Also, if Hermione, who is clearly muggle born should marry Ron, who is a pureblood, would their children be pure blood? Is Harry a pureblood even though his mother, a witch herself, is the child of muggles? Since so much emphasis put on the distinction between certain characters, I wonder how far back the pure blood has to go.

Click on the link provided earlier in this thread. Apparently, it's a statement against how the Nazis viewed Jewish people, in that, blood really has NOTHING to do with magical ability.

Also, if you follow the family tree mentioned in "Order of the Phoenix" there seems to be a lot of inter-maritual relations between families. So any children had by Ron and Hermione would not be considered pure-blood. (At least that's the way the pure bloods see it.)

Speaking of Ron and Hermione, who is going to fall in love.

Harry and Hermione
Ron and Hermione

My vote goes to Ron And Hermione.

Hope this question doesn't turn into a flaming war. Seems to cause quite a stir on other Harry Potter forums. :D

Edit -- Spelling

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 05:51 PM
Speaking of Ron and Hermione, who is going to fall in love.

Harry and Hermione
Ron and Hermione

My vote goes to Ron And Hermione.

Hope this question doesn't turn into a flaming war. Seems to cause quite a stir on other Harry Potter forums. :D

Edit -- Spelling

Are there really people out there who think Harry and Hermione? Perish the thought. I've been rooting for Ron and Hermione since book 1. They totally make me think of Ron's parents. :D


Not casting any nasturtiums, not even my fave flower. Now a Lupin maybe

:D

Fram
2005-Apr-27, 06:00 PM
I've forgotten her name (yep, that's how much I care about Harry Potter), but I have a feeling that near the end of book seven, Harry will be in love with Ron's younger sister (the one that was swooning over Harry from the first time she met him). Ron and Hermione will of course be also together.

I don't think there's a chance we will get a Harry + Ron couple though, although I would love to read the comments in the press then :lol:

gethen
2005-Apr-27, 06:11 PM
Also, if Hermione, who is clearly muggle born should marry Ron, who is a pureblood, would their children be pure blood?

Is there shippiness going around?

Well, possibly, depending on what that word means. :wink:

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 06:30 PM
Shippiness is the desire to see two characters together. At SG1archive, arguments between Jack-Sam shippers and the anti-shippers can get heated.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 07:44 PM
I've forgotten her name (yep, that's how much I care about Harry Potter), but I have a feeling that near the end of book seven, Harry will be in love with Ron's younger sister (the one that was swooning over Harry from the first time she met him). Ron and Hermione will of course be also together.

I don't think there's a chance we will get a Harry + Ron couple though, although I would love to read the comments in the press then :lol:

That's certainly what I would like to see, assuming they all live. Her name is Ginny btw. :)

Fram
2005-Apr-27, 08:11 PM
I've forgotten her name (yep, that's how much I care about Harry Potter), but I have a feeling that near the end of book seven, Harry will be in love with Ron's younger sister (the one that was swooning over Harry from the first time she met him). Ron and Hermione will of course be also together.

I don't think there's a chance we will get a Harry + Ron couple though, although I would love to read the comments in the press then :lol:

That's certainly what I would like to see, assuming they all live. Her name is Ginny btw. :)

Ginny, indeed. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who would like this scenario.

BTW, someone else mentioned his/her problems with keeping book one and two separate. I have the same issue, even more so in the movies, and it's one of the reasons that I think the series, while truly enjoyable, isn't really first rate and not comparable, in my opinion of course, to e.g. LotR. I haven't bothered seeing the movies after one and two, but I have read all five books.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 08:15 PM
BTW, someone else mentioned his/her problems with keeping book one and two separate. I have the same issue, even more so in the movies, and it's one of the reasons that I think the series, while truly enjoyable, isn't really first rate and not comparable, in my opinion of course, to e.g. LotR. I haven't bothered seeing the movies after one and two, but I have read all five books.

The third movie is the best of the set so far.

I believe she's writing the books and changing the age they're aimed at with each year, so that one and two are aimed at 10 and 11 year olds... just a theory.

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 09:18 PM
I would have imagined Ginny would have been more suited to the root weevil that keeps on popping off a camera in Harry's face.

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 09:20 PM
I believe she's writing the books and changing the age they're aimed at with each year, so that one and two are aimed at 10 and 11 year olds... just a theory.

Does that mean the seventh will be like Dawson's Creek?

