# Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets



## Krug (Nov 12, 2002)

Just saw it today and I have to say it's very good. Much better than the first movie and some very intense scenes; not too sure if it's for kids but I think they would be used to it by now. Credit goes to Chris Columbus for doing a great job directing the children.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 12, 2002)

Excellent.  I'm going to see it next week sometime.  How close to the book was it?


----------



## Krug (Nov 12, 2002)

I didn't read the book which was one of the reasons why I enjoyed it I suppose. My friend said it stuck pretty close to the book, in which case you'll just have to watch the eye candy instead.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 13, 2002)

*Whiny voice* 
No fair! You got to watch Harry Potter and I didn't?! Why cruel fate?! WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????????!!!!!!!
*Goes and sobs brokenly in a corner*


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say she's a fan.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 13, 2002)

Well, you've never been wrong before, except for a few occasions, *Crothian.*  

Curious. It is the norm for adult film industry to do a porn version of a popular mainstream film, but I couldn't find any _HP_ clone.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Well, you've never been wrong before, except for a few occasions, Crothian.  *




When?  



> *Curious. It is the norm for adult film industry to do a porn version of a popular mainstream film, but I couldn't find any HP clone.   *




Should I be worried that you went looking?


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 13, 2002)

No. If I'm looking for shark porn video, then you should worry.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *No. If I'm looking for shark porn video, then you should worry.   *




Okay, I'll write that down and wait for it happen.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 14, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *I'm going to go out on a limb, and say she's a fan.   *



Yes, I am a fan. ("and the 'biggest understatement' award goes to....)
P.S. Why are you guys talking about shark porn?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 14, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, I am a fan. ("and the 'biggest understatement' award goes to....)
> P.S. Why are you guys talking about shark porn? *




"I'd like to thank my parents and God.  Without them I never could have achived the "Biggest Understatement Award". "  

And about that other thing, that's just Ranger REG.  He's way out there in paradise and I really think at times it gets to him.  He may be a Rainbow Warrior.  I'm not sure if he's enrolled there or not.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 14, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> * It is the norm for adult film industry to do a porn version of a popular mainstream film, but I couldn't find any HP clone.   *




"Hairy Poppedher and her Chamber of Secrets"?   

Pardon me. I'm going to go scrub myself with a metal brush, now. I need to be cleansed. *shiver*


----------



## Crothian (Nov 14, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "Hairy Poppedher and her Chamber of Secrets"?
> 
> Pardon me. I'm going to go scrub myself with a metal brush, now. I need to be cleansed. *shiver* *





I was wondering who would be the first to suggest a title.  I never guessed it would be Piratecat!!


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 14, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, I am a fan. ("and the 'biggest understatement' award goes to....)
> P.S. Why are you guys talking about shark porn? *




I think it is a reference to friends.  I remember seeing part of an episode where Monica finds Chandler polishing his tool and he flips the channel very quickly and it is a shark video.  Monica thought he was getting excited about the sharks and bought a few shark videos to try and get Chandler in the mood.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 14, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> I was wondering who would be the first to suggest a title.  I never guessed it would be Piratecat!!   *



 

Wow, and I thought I'm the only "naughty" gamer on this board.   

As for the second _HP_ film, I'll probably do what I did last time, skip the theater and get the DVD.

P.S. Yes, it was an inside joke from _Friends._ Originally it was planned to be a Barney porn but the lawyers for the Purple Dinosaur cried infringement. No word from Steven Spielberg's lawyers, though.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 15, 2002)

Eh.  I moderately enjoyed the books, but I despised the first movie.  I'll probably take my nine-year-old triplet cousins to go see this one too, because I'm a good cousin (my girlfriend, who will probably go with me, is a great cousin's girlfriend).  Maybe I'll get drunk first -- it'll be over Thanksgiving, after all. 

What I'm really looking forward to (no, *besides* The Two Towers)  (hey, what would be the porn title for that?)  is Prisoner of Azkaban, which is gonna be directed by a real live actual director.  I've not seen anything by Alfonso Cuarón (of "The Little Princess" and "Y Tu Mamá También"), but I've heard good things about him, and he's apparently signed on for the third movie.

Daniel


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 15, 2002)

Yeah, the third book was definetely my fav. too.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 15, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *What I'm really looking forward to (no, besides The Two Towers)  (hey, what would be the porn title for that?)*




Pretty much no change.


----------



## Kai Lord (Nov 16, 2002)

Krug said:
			
		

> *Just saw it today and I have to say it's very good.*




Too bad its opening opposite the sure-fire Steven Seagal mega-blockbuster "Half Past Dead".  Harry Potter will be lucky to make a dime.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 16, 2002)

Wow, *Kai Lord.* You've mastered the art of sarcasm.  

Personally, I can't stand watching Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme anymore.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 16, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> "Hairy Poppedher and her Chamber of Secrets"?   *



OMG! I've just seen the promo trailer on _Late Night with Conan O'Brien_ (Friday).


----------



## Tewligan (Nov 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets*



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Too bad its opening opposite the sure-fire Steven Seagal mega-blockbuster "Half Past Dead".  Harry Potter will be lucky to make a dime. *



Yeah, I drove by the theater last night and saw all of those kids dressed up and waiting to get in to see "Half Past Dead."  They had all gained like 50 extra pounds and had their hair tied back in ponytails.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets*



			
				Tewligan said:
			
		

> *
> Yeah, I drove by the theater last night and saw all of those kids dressed up and waiting to get in to see "Half Past Dead."  They had all gained like 50 extra pounds and had their hair tied back in ponytails. *




Crap! That was YOU????!!!!


----------



## Grim (Nov 18, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "Hairy Poppedher and her Chamber of Secrets"?
> 
> Pardon me. I'm going to go scrub myself with a metal brush, now. I need to be cleansed. *shiver* *




Actually, the local radio station did a sound-byte parody thing called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Sex" a while back, with certain lines being... re arranged suitibly...


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 18, 2002)

Grim said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, the local radio station did a sound-byte parody thing called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Sex" a while back, with certain lines being... re arranged suitibly... *




That is wrong on so many levels. It is only the second book, so he's only twelve.
Excuse me while I go cleanse my mind.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That is wrong on so many levels. It is only the second book, so he's only twelve.
> Excuse me while I go cleanse my mind. *




Many things on the radio make me feel this way.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 18, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Many things on the radio make me feel this way.   *



What station do you listen to?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *
> What station do you listen to? *




None.  Occasionally I will listen to the classic station run out of Ohio State Unbiversity, but any of the modern stations have DJs that annoy me, stupid contests, and all around lousy formats.  Of course that is only my most humble opinion.


----------



## Hand of Vecna (Nov 18, 2002)

> What I'm really looking forward to... is Prisoner of Azkaban, which is gonna be directed by a real live actual director.




And Chris Columbus _isn't_ a "real live actual director"?

Last time I checked he wasn't undead...

And, yes, Alfonso Cuarón has signed up to direct _Prisoner of Azkaban_ and _Goblet of Fire_.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 18, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *
> so he's only twelve.
> 
> Excuse me while I go cleanse my mind. *



Trust me, I remembered when I was 12 once. Half the boys in my neighborhood already got a stack of a certain magazine hidden in the sock drawer before we hit 13.   

At least Daniel Radcliffe is normal for a boy. He is a WWF/WWE fan.


----------



## jasper (Nov 18, 2002)

the film broke and burned during my showing!!!
Just before lockhart releases the pixies. 
Some yahoo told his son all the film guy had to do was rewind the film.
very good.


----------



## Hand of Vecna (Nov 18, 2002)

Heh, we had an actual Basilisk in my theatre -- we kept hearing a rattling and banging on (I suppose) the heating/water pipes, thoughout pretty much the entire movie.


