# Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  SPOILERS!!!



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 13, 2007)

SPOILERS may be present.






Saw it last night.  Liked it.

But I really gotta wonder?  Why the hell does Dumbledore keep Filch around? I mean, really.  The man is evil.  He seems to relish Delores Umbridge's torture of the students.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 13, 2007)

Filch is weak of mind - he basically goes along with whatever, though his style is nasty.  For all of his nastiness, he's never (as far as I can tell) really committed a serious crime.  It's clear that there's something about the Wizarding world, and Hogwart's in particular that requires Slytherin, for example, to be tolerated, and I'm sure that hs something to do with it.  Not to mention ya gotta keep some villains around, or the next book would be really boring!  

Oh, and I saw it last night as well, and enjoyed it.  I think I like #3 best, followed by #4 and #5 very close, and then #1 and #2 very close to one another.

Daniel Radcliffe in particular is becoming quite an actor.


----------



## Shayuri (Jul 13, 2007)

I saw it, and I really liked it a lot. I was disappointed by the fourth one, but Order of the Phoenix was a welcome surprise.

As for Filch, Dumbledore wouldn't fire anyone without direct provocation, ya know. It'd be mean. As long as Filch plays by the rules (which he does) and doesn't actually hurt anyone (which he doesn't), Dumbledore isn't the type to be concerned about what he mutters to himself.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 13, 2007)

Is it just me or was that a giant Alfred E. Newman tied up in the forest?

Those centaurs were very cool.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 13, 2007)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> But I really gotta wonder?  Why the hell does Dumbledore keep Filch around? I mean, really.  The man is evil.  He seems to relish Delores Umbridge's torture of the students.



Seriously, has Dumbledore EVER been a good headmaster? I mean, Snape's antics, Filch's blehness, letting Hagrid teach?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jul 13, 2007)

My only problem is as much with the book as the movie.  Umbridge is seriously derailing their plans and at the least I'd expect Snape to be practical enough to just assassinate her and let the spiders in the Forest handle the evidence.  He's got to have Order members that aren't known to all the world that can put the fear of god in the Minister and set him back on the right track or take him out if necessary.

EDIT:  Just to state the obvious I don't understand the whole "good-guy" thing so please don't be offended.  For comparison a friend in high school had a quote he always teased me with "A terrible and ancient darkness has arisen to torment the world, and it's you."  So please excuse if I don't really get it.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jul 13, 2007)

3 is still my favorite, followed by 4 and 1, then 5 and 2.

I liked this one, but I think that they dropped the ball, and the movie should have had more in it.  I didn't like how they killed Sirius, but not having read any of the books I don't know if that's how he died in the book.  

I was watching it, there was a decent battle, then Harry was crying and I had to ask my wife if I missed something.  I didn't know that by him going through the portal he was killed, and it seemed to me that he could have stopped it, so to me his death felt forced and just didn't have the impact it should have.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jul 13, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> 3 is still my favorite, followed by 4 and 1, then 5 and 2.
> 
> I liked this one, but I think that they dropped the ball, and the movie should have had more in it.  I didn't like how they killed Sirius, but not having read any of the books I don't know if that's how he died in the book.
> 
> I was watching it, there was a decent battle, then Harry was crying and I had to ask my wife if I missed something.  I didn't know that by him going through the portal he was killed, and it seemed to me that he could have stopped it, so to me his death felt forced and just didn't have the impact it should have.



I haven't seen the movie yet, but that sounds pretty much like how he "dies" in the book - he gets chucked through this spooky curtain to the land of the dead or something (not convinced he's gone for good - seems a little too convenient to me).

And don't get me started on Dumbledore's bizarre way of doing things.  I'm not a huge Potter fan, but read the books at my gf's behest and enjoyed them.  Dumbledore's behaviour in _Half-Blood Prince_ infuriated me to the point that I almost gave up on the book.  What was the man thinking?  Witless baboon.  That or JK needed him to be so short-sighted out of narrative necessity.  Either way, it's a real flaw in the book(s).  I suppose it's possible that big D's "mistakes" are part of some Cunning Plan, but to be honest it has gone beyond the point of credulity for that.  Oh well.  Don't wanna go off on one.  For a supposedly wise old fellow, he can be a real moron sometimes.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 13, 2007)

*Long Live the Dark Lord!*



			
				Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> Saw it last night.  Liked it.



Just saw it. Dug it.

-Samir

P.S. Voldemort owns!

-S.A.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 13, 2007)

*Ambition, Über Alles!*

If I had to rank the films, I'd go with: 2, 4, 5, 1, 3 ... but, then again, I'm a _huge_ Slytherin fan.