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 09:26 PM
I would have imagined Ginny would have been more suited to the root weevil that keeps on popping off a camera in Harry's face.

Why on earth would you think that? :o

Charly
2005-Apr-27, 10:31 PM
Am I the only one here who finds it a sad reflection on the state of society that so many adults find a very childish childrens book so entertaining?

50 years ago, it was tolkien

30 years ago D&D

Now its Harry Potter/

What next?

Roger Red Hat and Billy Blue Hats further adventures?

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 10:37 PM
Am I the only one here who finds it a sad reflection on the state of society that so many adults find a very childish childrens book so entertaining?

50 years ago, it was tolkien

30 years ago D&D

Now its Harry Potter/

What next?

Roger Red Hat and Billy Blue Hats further adventures?

Are you expecting a positive response from that post? I think the fact that more children are reading as a result of Harry Potter than in decades is an excellent reflection on our society.

What I think is sad are people with an elitist attitude who feel the need to look down on others because they have different interests.

Charly
2005-Apr-27, 10:41 PM
Dont get me wrong!!!

Its great children are reading.

But when I hear people at work discussing it who are in their 40s and 50s, I just cant work it out.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 10:44 PM
Dont get me wrong!!!

Its great children are reading.

But when I hear people at work discussing it who are in their 40s and 50s, I just cant work it out.

It's fine that it mystifies you. European football has the same effect on me, but that just means it's not your bag, not that society is deteriorating. :)

Charly
2005-Apr-27, 10:48 PM
Dont get me wrong!!!

Its great children are reading.

But when I hear people at work discussing it who are in their 40s and 50s, I just cant work it out.

European football has the same effect on me,

You *what*?????

Its great once you understand the offside rule. Seriously....

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-27, 10:52 PM
You *what*?????

Its great once you understand the offside rule. Seriously....

At least you won't see Harry Potter fans trying to kill each other. ;)

Gullible Jones
2005-Apr-27, 10:56 PM
Charly: You consider Tolkien's works childish? The Hobbit seemed to me to be geared towards children, but the Trilogy wasn't as far as I can tell, and the Silmarillion definitely wasn't.

Charly
2005-Apr-27, 11:02 PM
Definately not LotR. It is very difficult to get into. He overdoes it when describing how lovely a hill really is. But it soon bolts down and starts with the great story telling.

Glom
2005-Apr-27, 11:22 PM
Boo hoo. Better than being interested in Big Brother.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-28, 01:49 AM
Dont get me wrong!!!

Its great children are reading.

But when I hear people at work discussing it who are in their 40s and 50s, I just cant work it out.

Funny you should mention this. I used to feel the same way. Why would any adult want to read a childrens book?

I started reading Harry potter when I was at my brothers house a few Thanksgivings ago. Being bored waiting for the turkey to finish, I picked up my nieces copy of "The Sorcers Stone". I found it entertaining enough, so I took the rest of her collection home for the holiday weekend. Well, the rest is pretty easy to figure out.

JK Rowling is a very good writer. And in her later books, she touches on alot of adult themes, racism, betrayal, death.

And yes, I'm pushing 50.

One has to ask, have you read any of the books?
If not, give them a try. You may be supprised.

Edit to add.

And LotR is still my favorite set of books. Been reading them for over 30 years.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Apr-28, 01:51 AM
I was. I ridiculed the things tirelessly. Then I was convinced to read them. Not the best books that I have ever read, but far from the worst, as well.

mid
2005-Apr-28, 10:13 AM
Funny you should mention this. I used to feel the same way. Why would any adult want to read a childrens book?

For the same reason I don't need to be female to enjoy Bridget Jones' Diary, black to find Shaft exciting or gay to find Queer As Folk absolutely hilarious. Exploring outside your marketing demographic can find real gems.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-28, 11:06 AM
I've forgotten her name (yep, that's how much I care about Harry Potter), but I have a feeling that near the end of book seven, Harry will be in love with Ron's younger sister (the one that was swooning over Harry from the first time she met him). Ron and Hermione will of course be also together.

I don't think there's a chance we will get a Harry + Ron couple though, although I would love to read the comments in the press then :lol:

That's certainly what I would like to see, assuming they all live. Her name is Ginny btw. :)

I can't see Harry and Ginny at all. Harry and Luna would be good, she is the most interesting of the female characters I think.

Heid the Ba'
2005-Apr-28, 11:33 AM
Given present tv trends it is more likely to be Hermione and Ginny........