----------



## King_Stannis (Nov 18, 2002)

Never read the books, but my wife has. We went saturday (11-16-02) and the place was, of course, sold out. I found the movie to be very strong. Witty, with a really good story and great visuals. Some of the highpoints being the castle itself (almost a character unto itself), the curious book that harry finds, and the chamber itself. The ending was good, but led me to a question that I got a slightly disappointing answer to...


                      SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/              LAST CHANCE!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I asked my wife if Voldemort (sp?) was the ultimate antagonist in all of the books. Unfortunately, my wife said "yes". It will not ruin the movies for me, but it does detract a little when it's always the same villain behind the subterfuge.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 18, 2002)

I've read all the books so far.  I very much enjoyed the first movie, and saw it many times.

I just saw the second movie, and probably won't be seeing it again.  It lacked something for me.  Wish I could be specific, but I can't.  The feeling was mutual for all 6 people with me.  No idea what it was, but this one was simply not as good in my opinion.  I was even bored at several points (something that never happened during the first movie).  One guy not with our group even fell asleep and was snoring, and had to be nudged awake, during the movie.

That's not to say there wasn't anything good in the movie - there was. It just was not as good as the first one.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 18, 2002)

Worse than the first movie?!   

I thought the major accomplishment of the first movie was that it managed to be both plodding and hyperactive at the same time.  Nothing in the movie seemed inspired to me:  the acting was (with the lovely excpetion of Snape) too inhibited, the dialogue was too expository, the visuals never surpassed my own imagination.  I sat through it twice, once with adults and once with children.  The second time, my arm had bite-marks on it, where I'd mistakenly tried to gnaw it off in an attempt to escape.


My main hope was that Christopher would have learned from his mistakes and done a more credible job on the second movie, would have let the actors go free, would have changed the pacing, would have cut the number of scenes down savagely so that the remaining scenes could get the attention they deserve, would have done some inspired choreography for the World's Stupidest Game That You'd Still Want to Play.

I think I'll give it a miss.

Daniel


----------



## Krug (Nov 18, 2002)

Ebert loved it, giving it 4 stars:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-harry15f.html


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 18, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Worse than the first movie?!
> 
> I thought the major accomplishment of the first movie was that it managed to be both plodding and hyperactive at the same time.  Nothing in the movie seemed inspired to me:  the acting was (with the lovely excpetion of Snape) too inhibited, the dialogue was too expository, the visuals never surpassed my own imagination.  I sat through it twice, once with adults and once with children.  The second time, my arm had bite-marks on it, where I'd mistakenly tried to gnaw it off in an attempt to escape.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2002)

I really liked this movie.  Not as good as the first, but then I think the first was spectaculiar piece of art.  I think the second book was the worst of the four, but still a really good book.  Can't wait till 2004 for the next one.

And when they cast for the fourth one they have to have Patrick Stewart as Mad Eye Moony.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 20, 2002)

That assume if Patrick Stewart have not agreed to a third _X-Men_ movie.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 20, 2002)

Krug said:
			
		

> *Ebert loved it, giving it 4 stars:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-harry15f.html *




In the review, Ebert said:



> ...Hermione Granger (Emma Watson, in the early stages of babehood).




Am I the only one a bit creeped out by this 60 year old movie reviewer calling a 13 year old 8th grader a babe?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *That assume if Patrick Stewart have not agreed to a third X-Men movie. *




I'm sure he can fit two movies into his schedule if he wants.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> Am I the only one a bit creeped out by this 60 year old movie reviewer calling a 13 year old 8th grader a babe?
> *




No, that is pretty inappropriate.


----------



## Moe Ronalds (Nov 21, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Curious. It is the norm for adult film industry to do a porn version of a popular mainstream film, but I couldn't find any HP clone.   *




I just got an idea for a new writing project and...


----------



## Kai Lord (Nov 21, 2002)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In the review, Ebert said:
> 
> ...



Yes, there was discussion about this on one of the movie newsgroups.  And she actually just turned 12 this year.  You could definitely say she's a "pretty" young girl, but a _babe_?  *shudder*  Very unsettling, especially considering the source.


----------



## Kai Lord (Nov 21, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *I really liked this movie.  *




I liked it as well.  They've really struck gold with the setting and the cast.  Pity about Harris, though.  I was disappointed we didn't get to see more tension between Harry and Draco (I haven't read any of the books, so I don't know how much the book had, but Tom Felton's Malfoy is a fantastic foil for Harry on film).

And kudos to Columbus and his visual effects team for the brilliant characterization of Dobby.  He could have _easily_ been another Jar Jar Binks, but as annoying as he was you couldn't help but both pity him as well as be fascinated by what secrets he knew.  Nice job.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 21, 2002)

Uh... no comment.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> I'm sure he can fit two movies into his schedule if he wants. *



Only if Brian Singer is going to take the _X-Men_ production to the UK. Otherwise, Patrick Stewart is going to log a lot of frequent flyer miles. From what I've learned it takes 11 months to shoot the last _HP_ film.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Only if Brian Singer is going to take the X-Men production to the UK. Otherwise, Patrick Stewart is going to log a lot of frequent flyer miles. From what I've learned it takes 11 months to shoot the last HP film. *




Well, first you'd have to look at when the films get made.  It's very possible X-Men 3 will be made before Harry Potter 4.  It will be another two years at least till Harry Potter 3 comes out.  Also, even though the production period for the movies may be long, Patrick Steward's role will not be that big.  So, there very well could be time to film them both at the same time.


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 22, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *And when they cast for the fourth one they have to have Patrick Stewart as Mad Eye Moony. *




Nah.  They have to have Bob Hoskins as Moony.  He can be crude, creepy, and funny at the same time, and is build right too.  Patrick Stewart is too genteel to play mad-eye.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Nah.  They have to have Bob Hoskins as Moony.  He can be crude, creepy, and funny at the same time, and is build right too.  Patrick Stewart is too genteel to play mad-eye. *




I think Moody needs to be intense which Stewart can do.  Hoskins is a good choice, but I still think Stewart fits the bil much better.


----------



## Ziona (Nov 22, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *Excellent.  I'm going to see it next week sometime.  How close to the book was it? *




It was very close to the book, but felt a bit rushed in scenes.  For instance, in the beginning of the book, Harry spends more time at the Weasley's house then he does in the movie.  Of course, my friends who didn't read the book said it seemed pretty long, and not rushed what-so-ever.  

Still, it was excellent!! Can't wait for third year!!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2002)

Ziona said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It was very close to the book, but felt a bit rushed in scenes.  For instance, in the beginning of the book, Harry spends more time at the Weasley's house then he does in the movie.  Of course, my friends who didn't read the book said it seemed pretty long, and not rushed what-so-ever.
> 
> Still, it was excellent!! Can't wait for third year!!  *




It did seem a little rushed, I wish the movie was longer.  The thing I disliked was the flying car when Harry and Ron where trying to get to the school.  They found themselves in front of the train and Harry almost feel out.  It seemed pointless as it really didn't help the story and there realyl was no tension in that scene.  I also think they should have explained the car when it acted on its own to save Harry and Ron from the Spiders.  That doesn't make any sense from just watching the movie.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 22, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> *
> Well, first you'd have to look at when the films get made.  It's very possible X-Men 3 will be made before Harry Potter 4.  It will be another two years at least till Harry Potter 3 comes out.  Also, even though the production period for the movies may be long, Patrick Steward's role will not be that big.  So, there very well could be time to film them both at the same time. *



Correct me if I'm wrong. The first _HP_ film opened in theaters last year. The second _HP_ film just opened this year. At the rate they're going, the third film will open next year.