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 11:44 AM
I can't see Harry and Ginny at all. Harry and Luna would be good, she is the most interesting of the female characters I think.

I don't agree at all. When you manage to become a woo woo in a world where magic is real, that is quite a feat. :lol:

My other scenario is that Harry won't end up with anyone or we haven't met her yet, because I kind of think Ginny and Neville are cute together.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-28, 01:03 PM
I don't agree at all. When you manage to become a woo woo in a world where magic is real, that is quite a feat. :lol:

.

Why else was she included? There were plenty of existing characters could have done what she did, I think Harry had some empathy with her at the end. As for Cho! she doesn't like Harry as himself, she is after Cedric through him.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 01:09 PM
Why else was she included? There were plenty of existing characters could have done what she did, I think Harry had some empathy with her at the end. As for Cho! she doesn't like Harry as himself, she is after Cedric through him.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have characters in a story just to spice it up. She doesn't have to serve a romantic purpose.

And don't be so hard on Cho. It was probably the first time she had to deal with death. She wasn't intentionally trying to use Harry.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-28, 01:38 PM
Why else was she included? There were plenty of existing characters could have done what she did, I think Harry had some empathy with her at the end. As for Cho! she doesn't like Harry as himself, she is after Cedric through him.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have characters in a story just to spice it up. She doesn't have to serve a romantic purpose. snip..

I don't know. I think Luna will have some importance in the upcoming books.
You know the old saying, one persons woo woo is another persons..er, well, something. :P

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 01:43 PM
Why else was she included? There were plenty of existing characters could have done what she did, I think Harry had some empathy with her at the end. As for Cho! she doesn't like Harry as himself, she is after Cedric through him.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have characters in a story just to spice it up. She doesn't have to serve a romantic purpose. snip..

I don't know. I think Luna will have some importance in the upcoming books.
You know the old saying, one persons woo woo is another persons..er, well, something. :P

Exactly. I definitely think she's important. I'm just not certain it's romantic. And I really enjoy Luna. Most people have some form of woo woo thinking. Doesn't mean they're useless. :D

captain swoop
2005-Apr-28, 02:00 PM
She came through the encounter in the Ministry OK.

sp edit

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 02:15 PM
She came throug hthe encounter in the Ministry OK.

I know. I was a bit surprised by that.

captain swoop
2005-Apr-28, 02:59 PM
Why?

Ilya
2005-Apr-28, 03:45 PM
I can't see Harry and Ginny at all. Harry and Luna would be good, she is the most interesting of the female characters I think.

I don't agree at all. When you manage to become a woo woo in a world where magic is real, that is quite a feat. :lol:


So why don't you agree? Luna's "feat" is certainly "interesting"!

Glom
2005-Apr-28, 04:10 PM
Who's this Luna sort?

Metricyard
2005-Apr-28, 04:45 PM
Who's this Luna sort?

Everything you wanted to know about Luna "loony" Lovegood but were aftraid that you asked. :D
http://www.diagonlane.com/articles/luna
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/luna.html

gopher65
2005-Apr-28, 06:39 PM
I also think Ginny and Neville will get together:).

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 06:56 PM
I can't see Harry and Ginny at all. Harry and Luna would be good, she is the most interesting of the female characters I think.

I don't agree at all. When you manage to become a woo woo in a world where magic is real, that is quite a feat. :lol:


So why don't you agree? Luna's "feat" is certainly "interesting"!

I just don't think Harry and Luna make a good couple. There's no chemistry for one thing. I more see Luna taking over for Madame - oh what is her name - the fortune teller teacher.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 06:59 PM
Why?

Why? Because she can't concentrate. She's constantly day dreaming. These are not good qualities to have in battle.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-28, 07:11 PM
Why?

Why? Because she can't concentrate. She's constantly day dreaming. These are not good qualities to have in battle.

But it's the quiet ones that you have to watch out for. Never underestimate a daydreamer. Their the ones who make things happen. It's the loud ones that take the credit.


Or not. 8-[

PS.

The divination teachers name is Professor Sibyll Trelawney

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-28, 07:15 PM
But it's the quiet ones that you have to watch out for. Never underestimate a daydreamer. Their the ones who make things happen. It's the loud ones that take the credit.

I know. I was just expecting her to die, because she wasn't one of the the fab four. Then I got caught off guard by Sirus Black's step beyond the veil. :( Though I'm happy Luna lived and surprised me. I like to be surprised. :D



The divination teachers name is Professor Sibyll Trelawney

Thanks. That was going to bug me all day.