If production is two years, then they're already shooting the third film, only taking time off to promote the opening of the second one. If it takes 11 months to shoot, then another 11 months of post-production (CGI, editing, and if need be, reshoots) of that film. That means they're back on the job in two months. A pretty hectic schedule, especially for the children.

If Patrick Stewart has a small role or a cameo (sorry, didn't read the books), perhaps he can, but if he has to be there for 11 months, then they may have to push back _X3_ production to accomodate him, or worse yet, have Brian Singer find another Xavier (a good way to piss me off, IMHO).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Correct me if I'm wrong. The first HP film opened in theaters last year. The second HP film just opened this year. At the rate they're going, the third film will open next year.
> *




The third movie is slated to come out in 2004.

Also, Patrick Stewart is not signed on for any Harry Potter role, it's just I think he is perfect for one of them.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 22, 2002)

Did anyone else not like the spider portion of the movie?

It added nothing to the plot and left a huge hole as well. Gee there are thousands of spiders that will eat people if they get a chance living only a 5 minute walk from the school. Even in a kids level aimed movie that was a rather hard one to believe.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Did anyone else not like the spider portion of the movie?
> 
> It added nothing to the plot and left a huge hole as well. Gee there are thousands of spiders that will eat people if they get a chance living only a 5 minute walk from the school. Even in a kids level aimed movie that was a rather hard one to believe. *




It was there to prove Hagrid was innocent.  There were too many spiders though.


----------



## Krug (Nov 23, 2002)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Did anyone else not like the spider portion of the movie?
> 
> It added nothing to the plot and left a huge hole as well. Gee there are thousands of spiders that will eat people if they get a chance living only a 5 minute walk from the school. Even in a kids level aimed movie that was a rather hard one to believe. *




In a story that featured flying balls, basilisks, ghosts, flying brooms... that was hard to believe?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 23, 2002)

Krug said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In a story that featured flying balls, basilisks, ghosts, flying brooms... that was hard to believe? *




But we all know those are real and spiders are fake


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 23, 2002)

Spoiler ALert***




I just saw the movie and thought it was pretty good, but definitely a kids story.  A few things really bothered me though.  The biggest being the sound effects.  It was like the sound effect crews went wild.  The brooms has jet sounds, the giant snake hit rocks like Tow Missles striking Iraqi tanks.  It was over the top and detracted from a few of the scenes.

The only other thing I did not like were the holes in the basic concept of the world.  For instance, they are in a magic school and during a game of broom rugby, the ball goes after harry.  The entire staff watches and does nothing as the ball nearly kills him and destroys the bleachers and other parts of the field.  In the end, it is an eleven year old girl who has to save the day.  

The other scene that sticks out in my mind is during the wizards dule class, Harry and the little blond kid are brought up in front of the class so the instructors can teach defense spells.  The teachers then step back and let two kids whip offensive spells back and forth without as much as a blink of an eye.  There were other smaller instances, but those two scenes pulled me out of the story which is a bad thing for the viewer.


----------



## Moe Ronalds (Nov 23, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Spoiler ALert***
> 
> 
> 
> ...




well if I remember correctly from the book the professor teaching how to Duel was either Lockhart or Snape. Lockhart is a total idiot and Snape probably almost wants to see someone get hurt.


----------



## Mark (Nov 23, 2002)

I found it to be a bit choppy, plot-wise, for the same reasons mentioned above (car, spiders, lack of interest from the instructors, etc.)  Definitely darker than the first, but as someone who did not read the books, I had fewer times during the first movie where I was wondering why something was happening (and not being answered by the film.)

2004 for the next release?  And they have a fourth movie planned?  For 2006, perhaps?  Those kids are going to grow a bit before then...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 23, 2002)

I totally agree the Chamber of Secrets was not the best made movie.  I really think they aimed this at the people who read the book, and not people new to Harry Potter.  

The teachers have always been passive in their teaching methods allowing the students to do some expermenting and get injuried.  They seem to trust the healing powers of magic.


----------



## Samnell (Nov 24, 2002)

Moe Ronalds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> well if I remember correctly from the book the professor teaching how to Duel was either Lockhart or Snape. Lockhart is a total idiot and Snape probably almost wants to see someone get hurt. *




Both, actually. The duelling club seemed to be Lockhart's idea mainly, but Snape came along as his "assistant". Probably just for a chance to blast him in front of the students.

Hogwart's teachers are typically very cavalier about student injury, though. Madame Pomfrey seems to be able to fix anything shy of death. She describes broken bones as taking a minute to fix. When a student is in the Hospital for more than a day, it's probably something a lot more serious than an arm-deboning.

There is genuine concern on the part of the staff in regards to more serious issues. The Basilisk from the Chamber is considered a dire threat and the school nearly closes over serial petrifications with the possibility for a fatality. Hogwarts is locked down even more seriously in the third book when an escaped murderer is known to be nearby.

There's also the restricted section in the library where students can't read without a teacher's note to permit it. That's where really dangerous works are kept, excepting times when certain young Gryffindors abscond with them. I suspect that certain potion ingredients are kept secured in Snape's office instead of in the open stores for similar reasons.

In the fourth book, age restrictions are placed on a tournament to prevent untrained young wizards from getting killed. So they're not totally heartless (though I do wonder about Snape...) but simple physical injury seems to be trivial to them.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2002)

In addition, I believe the books mention some kids die on rare occassion while playing "broom rugby", as someone just called it.  The school is dangerous, more so than most schools.


----------



## Samnell (Nov 24, 2002)

Quidditch deaths are supposed to be quite rare, but referees have been known to go missing for months to turn up later in the middle of the Sahara. I suspect serious bodily injury is common, though.


----------



## reapersaurus (Nov 24, 2002)

umm...   this movie sucked.

These opinions are coming from a couple who have not read the books, but appreciated the fantasy elements of the first movie.

KnowtheToe and others have only mentioned a couple of the HUGE problems the 2nd movie has, but those only scratch the surface.

Our guess is that they are now glossing over many areas of the book that are required for understanding WEHY things happen in the movie.
that is unfortunate, though expected.
Many movies do this with popular books.
It's disappointing that they accomplished this tough task (not requiring the reading of the book to enjoy/understand the movie) with the first, but not the 2nd.

I'll quote Crothian, I think first:







> It did seem a little rushed, I wish the movie was longer. The thing I disliked was the flying car when Harry and Ron where trying to get to the school. They found themselves in front of the train and Harry almost feel out. It seemed pointless as it really didn't help the story and there realyl was no tension in that scene. I also think they should have explained the car when it acted on its own to save Harry and Ron from the Spiders. That doesn't make any sense from just watching the movie.



ya, it seemed rushed, and interminably long at the same time.
This movie was over 2 1/2 hours long!!  I was shocked, and after an hour and a quarter, it was seeming long to my wife.

The beginning scene with the car was totally unneccessary to the story.
It detracted immediately from the film.
If they had brain one in their heads, they never would have been in danger from the train.

And the car-as-deus-ex-machina I could not BELIEVE!
I was literally jaw-dropping shocked that they brought that stupid CAR in to save them after filming themselves into a corner with the spiders.

And the spiders!!
Oh my goodness, was that a HUGE mistake.
I don't know ehere to begin with that problem, so I'll leave that to the obvious problems it presents.

Moving on, the charlatan instructor (briilliantly played by Branagh) was a big problem over time.
Not only was he incompetent as an instructor (why would they have hired this man??!!), but he was evil as well.
He mind-wiped other wizards who he stole the stories from, and would have done so to the kids??

But he was stupid enough to call out a real wizard (Snape) for the duel so that he could get his butt kicked?
That whole scene was flawed.
Seriuously flawed to the point that I don't understand how anybody can miss these.