One Skunk Todd
2005-Apr-28, 09:06 PM
You know the old saying, one persons woo woo is another persons..er, well, something. :P

Presidential Advisor?

captain swoop
2005-Apr-29, 10:26 AM
As the HP books aren't Romantic Fiction I don't see it's important who is with who like I don't care what colour socks they wear.

Fram
2005-Apr-29, 10:32 AM
As the HP books aren't Romantic Fiction I don't see it's important who is with who like I don't care what colour socks they wear.

One of the themes of HP is a bunch of teenagers growing up. One of the essential elements of the life of a teenager and certainly when he is fifteen or so, is his love life. On the other hand, most (male) teenagers don't know what colour socks they are wearing...
When Harry is ten or eleven, you can contrast the magical stuff and the saving of his life with the 'boring' school (even if it is Hogwarts) and the making of friends, and playing sports. These are at that age the crucial elements in his life (well, not having a real family is important as well). A few years later, romance, love and lust, and puberty, get in the mix as well. If they would not have been included in the books, it would have looked very strange (as it is, I already felt it should have been a factor one or two books earlier, but that's a minor quibble).

gethen
2005-Apr-29, 12:38 PM
And don't forget that the books were ostensibly written for pre-teens and young teens. Girls that age are going to be disappointed if there's no innocent romance in the books. Remember Lisa Simpson's swooning joy in the espisode where J.K. Rowling wound up telling her that when Harry Potter grew up he was going to marry her (Lisa)?
On the other hand, maybe boys of the same age find those innocent romances icky?

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-29, 01:03 PM
As the HP books aren't Romantic Fiction I don't see it's important who is with who like I don't care what colour socks they wear.

You just finished saying you thought Luna's primary function was to be a romantic interested for Harry. I'm a little confused by your vague comments. :)

Glom
2005-Apr-29, 02:57 PM
Why do I have visions of Elisha from Smallville?

captain swoop
2005-Apr-29, 03:22 PM
As the HP books aren't Romantic Fiction I don't see it's important who is with who like I don't care what colour socks they wear.

You just finished saying you thought Luna's primary function was to be a romantic interested for Harry. I'm a little confused by your vague comments. :)

Not vague, I just don't think it's important, I can stil lspeculate along with the crowd :)

mid
2005-Apr-29, 04:26 PM
Why do I have visions of Elisha from Smallville?

Hmm, now I do, too. I quite like her, though, so I really hope you're wrong.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-29, 05:42 PM
Not vague, I just don't think it's important, I can stil lspeculate along with the crowd :)

Oh. Okay. :)

I don't really care who Harry does or doesn't end up with, but I confess, I do want to see Ron and Hermione get together. I like romance. :D

Metricyard
2005-Apr-29, 06:10 PM
Not vague, I just don't think it's important, I can stil lspeculate along with the crowd :)

Oh. Okay. :)

I don't really care who Harry does or doesn't end up with, but I confess, I do want to see Ron and Hermione get together. I like romance. :D

It seems like a pretty sure thing. Ron and Hermoine are like opposite poles of a magnet. Now if Ron would just get a clue. Or, maybe Hermoine will have to make the first move.

Not that I care what happens to them romanticlly :-?



Edit: to add text. (silly submit buttons)
Edit: Spelling

Moose
2005-Apr-29, 06:44 PM
I don't really care who Harry does or doesn't end up with, but I confess, I do want to see Ron and Hermione get together. I like romance. :D

It basically screamed out (in the movie anyway) when Hermione leaped into a hug with Harry, then basically pulled a "woah! neither confirm nor deny!" handshake with Ron. (CoS)

Harry's firmly on Hermione's friend ladder, and I see no evidence whatsoever that Harry would have a problem with this. Ron, however, is on the "good" ladder. It's just _way_ too early for them to do anything about it.

As far as Harry and Luna are concerned, I don't get the impression it's much more than a mutually casual "heck, why not, (s)he's there" thing.

Ginny? Maybe, but she seems to be over her crush for now (fed up, actually), and I don't think Harry really sees her as anything other than Ron's kid sister yet. We'll have to see what happens when they get to a more serious dating age, and assuming Harry can come to truly respect her as a peer, the way he does Hermione and Luna.

Fram
2005-Apr-29, 07:40 PM
That's just why I would like Harry and Ginny ending up as a pair, it's quite typical that while at first you look for girls your own age or even slightly older, while you consider younger girls as babies (and certainly your friends younger sister), a few years later you at once see that that baby has become a young woman who can do more than giggle. He loves the family and they love him, and Ginny seems to be intelligent and interested (even if she is temporarily fed up with him). It would only be a logical conclusion that they would end up together. Plus she is already in the first book (IIRC), and writers like to tie things up neatly like that.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-29, 07:50 PM
That's just why I would like Harry and Ginny ending up as a pair, it's quite typical that while at first you look for girls your own age or even slightly older, while you consider younger girls as babies (and certainly your friends younger sister), a few years later you at once see that that baby has become a young woman who can do more than giggle. He loves the family and they love him, and Ginny seems to be intelligent and interested (even if she is temporarily fed up with him). It would only be a logical conclusion that they would end up together. Plus she is already in the first book (IIRC), and writers like to tie things up neatly like that.

It's the family connection that makes me want to see Harry with Ginny as well.

As to everyone pointing out the obvious - well, duh! :P I've seen all the signs of Ron and Hermione getting together since he first made her cry in book 1. However, you never know when an author might decide to pull a fast one. :D

Gillianren
2005-Apr-29, 07:57 PM
nah. totally Ginny and Neville. my boyfriend disputes Ron and Hermione, at which point I remind him of GoF, wherein Hermione says that Ron should ask her out first next time. can't argue w/that one!

people who don't read kids' books because they aren't kids are missing sooooo much. I had a friend who had never read A Wrinkle in Time, and wouldn't, because it was a kids' book. now, I can (almost) understand not reading "Pat the Bunny," because the age that's geared to is, oh, just past infancy, but I still read picture books. why not? they're books, right?

I don't think Harry will get involved w/any of our main characters. I also don't think they all have to be paired off by the end of the series; how often do relationships started that young last?

as to the wizarding schools--I've always assumed there were others that weren't as prestigious. Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang were the big three, like, say, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. or, to use an example closer to Harry's world, wasn't Justin Finch-Fletchley down for Eton? (I am suuuuch a geek . . . .) if Neville hadn't gotten into Hogwarts, as his family feared, I'm sure there was a lesser alternative. for example, there's no way Filch or Mrs. Figg could have gone to a Muggle school.

why not? well, isn't one of the first subjects of conversation w/a new kid what their parents do? certainly no Squib could answer that. and while Filch is, indeed, a Squib, he still works with wizards, right? we don't know what Mrs. Figg did (other than keep cats), but she knows too much to be sent to a Muggle school or live completely in a Muggle world. remember, not even Aunt Marge knows that Harry's a wizard; anything let slip on the playground would require memory charms.

but yes, Neville's going to be pretty stompy when he gets over his block.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-29, 10:02 PM
I don't think Harry will get involved w/any of our main characters. I also don't think they all have to be paired off by the end of the series; how often do relationships started that young last?

I have to agree here. Harry has enough going on in his life right now. I don't think dating is going to be on the top of his list.

I could picture Harry on a date with a new girl in class

New date: " So Harry, tell me about yourself"

Harry: " Well, I have to kill Voldermort, or he's going to murder me. Plus anyone that hangs around me is probably marked for death."

New date to herself: " I wonder if Professor Snapes is available?"

Speaking of death, rumor has it that someone is going to die in the Half Blood Prince. My vote goes to the Dursleys. It would be a major threat to Harry.

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-29, 10:16 PM
Speaking of death, rumor has it that someone is going to die in the Half Blood Prince. My vote goes to the Dursleys. It would be a major threat to Harry.

I don't see the Dursleys dying. People like that never die, no matter how much you might like them to. ;)

Moose
2005-Apr-29, 10:47 PM
I don't know, maybe, but it's hard to see how their (the Dursleys) deaths could draw the right tension-building reaction, unless they're like disembowelled or something suitably hideous. Too many people would cheer, and I can't see how that would help the story (unless Harry did it, in which case it adds a whole new dimension to his character.)

That said, hasn't Voldemort finally neutralized Harry's immunity to the Big V? (Sorry, my memory of book 5 is a bit fuzzy still.) If so, Harry gets no more benefit from living with the Dursleys. (And after the last time, I doubt they'd take him back, even at Dumbledore's insistence.) They'd have become extrenious, which may or may not make them targets.