Maybe reading the book makes it all different, but when  talking about a FILM, you should always be commenting on what they put on screeen, not what was written on the page in the book.

And there's more problems i don't have time for:
--- having a Ghost - Moaning Myrtle - be so annoying that they have to shut down parts of the school
--  having the Basilisk be so large, yet noone saw/heard it moving around other than Harry?
--  the stupid cursed-ball destroying major parts of the schholgrounds, probably killing multiple students if they were realistic, yet the 2nd year student has power to stop it??!!  WTF??

many more, but those are the problems which threw me and my wife coimpletely out of enjoying the wonder of the fantasy elements they included, and started making us ask, "Why are those elements there?"


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 24, 2002)

Where I am truely surprised is how many adults have read and liked the books.  The books may be good, but these movies do not motivate me to read them.  These movies seem the same level as the Goonies, but instead of pirates, it is wizards.


----------



## Samnell (Nov 25, 2002)

> Where I am truely surprised is how many adults have read and liked the books.




The books are amazing. You get what Rowling means when she says she's not writing for some imaginary eight year old audience. Not so much in the first two, but the second... The more adult stuff in the third is easy to miss, but when you realize that Harry and Lupin in particular are very serious about what they intend to do, it's a different story. Very human and un-sanitized.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 25, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *
> And there's more problems i don't have time for:
> --- having a Ghost - Moaning Myrtle - be so annoying that they have to shut down parts of the school
> --  having the Basilisk be so large, yet noone saw/heard it moving around other than Harry?
> ...




Well, Parts of the school weren't closed down because of Myrtle, it's just no one went into the lavatory she haunts.  

Baskilisks/snakes are pretty quiet, even the large one.  I havea friend who had a 14 foot python, it was soundless.  

The cursed ball never went through the crowds, the area it went through was places no one could be.  That whole area was the stadium and there are many parts were no one is.  And anyone could have stopped it, but not during the game.  That would be like destroying the baseball when it was in play.


----------



## Samnell (Nov 25, 2002)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Baskilisks/snakes are pretty quiet, even the large one.  I havea friend who had a 14 foot python, it was soundless.   [/B]




The basilisk also got a size increase for the movie. The scene where they find the shed skin in the book has Harry estimating it was 20 feet long. In the movie, iirc, it was sixty feet long.

I would not have noticed that if not for having read the passage in the book about a day after my second time watching the movie.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 25, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *Where I am truely surprised is how many adults have read and liked the books.  The books may be good, but these movies do not motivate me to read them.  These movies seem the same level as the Goonies, but instead of pirates, it is wizards. *




I love children's books: from the Prydain Chronicles through the Dark is Rising series, from His Dark Materials through Lemony Snicket, I read lots of kid's fantasy, and always have.

Rowling is good, no question, but she's far from the best IMO.  I think Lloyd Alexander is the most skillful morality-play writer (inasmuch as the morals are very well hidden and very germane to the rollicking adventure); Roald Dahl is a much funnier author; and Phillip Pullman just blows everyone away as a creator of a bizarre but wholly believable world.

Lots of folks, obviously, disagree with me .  I recommend reading Rowling's books -- they certainly are entertaining -- but don't expect something as earth-shatteringly brilliant as _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_.

Daniel


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 25, 2002)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Never read the books, but my wife has. We went saturday (11-16-02) and the place was, of course, sold out. I found the movie to be very strong. Witty, with a really good story and great visuals. Some of the highpoints being the castle itself (almost a character unto itself), the curious book that harry finds, and the chamber itself. The ending was good, but led me to a question that I got a slightly disappointing answer to...
> 
> 
> SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
> ...




Yeah, it was real horrible when I found out that Sauron, of all people, was behind all the villany in LotR. And that Arawn was the root cause of all the badness in the Chronicles and Prydain, and . . . 

You get the idea.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 25, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Phillip Pullman just blows everyone away as a creator of a bizarre but wholly believable world.
> 
> ...




I have also read a lot of childrens literature.  Pullman's work was awe inspiring until the third book where it starts to get preachy.  I would recommend fully anyone read the first 2 books.  I warn you, you will want to read the third and IMO, it was a pile of crap.


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 25, 2002)

You are corrrect in assuming that the problems you bring up were created by the moviemakers, not by Rowling.  They all make sense in the book, but were poorly executed or explained in the movie.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *The beginning scene with the car was totally unneccessary to the story.
> It detracted immediately from the film.
> If they had brain one in their heads, they never would have been in danger from the train.*



IIRC, those were invented for the movie, and serve no purpose.  In the book, they only start having trouble when they start to run out of gas near Hogwarts.



> *And the car-as-deus-ex-machina I could not BELIEVE!
> I was literally jaw-dropping shocked that they brought that stupid CAR in to save them after filming themselves into a corner with the spiders.*



That's actually from the book, though the spider scene was different.  In the book it makes it clearer that the car has become sentient, and is doing them a favour out of a sense of loyalty.  



> *And the spiders!!
> Oh my goodness, was that a HUGE mistake.
> I don't know ehere to begin with that problem, so I'll leave that to the obvious problems it presents.*



In the book there is only one giant spider, and he hides in the depths of the forest with a ton of normal spiders.  In the book it also makes it clearer that Hagrid is a softie when it comes to his creatures, not believing that they are harmful to others.

The muppet of the huge spider was also too fake looking.



> *Moving on, the charlatan instructor (briilliantly played by Branagh) was a big problem over time.
> Not only was he incompetent as an instructor (why would they have hired this man??!!), but he was evil as well.
> He mind-wiped other wizards who he stole the stories from, and would have done so to the kids??*



While Branagh was brilliant, the direction was ham-fisted, making it obvious from the beginning that Lockhart is incompetent, while in the books that only comes out gradually.



> *Seriuously flawed to the point that I don't understand how anybody can miss these.  Maybe reading the book makes it all different, but when  talking about a FILM, you should always be commenting on what they put on screeen, not what was written on the page in the book.*



We missed them because we've read the book and understand the context.  Not that you should have to have read the book to understand the movie, but that's the way it is.



> *--- having a Ghost - Moaning Myrtle - be so annoying that they have to shut down parts of the school*



They didn't shut down the bathroom, people just avoided it because Myrtle is annoying.



> * having the Basilisk be so large, yet noone saw/heard it moving around other than Harry?*



Firstly, it wasn't that huge in the book.  Second, it moved around through the pipes in the walls (though the movie neglects to mention this).  That's why Harry heard voices in the walls.


> *many more, but those are the problems which threw me and my wife coimpletely out of enjoying the wonder of the fantasy elements they included, and started making us ask, "Why are those elements there?" *



Because the director is a hollywood hack?     This movie had many good points, but also suffered from most of the flaws that made the first movie hopelessly mediocre.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 25, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *Firstly, it wasn't that huge in the book.  Second, it moved around through the pipes in the walls (though the movie neglects to mention this).  That's why Harry heard voices in the walls.*




Actually, they do comment on this in the movie. They quite clearly state that the basilisk has been using Hogwart's pipe system to move around the school.


----------



## reapersaurus (Nov 26, 2002)

Michael Tree - nice to hear from you again, and nice to have somebody TRY to explain the baffling mistakes in the film.

About the basilisk sneaking around - I hope you don't swallow the idea of a 60 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes.  

What was shown in the movie was one entrance (the huge fountain). There is NO WAY any pipes are large enough to allow that monstrosity to travel thru them.

About Moaning Myrtle: 
I was getting at the idea that the first film presented the ghosts as being a cool ADDITION to the school: 
the 2nd film is making it seem like the ghosts are an IRRITATION.

Not something that is very smart to allow on your grounds.
(Now, I'm aware that they may feel some sense of guilt about MM, but it's still a very bad idea to undermine the coolness of the ghosts on campus by showing a non-beneficial one on screen.)

About the spiders: so the movie needlessly RUINED the entire concept of the spiders?!
Sheesh - and here I was, losing some of my hatred for that hack director.

I have MANY more problems I wrote out about the film, if anyone would like to discuss or hear.

Michael - I'm interested  - what DID the film do well?

On my list, the only thing I liked was the idea of wizards dueling, and the racism/classism angle.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 26, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have also read a lot of childrens literature.  Pullman's work was awe inspiring until the third book where it starts to get preachy.  I would recommend fully anyone read the first 2 books.  I warn you, you will want to read the third and IMO, it was a pile of crap. *




Not to hijack too much, but I disagree:  I thought the third book of the series was the most powerful of the three.  True, it does portray a world pretty hostile to religion, and you can definitely hear Pullman's voice coming through -- but it works very well as fiction.

Daniel


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 26, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *About the basilisk sneaking around - I hope you don't swallow the idea of a 60 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes.
> 
> What was shown in the movie was one entrance (the huge fountain). There is NO WAY any pipes are large enough to allow that monstrosity to travel thru them.*




It is a magical creature. Could it not change size perhaps? It isn't stated, but it _is_ a creature clearly powered by magic, like the phoenix (who shows up because Harry is "loyal" to Dumbeldore), who knows what its size changing powers might be. Besides, Hogworts clearly has unusual architecture, I could easily accept the idea that is had a bunch of large pipes throughout its structure.



> *About Moaning Myrtle:
> I was getting at the idea that the first film presented the ghosts as being a cool ADDITION to the school:
> the 2nd film is making it seem like the ghosts are an IRRITATION.*




They can't be both? The ghosts are just dead people. Are there not people who are irritations in your world, as well as people who are additions?


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 27, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *umm...   this movie sucked.
> 
> These opinions are coming from a couple who have not read the books, but appreciated the fantasy elements of the first movie.
> 
> ...




Damn, but you are hard to please!!!!!! 
First of all, what movie do you honestly (repeat: honestly) know of that is perfect? And you have never even read the books!! You should know that movies always suck more than the book!
And you mentioned being bothere that lockhart was an idiot. He was supposed to be!!!!!! The whole point of his character was that he was a pretty-boy wannabe backstreet boy that got hired for completely the wrong job. 
*Takes a deep breath*
I would argue more, But I have just realized that you're not worth my time. 
*Sticks out her tongue and leaves haughtily*


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2002)

Hopefully she'll be back to argue more when she is calmer.  That was pretty good.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 27, 2002)

Are you saying I'm not a calm, rational person?????!!!!!!! 
The nerve.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 27, 2002)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> *Are you saying I'm not a calm, rational person?????!!!!!!!
> The nerve. *




I'm saying that your last post had a quality to it that indicated you were a little upset.  That's all.


----------



## Enchantress (Nov 27, 2002)

Aaaahhhhhhh! How sweet! You noticed!


----------



## Michael Tree (Nov 27, 2002)

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *Michael Tree - nice to hear from you again, and nice to have somebody TRY to explain the baffling mistakes in the film.*



My pleasure.    The HP books are great, and I dislike it when people get the wrong idea about them based on movies produced by hollywood hacks.



> *About the basilisk sneaking around - I hope you don't swallow the idea of a 60 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes.  *



No, but I do swallow the idea of a 20 ft snake sneaking thru the school's pipes. 



> *I was getting at the idea that the first film presented the ghosts as being a cool ADDITION to the school:
> the 2nd film is making it seem like the ghosts are an IRRITATION.*



They're both, and many other things besides.  Peeves is a PITA, the Bloody Baron is downright frightening, NHNick is a nice patron, and Myrtle is annoying.



> *I have MANY more problems I wrote out about the film, if anyone would like to discuss or hear.
> 
> Michael - I'm interested  - what DID the film do well?*




By all means, but I'd also like to hear what you liked.  It's very easy to get caught up with the negatives, and forget about the positives.

I liked the greater darkness and drama in this movie, as opposed to the purely flat and mechanical presentation of the first movie.  The three kids were all surprisingly good, and seemed to have developed a real sense of comraderie since the first movie.  If only the kid playing Malfoy could act.   I was particularly impressed with the acting of Tom Riddle, and the subtle way that whole plot was developed.  Finally, the visual presentation and art design was great, from the appearance of the mandrakes, to the design of the Chamber of Secrets, even to the final image of harry stabbing the book.

The aspects of the movie that most irritated me were, in order or most to least irritating:

- Richard Harris once again utterly murdering the character of Dumbledore.  Dumbledore is not a doddering ancient half-corpse.  He's a lively eccentric, with more life and wisdom in him than any two other characters, and a complete awareness of everything that's going on (the scene with the cloak in Hagrid's hut was decently done in that regard, but that's it).  Dumbledore is an old English word for bumblebee, with J.K.Rowling chose because she pictured him wandering from hallway to hallway, happily humming to himself.  (I've heard a rumor that Tom Baker, of Dr. Who fame, may be playing the role.  If he looks the part, the eccentric livliness and wisdom may finally come out.)

*ahem*

- The sword of Griffindor looks like a cheap toy.  This was the sword of a grown man, so it shouldn't be scaled for a boy, and should look like a real sword, not a shiny plastic one.

- And a bunch of things you've already mentioned, particularly the unneccessary car scenes, the fake-looking spiders, and Lockhart being portrayed as an incompetent from the very beginning, rather than as a merely vain and self-absorbed wizard.

I found dobby annoying, but then I found dobby annoying in the book too, so that's hardly surprising.  The Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite of the HP books, but I was riveted to my seats for many parts of this movie, especially the ending.


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 28, 2002)

Well, I saw it today and I quite liked it. More than the original.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 1, 2002)

Good post, Michael.

I also thought they pulled off the darker feel, but personally I feel it should have stayed lighter (remember, I haven't had the books 'taint' my impression of the movies.  I'm serious.)
I don't think that what they presented in the first film can necessarily withstand an assault on its characater and spirit by having so many dark elements thrown in the 2nd film.
Each time they have a dark element, it jars me out of this happy, safe, kid-like heroic story-world that they presented in the first film.

The sets WERE great, especially the Chamber with the huge snake-heads. I kept saying to my wife, "Geez, is that a SET?!"
Tom Riddle WAS good, and actually just about all the character were good (I didn't know that about Dumbledore's book personality).

The problems I have (Enchantress...) are with the jarringly-bad STORY.
It's like they have this beautifully-layed out castle, world, and characters, and their actions are being directed by a nincompoop who has no understanding of rational actions.

For example, why would they repeatedly show spiders leaving the scene of the crime, and NOT have Harry follow them? Or even point them out to his 'trusted' superiors?
If they AREN'T trusted (i.e. Dumbledore), than they have just broken one of the conventions they established in the first film.

Further, why WERE the spiders there at the scene?
They weren't involved in the crimes (as established in the "Spider-Scene"), so why did they show Harry repeatedly seeing them leaving a proverbial trail of crumbs that he kept ignoring?

Enchantress, it's not asking for perfection in a movie - if you think that it's asking much to not present a story that has a frickin' CAR act as the Hand of God and pull Harry and Ron's butts out of the fire that HAGRID HIMSELF threw them in, than you really should look at the movie without rose-colored glasses on.

That's not a quibble.
That's not a 'gripe'.
That's an insanely stupid scene, with HUGE story problems created because of BAD direction combined with BAD writing.
(to wit: 
** Hagrid basically mudered the kids by sending them there.
** Army of flesh-eating spiders in close proximity to kid's retreat.
** Car being omniscient.
** Bad looking big spider.
** Why is Hagrid friends to an army of Evil spiders? (eating schoolboys qualifies as a sign that they are Evil, in my book, how bout yours?)