Some Death Eater may just take 'em out, just to prevent Harry from reestablishing his immunity.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-29, 11:30 PM
I don't know, maybe, but it's hard to see how their (the Dursleys) deaths could draw the right tension-building reaction, unless they're like disembowelled or something suitably hideous. Too many people would cheer, and I can't see how that would help the story (unless Harry did it, in which case it adds a whole new dimension to his character.)

That said, hasn't Voldemort finally neutralized Harry's immunity to the Big V? (Sorry, my memory of book 5 is a bit fuzzy still.) If so, Harry gets no more benefit from living with the Dursleys. (And after the last time, I doubt they'd take him back, even at Dumbledore's insistence.) They'd have become extrenious, which may or may not make them targets.

Some Death Eater may just take 'em out, just to prevent Harry from reestablishing his immunity.

If I recall correctly, "He who must not be named" only removed one obstacle, being able to physically touch Harry with out causing himself a meltdown.

Also, at the end of OotP, Dumbledore explains to Harry that as long as Harry can call the Dursey's residence home, at least for a few times a year, he will be somewhat safe.

So, that is why I think the Dursey's may be the next target.

I just finished re-reading OotP, so all this stuff is fresh in my mind.
Plus I have the all books close by.
:oops:
I'm an HP geek
:oops:

gethen
2005-Apr-30, 12:33 AM
Why the blushing smiley, metricyard? I mean, it's not like there are no other geeks frequenting this website. :wink:

Charly
2005-Apr-30, 02:31 AM
Dont get me wrong!!!

Its great children are reading.

But when I hear people at work discussing it who are in their 40s and 50s, I just cant work it out.

Funny you should mention this. I used to feel the same way. Why would any adult want to read a childrens book?

I started reading Harry potter when I was at my brothers house a few Thanksgivings ago. Being bored waiting for the turkey to finish, I picked up my nieces copy of "The Sorcers Stone". I found it entertaining enough, so I took the rest of her collection home for the holiday weekend. Well, the rest is pretty easy to figure out.

JK Rowling is a very good writer. And in her later books, she touches on alot of adult themes, racism, betrayal, death.

And yes, I'm pushing 50.

One has to ask, have you read any of the books?
If not, give them a try. You may be supprised.

Edit to add.

And LotR is still my favorite set of books. Been reading them for over 30 years.

To be honest, I have travelled so far up my own arse, I dont think I could ever enjoy books like these.

I just cant really get into any fantasy book nowadays. I can read Terry Pratchett, but if a serious fantasy book doesnt meet my exacting standards then I cant abide it.

I think the kiddy factor stacks it for me.

Its the same with films. If it has a kid, who tend to be cute. I hate it. They only tend to be there to make the story accessable to a younger reader. Or so the writers believe.

This is strange to me as ever since I have been very young, I have loved sci-fi and fantasy, but always preferrred adult stoies, about adult characters. This maybe to do with the fact child actors normally cant act, or the fact writters "write down" where children are concerned, as if they are playing to an audience with mental deficiencies.

I have not read any of the Potter books. This makes me a hippocrite, I know. But seeing the films, I couldnt find a single redeemable feature that would make me want to read the books.

This I compare to the much Maligned LotR cartoon, which I saw at a young age, and still enjoyed until the PJ films. This actually made me want to read the book, and actual;ly anjoy it more, because you (I) had an impression of how the characters were. Tolkien was very descriptive of the landscapes, but less so of the actual characters.

Same with HHGTTG. Seeing the TV show made me want to read the book. And I cant imagine reading the book without Hearing Stephen Moore recite Marvins lines. I think films allow you to imagine what is going on in a book far better. But Harry Potter remains a childrens book, about children, written for children.

(forgibe the capitals in inappropriate places, for I am quite drunk).

As I have said, I am a bit of a snob when it come to fantasy, and sci-fi, and I truely dispair when it come to the quality of said genre TV and film. Fantasy, more so as there is very little which I regard as being even slightly entertaining. Apart from LOTR, what do we have that takes the genre seriously. Conan the Barbarian?

I must admit, that in this McDonalds age, I cant find the time or attention span to read many books. I like to try and read about worlds that I already am familiar with and enjoy. But The likes of Star Trek, Warhammer and WH40k are normally so poorly written, I think what is the point. I could better spend the time playing civ 3 or Moo3 and create my own epic story. But it winds me up that we get a D&D film so lame, compared to Baldurs Gate, a computer adventure which I found really gripping, and well written

Anyway. Bit off the subject now, but Harry Potter remains to me the anethema of popular fantasy. It may as well have a daggit, or "yippee" in the script as opposed to "Muggles", Dobby, or Quidditch (what the hell? How is this in anyway exciting? Its not even a team game).