Michael - you mentioned the bad acting of the boy Malfoy.
I was confused at the end of the movie - Harry calls the older Slitherin "Malfoy" - I'm sure of that.
But when I heard it, I could have sworn I remembered them calling the younger blonde boy Slitherin "Malfoy"?

I already mentioned that I liked the racism/classism angle - lots of good grist for drama there.

Here are some other problems with the story, not with the execution (for the most part):
1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people during the summer? They showed him being systematically abused, and then send him back home at the end of each movie??!
It makes no sense - here's a world where everyone reveres Harry like a celebrity (he's even got fans), yet he has to go back to Abusive-Muggle-Land in the off-season?
Not damn likely - He'd stay at the school, or with the Weasely's

2) Why did Dobby go WAY out of his way to 'protect' Harry?
At that point in the story, Harry wasn't in any more damnger than anyone else at the school, right?
As far as Dobby knew, his master was going to give the Weasely girl Riddle's diary and have her open the Chamber of Screts.
How does that endanger Harry more than any other student?
He SHOULD have been warning the Weasely girl.

3) The afore-mentioned flying car in front of the train scene.

4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace. 
Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill the kids that go there?

5) Why is so much story happening in the girl's bathroom? 

6) Why did ALL the students spontaneously show up in the hallway right after the first attack? Some internal Trouble-Alert in the school? 

7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?

8) They never thought to look at the big piece of paper crumpled up in Hermione's hand?!

9) Something smacked me as wrong about "I am Lord Voldemort" being created from his Muggle name, and I can't put my finger on it.

10) Harry and Ron were uncharacteristically aggressive with Lockhart. They actually pushed a grown adult male BACK? Then pushed him down the open well that they didn't know what the bottom was?
Further, WHY would Lockhart have been frightened in any way by being 'guarded' by Ron Weasely and his broken wand pointing at him?

11) The Chamber of Secrets scene:
a) I didn't like Harry dropping his wand while looking on the girl - too stupid, and he'd be unlikely to drop the only thing that makes him different from a normal little kid.
b) Speaking of just being a Muggle, it was quite insulting to the viewer (IMO) to have the entire film's drama resolved because a little kid kills the Basilisk. There is NO WAY a normal kid could kill this monster that frightened generations of powerful mages.
They never should have had the drama resolved by relying on Harry's physical skills.
It would be like Luke defeating the Emperor by taking out a book and studying him to death - it doesn't fit, and Luke's schtick is not being good at reading.
c) The Phoenix conveniently showing up and blinding the Basilisk. 
Another example of Deus-ex-Machina in the story.
d) The Pheonix's tears (?!) healing Harry from certain death - another deus ex machina.

12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16 year old self" is problematic.
If he can create a diary that could take over any kid and make him live again, than he effectively can never be destroyed.
BTW: HOW did the girl get taken over by the power of Voldemort, yet somehow escape the power to throw the book away so Harry could find it?

Now some of these might be explained by info from the books, and Id be happy to hear from anyone who has read them and can 'correct', or explain any of them.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 1, 2002)

BTW: almost all the above are all surface problems - no over-analyzing going on, they are all things that come to mind the instant they are shown on the screen, so you can't just wave your hand and say "It doesn't have to be perfect" , or "You're looking too far into it."

They are problems with the movie.
If anyone can refute the observations from then movie, I'd be happy to be mistaken.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 1, 2002)

Reapersaurus -> I quite agree with what you said. At times I was looking at the movie and thinking to myself "isn't this going anywhere?".

Not wanting to get into the ages old Tim Hunter/Harry Potter debate, why doesn't Harry, the most famous wizard-boy in the world, EVER solve anything by magic? He barely even cast spells in either movie!

And Lockhart, who managed to wipe the memory of some very powerful wizards (powerful enough that their deeds earned him fame), was unable to do so with two boys who have been wizards for little over a year, one of them with an obviously broken wand?


----------



## Moe Ronalds (Dec 1, 2002)

^ he couldn't wipe their memories because he used Ron's wand, so it backfired. Unless I'm cracked...


----------



## Klaus (Dec 1, 2002)

No, before that. When Harry and Ron caught him in his room getting ready to leave. He got his wand ready to wipe their memories, but lowered it when Harry and Ron pointed their wands at him.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 1, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
> .
> .
> .
> ...



Gee, I hope you've stated your above opinion with due respect to the late actor, considering he passed away this year.


----------



## Samnell (Dec 1, 2002)

Klaus said:
			
		

> *No, before that. When Harry and Ron caught him in his room getting ready to leave. He got his wand ready to wipe their memories, but lowered it when Harry and Ron pointed their wands at him. *




I think it's established that Lockhart is a coward. A blustering coward, but a coward still. When Harry and Ron beat him on the draw, he was too afraid of whatever they were going to do to see if he could beat them to the spell.

In the Potterverse, to cast a spell on someone or something, one generally needs to have a wand out, speak the words, and have the wand pointed at the target. There are some exceptions, but it's established that the Memory Charm is not one of them. Ron and Harry had their wands practically in Lockhart's face. He might have been able to get one of them, but the other would have had a spell or two on him easy.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Dec 1, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Young annoying bastard: Draco Malfoy
Older annoying bastard: Lucius Malfoy

I agree that the spider scene was over done (too many, too big spiders). Hagrid thought that since the spiders wouldn't hurt him, they wouldn't hurt his friends.

*1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people during the summer? They showed him being systematically abused, and then send him back home at the end of each movie??!
It makes no sense - here's a world where everyone reveres Harry like a celebrity (he's even got fans), yet he has to go back to Abusive-Muggle-Land in the off-season?
Not damn likely - He'd stay at the school, or with the Weasely's*

They're his relatives. I don't think he gets the choice. (The school closes over the summer.) He stays at the school over christmas, when most of the students go home.

*7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?
*

They did know that, but Voldemort's not a danger anymore.

*12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16 year old self" is problematic.
If he can create a diary that could take over any kid and make him live again, than he effectively can never be destroyed.
BTW: HOW did the girl get taken over by the power of Voldemort, yet somehow escape the power to throw the book away so Harry could find it?*

In the book, it took quite a while for the diary to gain influence over her. She thought it was just a nice person to write to. She threw it away when she realised that it was draining her, but too late.

Geoff.


----------



## Samnell (Dec 2, 2002)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?
> *
> 
> They did know that, but Voldemort's not a danger anymore.




Probably not the sort of thing you'd be proud of either. I don't think Hogwarts spent a lot of time on a PR campaign about it. Maybe students in advanced Defense Against the Dark Arts find out about it, but Harry's not one of those and not even native to the Wizarding World. It's not surprising that he wouldn't know.

As for why this might be news to people like Ron who lived all their lives knowing of Voldemort, in the book Dumbledore explains that Tom Riddle disappeared after graduating Hogwarts and underwent many painful and dramatic magical transformations so he was virtually unrecognizeable when he returned.

Tom Riddle, age 16, doesn't look anything like the Voldemort face on the back of Quirrel's head at the end of the first movie. Nor does Harry recognize any similarity when they meet and as a person who's met Voldemort face to face just in the past year and had the face haunt his nightmares since, he would be exactly the person to make the connection.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 2, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace.
> Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill the kids that go there?
> *




There actually is a good reason, but you don't find out what it is until the third book/movie.



> *9) Something smacked me as wrong about "I am Lord Voldemort" being created from his Muggle name, and I can't put my finger on it.
> *




If you were going to create a new name out of your current one, who the heck would add "I am" into the mix? He'd be much more likely to name himself "Lord Voldemiortam" or something. This struck me as a bit odd, too.

Overall, I really liked the movie more than the first one; they took what I thought was the weakest of the books and made it sing on screen. It isn't flawless, but I think it was pretty good. With a new director, and a _real_ director, it'll be interesting to see how the third movie comes out.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 2, 2002)

You have a lot of legitimate concerns reapersaurus, but I'll try to explain those that are better explained in the book.  Some are just bad Hollywood moviemaking, and some are inherent in the differences between the film medium and the written medium.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *Each time they have a dark element, it jars me out of this happy, safe, kid-like heroic story-world that they presented in the first film.*



Get used to it.  It only gets darker from here.  There is still a kid-like story-world, but it has some seriously dark currents running through it.



> *For example, why would they repeatedly show spiders leaving the scene of the crime, and NOT have Harry follow them? Or even point them out to his 'trusted' superiors?
> If they AREN'T trusted (i.e. Dumbledore), than they have just broken one of the conventions they established in the first film.*



Would you climb out the window of a castle to follow a bunch of spiders?  They were likely not on the first floor you know.

Besides, you have to bear in mind that due to the nature of movies, anything that is mentioned is automatically emphasized, because a movie is short and time is a premium.  However, in a book a lot of things can be mentioned without emphasizing them, because there's over 200 pages full of text and description.

Harry and his friends also have an unfortunate tendency to try to fix things themselves.  They trust the elders (well, Dumbledore anyway) but aren't completely forthcoming about everything they know and observe, for a number of reasons.



> *Further, why WERE the spiders there at the scene?
> They weren't involved in the crimes (as established in the "Spider-Scene"), so why did they show Harry repeatedly seeing them leaving a proverbial trail of crumbs that he kept ignoring?*



Coincidence?  The spiders fled because they were afraid of the basilisk.  I don't recall if Harry and company saw the spiders leaving at the scenes of the petrifications in the book, or if they saw them at some other time. 



> *
> Why is Hagrid friends to an army of Evil spiders? (eating schoolboys qualifies as a sign that they are Evil, in my book, how bout yours?)*



Hagrid is a real softie when it comes to beasts.  He doesn't see them as dangerous, because they're all softies inside.  When he sent the boys to Aragog, he thought he was sending them to a friend who would help them.



> *I was confused at the end of the movie - Harry calls the older Slitherin "Malfoy" - I'm sure of that.
> But when I heard it, I could have sworn I remembered them calling the younger blonde boy Slitherin "Malfoy"?*




They're both Malfoys.  The young one is Draco Malfoy, and the older one is his father.



> *1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people during the summer? They showed him being systematically abused, and then send him back home at the end of each movie??!*



Because he doesn't have a choice.  They're his guardians, as he doesn't have any parents or relatives.  In the books you get a definite feeling that Dumbledore has other reasons for sending him back to the Dursleys every summer.



> *2) Why did Dobby go WAY out of his way to 'protect' Harry?*



Because Dobby's an idiot.   Besides, you're assuming that Dobby knew exact the nature of Malfoy's plans, which may not be true.



> *4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace.
> Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill the kids that go there?*



There's a reason for this, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, as it doesn't come out until later.

Rowling has an amazing ability to tie all her books together.  There are little comments and descriptions that seem to be just interesting fluff or description, but which take on whole new meanings when the events of later book take place.  I'm sure there are things that I breezed over in the first four books that I'll suddenly realize "my god, so that's what that meant!" while reading one of the new ones.

As an example, in the first book Harry talks to a snake.  At the time it was no big deal, right, just one magical power that Harry exibits among many.  In the second book, it takes on a whole new significance.



> *5) Why is so much story happening in the girl's bathroom? *



Because they need a secret place to make their potion, where no one else will go? 



> *6) Why did ALL the students spontaneously show up in the hallway right after the first attack? Some internal Trouble-Alert in the school? *



Coincidence.  The students were being escorted in groups between classes and the dinner haul, if you remember.



> *7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up to be Voldemort?*



Not everyone knew that Tom Riddle became Voldemort (Riddle disappeared for years after graduating, and came back very changed by his dark arts), thought Dumbledore and some others certainly did.  However, they didn't know that Tom Riddle had anything to do with the problems the school was having.  Only Ginny and Harry knew that, from reading the diary.



> *8) They never thought to look at the big piece of paper crumpled up in Hermione's hand?!*



Maybe they didn't see it.  They were a bit preoccupied with death threats and ancient terrors to be searching a girl for clues. The fact that she was petrified was clue enough.



> *9) Something smacked me as wrong about "I am Lord Voldemort" being created from his Muggle name, and I can't put my finger on it.*



Suit yourself.  Personally I think it's brilliant.  Try it, it works.  Tom Marvolo Riddle.



> *10) Harry and Ron were uncharacteristically aggressive with Lockhart. They actually pushed a grown adult male BACK? Then pushed him down the open well that they didn't know what the bottom was?
> Further, WHY would Lockhart have been frightened in any way by being 'guarded' by Ron Weasely and his broken wand pointing at him?*



By that point both Harry and Ron believed Lockhart to be a vainglorious idiot, so were hostile with him.  Ron has a bit of a nasty streak.

I'd be _more_ frightened of Ron holding a broken wand than Ron holding an intact one.  There's no way to predict how it's going to react.



> *a) I didn't like Harry dropping his wand while looking on the girl - too stupid, and he'd be unlikely to drop the only thing that makes him different from a normal little kid.*



  Perhaps, but not definitely.  He was going to help Ginny, and probably just put it down, thinking he'd be able to pick it up at the least sign of trouble.



> *b) Speaking of just being a Muggle, it was quite insulting to the viewer (IMO) to have the entire film's drama resolved because a little kid kills the Basilisk. There is NO WAY a normal kid could kill this monster that frightened generations of powerful mages.*



Remember that in the book the Basilisk isn't nearly as huge, and Harry was given the sword of a legendary hero.  Also bear in mind that mages were afraid of the basislisk because of it's gaze, not neccessarily its physical prowess.



> *c) The Phoenix conveniently showing up and blinding the Basilisk.
> Another example of Deus-ex-Machina in the story.
> d) The Pheonix's tears (?!) healing Harry from certain death - another deus ex machina.*



These are set up much better in the book, though I can't quite explain how.



> *12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16 year old self" is problematic.
> If he can create a diary that could take over any kid and make him live again, than he effectively can never be destroyed.
> BTW: HOW did the girl get taken over by the power of Voldemort, yet somehow escape the power to throw the book away so Harry could find it?*



The domination was intermittent.  The diary wasn't intended as a resurrection device, but as a simple diary or guide.  Voldemort believed they he could never be destroyed, with good reason, so didn't feel the need for such little devices.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 2, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Gee, I hope you've stated your above opinion with due respect to the late actor, considering he passed away this year. *



Although I didn't say so, it was said with all due respect.  I was sorry to hear that he had died, as he was a great actor, but his death didn't make me dislike what he did with the Dumbledore character any less.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Dec 2, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you were going to create a new name out of your current one, who the heck would add "I am" into the mix? He'd be much more likely to name himself "Lord Voldemiortam" or something. This struck me as a bit odd, too.
> 
> *




Because "Voldemort" means something, and "Voldemiortam" is just nonsense.

Geoff.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 2, 2002)

1) Why would Harry even think about going back to those horrible people
during the summer?

>>>They are his legal guardians and that is where he has to go, it's the
law.

2) Why did Dobby go WAY out of his way to 'protect' Harry?

>>>Probably because Harry is the star of the books.  It could also be
because Harry fended of Voldemort.  The Malfroy's have a connection with
Voldemort and Dobby could very well know about it.

3) The afore-mentioned flying car in front of the train scene.

>>>Completely ridiculous and should have been left on the cutting room
floor.