SciFi Chick
2005-Apr-30, 04:08 AM
Charly - I'll just tackle one of the things you said. You can't base your like or dislike of quidditch on the films. They don't capture the essence of the sport. :)

Glom
2005-Apr-30, 11:14 AM
Big V? What's this? And how do the Dursley's benefit Harry?

Moose
2005-Apr-30, 11:47 AM
Big V? What's this? And how do the Dursley's benefit Harry?

"He Who Must Not Be Named", "You Know Who", Big Daddy Voledmort.

This may be a spoiler, especially if you haven't read the books. Highlight to reveal.


Ever wonder why Harry baked Voldemort with his bare hands at the end of Philosopher's Stone? Ever wonder why Harry survived the attack on his parents?

Basically, he draws a great deal of immunity against Voldemort from his mother's sacrifice. But Dumbledore insists he needs to renew that immunity through contact with family and what can (even tenuously) be called "home". Since Petunia is his mother's sister, he needs to hang out with her periodically, even if that "home" is a rather toxic environment.

Metricyard
2005-Apr-30, 03:43 PM
I have not read any of the Potter books. This makes me a hippocrite, I know. But seeing the films, I couldnt find a single redeemable feature that would make me want to read the books.


This I compare to the much Maligned LotR cartoon, which I saw at a young age, and still enjoyed until the PJ films. This actually made me want to read the book, and actual;ly anjoy it more, because you (I) had an impression of how the characters were. Tolkien was very descriptive of the landscapes, but less so of the actual characters.


As the old saying goes, 'you can't judge a book by it's cover, or by its movie'.
As you've mentioned above, you wouldn't have read LotR's after you watched Ralph Bashi's version of LotR, but was worth a read after you watched Peter Jacksons Version of LotR.
If PJ had't made the movies, you would have missed out on one the best books ever written.

Seems to me your reading habits are based on how well you liked the movie. (Of course, I could be wrong :D )



I just cant really get into any fantasy book nowadays. I can read Terry Pratchett, but if a serious fantasy book doesnt meet my exacting standards then I cant abide it.

How would you know if it would meet your standards unless you've read it? It's like going into a new restaurant and complaining about how terrible the food was while the waitress is still handing out menus.



Why the blushing smiley, metricyard? I mean, it's not like there are no other geeks frequenting this website.

I don't know, it feels silly somehow, when I'm mining the latest HP book looking to answer questions. But I guess I'm in very good company. =D>

Fram
2005-May-01, 07:02 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the books will end with Voldemort, dying, gasping for breath, saying to Harry: 'Harry, I am your father'? 8-[

Moose
2005-May-01, 07:16 PM
No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets [sic] say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin.

(Other than the one I marked, any typos are mine. I couldn't copy/paste that text, it was apparently a flash image.)

Quoted from the www.jkrowling.com faq.

Fram
2005-May-02, 07:48 AM
No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets [sic] say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin.

(Other than the one I marked, any typos are mine. I couldn't copy/paste that text, it was apparently a flash image.)

Quoted from the www.jkrowling.com faq.

I was joking :lol: But Dumbledore is known for not telling Harry everything, isn't he (well, we wouldn't have much of a story if he did)?

(EDIT: wouldn't instead of would)

Glom
2005-May-02, 01:16 PM
But did anyone thing that Tom Riddle looked a little like Harry, expected more public school?

Metricyard
2005-May-02, 02:08 PM
But did anyone thing that Tom Riddle looked a little like Harry, expected more public school?

Could you please repeat the question? (After you've had a second cup of coffee) :lol:

SciFi Chick
2005-May-02, 02:19 PM
But did anyone thing that Tom Riddle looked a little like Harry, expected more public school?

Could you please repeat the question? (After you've had a second cup of coffee) :lol:

Believe it or not - I think I've had enough coffee to translate. Here's what I think Glom meant to say:

"But did anyone think that Tom Riddle looked a little like Harry, except more public school?"

And, my answer is, no. They don't look anything alike, other than having the same color hair.

Glom
2005-May-02, 10:09 PM
Yes that's what I meant. My point didn't last long. I wonder why? :-k