4) It was jarring to have the Tree they smashed into be such a menace.
Why would they allow these things on the schoolgrounds if they would kill
the kids that go there?

>>>It's safely away from anywhere the kids would need to go.  Hogwarts is
not a 100% safe place as is shown all the time.

7) The Powers That Be never knew that TomRiddle (their own student) grew up
to be Voldemort?

>>>Yes, they know Tom Riddle becomes Voldmort.  It is not common knowledge,
but Dumbledor knows, and probably other teachers as well.

8) They never thought to look at the big piece of paper crumpled up in
Hermione's hand?!

>>>They were more concerned in her safety.  They probably never saw it.

10) Harry and Ron were uncharacteristically aggressive with Lockhart. They
actually pushed a grown adult male BACK? Then pushed him down the open well
that they didn't know what the bottom was?
Further, WHY would Lockhart have been frightened in any way by being
'guarded' by Ron Weasely and his broken wand pointing at him?

>>>It was shown from the beginning that neither kid trusted or liked
Lockhart.  When they learned he was a fraud they lost all respect for him
and since he was going to leave the Weasley daughter die.  AS for why he was
scared of Ron, Lockhart did not know Ron's wand was broken.  Further, in the
movie it shows the kids have spell knowledge that can disable even a full
grown Wizard.

11) The Chamber of Secrets scene:

>>>It's a kids book and a kids a movie.  Simple solutions are called for.
It was at least set up from early on that the Phoenix would help out and be
able to heal.

12) This whole concept of Voldemort creating a diary which "contains his 16
year old self" is problematic.

>>>Convenient plot device and it is all better explained in the book.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 2, 2002)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Because "Voldemort" means something.
> *




It does? What? It certainly doesn't show up in my dictionary. Other than the root word meaning death, I'm pretty sure that Voldemort is a nonsense word as well. Am I wrong?


----------



## loxmyth (Dec 2, 2002)

I recall hearing from my sister (who studies French)  that Voldemort is very close to 'Thief of Death' when translated...  and Malfoy means 'Bad Thoughts'.

HTH!


----------



## Richards (Dec 2, 2002)

If I remember correctly, "Voldemort" means "death of flying" or "flying death" or something similar.  French, I believe.

Johnathan


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 3, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> Although I didn't say so, it was said with all due respect.  I was sorry to hear that he had died, as he was a great actor, but his death didn't make me dislike what he did with the Dumbledore character any less. *



Oh, well. At least most of the _HP_ fans, the children, has taken a liking to him.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 3, 2002)

French is such a funny language...

"voler" is a verb that means both "to fly" and "to steal".
"mort" means "dead" or "death"

So Voldemort could be translated as stealing the dead or stealing the death, or flight of death, or flight of the dead...

"Malfoy" translates roughly as "Bad faith" (literally "mauvais foi", "mal" means "badly", "mauvais" means "bad"), acting with bad faith in French could mean something like making bad things knowing they are bad.

Horacio "Livving in France is sometimes useful" Gonzalez


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 6, 2002)

I enjoyed the second film a lot compared to the first. I thought Harry was excellent, he's really started to come across as a strong character and a leader. Hermione is also gaining the ability to be an interesting character, not just a know it all.

However, someone obviously told Ron about acting, and his continual mugging and turning slowly wide eyed was pretty irritating to me...but no worries.

I didn't like the early car scene, but at least it was done quite well. Nicely cements Harry and Ron's friendship.

I liked Dumbledore! I thought Harris gave him exactly that kind of surface veneer of quiet gentility, with an undercurrent of real brilliance that only comes through when needed.

Moaning Myrtle was funny. Espcially when she offers Harry the chance to share her toilet if he dies...

Lockhart was fun, although too obviously an idiot. The best line was the "Terribly sorry. Fell asleep. Have I missed anything?"

Oh, and call me a terrible emotional idiot, but when Hermione had been de-petrified and she ran back through the hall to Harry and there was a big hug...that was nice. I liked that. Espicially when she then turned to Ron, and they both kind of paused, and didn't hug the same.

PS: My money is on Hermione and Ron getting together at some point, before she realises (at age 16-18, whatever) that she should be with Harry. Kind of a Xander/Willow -> Xander/Anya and Willow/Tara kind of situation.


----------



## jasper (Dec 6, 2002)

in the book papa malfoy is up to some dirty dealings that Ron's father is trying to get the goods on him. The movie just drop this line. Hey didn't harry get weekend pass to the small wizard town near the school. 
In the book i think the snake was about 20 ft long but normal thickness.
Deus the machine. Gee she uses that a lot in all the books. 
Ghosts were individuals in all the books. Mostly cool and harmless but some will drop cat poop in your shoes during the night. 
but a lot of flavor and detail are missing in the movies due to time constraits.  So instead of the a,b, and c plots going and being tied together at the end. Plot A and snips of b and c are shown. And tied together at the end.

Also most people I know think the 2nd book was the weakest.


----------



## Enchantress (Dec 9, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *
> PS: My money is on Hermione and Ron getting together at some point, before she realises (at age 16-18, whatever) that she should be with Harry. Kind of a Xander/Willow -> Xander/Anya and Willow/Tara kind of situation. *




I disagree. I firmly believe that Hermione and Ron do get together, but that it's the real thing. And those of us who have read the books know that harry does get a crush on a girl in the fourth book. 

and Harry doesn't WANT to go back to the Dursley's. Dumbledore sends him back because he knows that Voldemort is still a threat, and that Harry will be safest in the muggle world where voldemort has the least amount of power. 

P.S. I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!


----------



## Gumby (Dec 9, 2002)

On the Voldemort/Tom Riddle thing:

It seems pretty obvious to me that Rowling was took "Voldemort," from the first book, and wanted to devise a suitable anagram from it that would make sense in English.  She was unable to do so, and had to cheat by padding the anagram to "I am Lord Voldemort," allowing her to put a couple more vowels in whatever Voldemort's original name was.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Dec 10, 2002)

Regarding Voldemort's name, why not make him Tom Dolver? 

Sounds like a more or less plausible name to me. (But then again, I'm not the one who has to _write_ these books. I just get to read / nitpick them...  )


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 10, 2002)

Gumby said:
			
		

> *It seems pretty obvious to me that Rowling was took "Voldemort," from the first book, and wanted to devise a suitable anagram from it that would make sense in English.  She was unable to do so, and had to cheat by padding the anagram to "I am Lord Voldemort," allowing her to put a couple more vowels in whatever Voldemort's original name was. *



Considering how much Rowling planned the entire series from the very beginning, I'd say it's extremely unlikely that she wrote herself into a corner with something so important and central to the plot as Voldemort's name.


----------



## Michael Tree (Dec 10, 2002)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> *Regarding Voldemort's name, why not make him Tom Dolver?
> 
> Sounds like a more or less plausible name to me. (But then again, I'm not the one who has to write these books. I just get to read / nitpick them...  ) *



More or less plausible, you're right, but still sounding like a fake name.  Not nearly as plausible as Tom Riddle.   Besides, it doesn't have the symbolism that "riddle" as a last name has, especially considering the mysteries in the books surrounding Voldemort.

I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about "I am".  Why does that make it so much less plausible an anagram?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 10, 2002)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> More or less plausible, you're right, but still sounding like a fake name.  Not nearly as plausible as Tom Riddle.   Besides, it doesn't have the symbolism that "riddle" as a last name has, especially considering the mysteries in the books surrounding Voldemort.
> 
> I honestly do not understand what the big deal is about "I am".  Why does that make it so much less plausible an anagram? *




I actually think it makes more sense.  It is a statement of who he is not just a simple name change.


----------



## Mark (Dec 11, 2002)

Related thread  -   http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=33133


----------