-Samir​


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jul 13, 2007)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> 3 is still my favorite, followed by 4 and 1, then 5 and 2.
> 
> I liked this one, but I think that they dropped the ball, and the movie should have had more in it.  I didn't like how they killed Sirius, but not having read any of the books I don't know if that's how he died in the book.
> 
> I was watching it, there was a decent battle, then Harry was crying and I had to ask my wife if I missed something.  I didn't know that by him going through the portal he was killed, and it seemed to me that he could have stopped it, so to me his death felt forced and just didn't have the impact it should have.




It goes by quickly, but what happens is that Belatrix LaStrange hits Sirius with an Avada Kadavra curse, and he falls through the portal (remember, AK kills you instantly, it's what killed Digory). That actually IS different from the book, in which it is the fall through the curtain that "kills" Sirius. I think they did it this way in the movie so that they wouldn't have to do all the exposition on "Is Sirius dead or not? What's the nature of the curtain," which would have slowed things down. As it stands, I think it was good.

For the movie as a whole, I liked it, though there were a few things I would have liked to see more of. More Tonks, for one thing.


----------



## jonathan swift (Jul 13, 2007)

Saw it at midnight Tuesday.

And I was highly disappointed. It wasn't bad per se, but a huge let down from all four previous films. The film seemed like two hours of nothing at all happening, with a little anti-climactic fight scene thrown in the end.

And they had to leave a lot out (so I've heard, never read the books) so not only did nothing happen, but not much made sense either.

Sirius' death was one of the few things I liked as it wasn't overly drawn out. It's like he's there, then he's dead.

And Luna Lovegood was a lot of fun.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 13, 2007)

Saw the midnight showing at the IMAX, and with part of the movie in 3D. 

It was really cool, though the 3D bits didn't add much to the movie.

I also saw it last night (with my SO) at a regular screen, and there's definitely a noticeable difference. Still, a fun movie.

Ms Umbridge and Luna Lovegood were awesome. Sirius's death was a bit confusing, since I think the charm used to kill him in the movie differed from the book such that in the book, he's definitely dead, but in the movie, not so much.

Snap is continuously cool, and I can see why Dumbledore trusts him.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 13, 2007)

Definitely my favorite of the movies.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jul 13, 2007)

> Sirius's death was a bit confusing, since I think the charm used to kill him in the movie differed from the book such that in the book, he's definitely dead, but in the movie, not so much.




In the book, IIRC, he isn't killed by a charm, he's killed by simply tumbling into the doorway. Harry tries to follow but (as in the movie) Remus stops him. Then here is an extended deliberation about 1) Is Sirius really dead and 2) can he come back, to which the answers eventually are 1) yes and 2) no.

The movie is much more straightforward. Belatrix zaps him with the Avada Kedavra, ergo, he's dead. The doorway just makes him disapear, therefore, no need for the exposition.


----------



## Shayuri (Jul 13, 2007)

Given the constraints of movie vs book, I think they did a fantastic job of cutting out the 'fat' that the book had time and space to deliver. This is in stark contrast to the Goblet of Fire, which included countless scenes that added little or nothing to the story (IMO), and excluded scenes that would have added quite a bit (again, IMO). 

I found OotP's editing to be remarkably tight, yet omitting no vital details. My only 'complaint,' and that term is used loosely, is to point out that for a movie titled 'Order of the Phoenix,' the Order itself played a very small part in the story. Of course, when you boil it down, that's true of the book too...most of what they did there was tease Harry with knowledge then yank it away; driving him absolutely crazy. I think that still came across in this movie. It would have been nice to see more of the Order, if only because they're so delightfully peculiar.

I was particularly impressed by how they compressed several side stories (noteably the Cho Chang arc), retaining the basic -spirit- of the plots, but in fractions of the necessary exposition time. Also of note was the excellent use of visual details (newspaper headlines glimpsed, expressions of students in the backgrounds, etc) that conveyed thematic and tone information without requiring any dialogue. They created a hostile, oppressive atmosphere towards Harry (thus helping explain his behavior) without wasting a single word...and often simultaneously with other important scenes.

...I admit, my reaction is based largely on the -mechanics- of the movie...this is because the content of the story is much as it was presented in the book, even with the cuts in the movie's content. Problems with the storyline that existed in the book are still in the movie, and the myriad explanations that apply to those problems in the book still apply to the movie too. I don't really want to get into them.   Because my problems with the movies in the past have been largely problems of the mechanics of moviemaking, it seems fair to judge this one on the same yardstick. And really, I found OotP to be very refreshing. It wasn't Citizen Kane or anything, but especially in comparison to the lackluster and disappointing Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix strikes me as an excellent interpretation of the source material, and well adapted for the big screen.

Mew.


----------



## Randolpho (Jul 13, 2007)

I'll be seeing it tonight or tomorrow; comment then. I take it no serious diversions (other than Sirius' death) from the book? 

Also, regarding Flich -- consider him Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil, sorta Harry Potter's version of a Vogon. He's cantankerous and spiteful, but won't break rules. He's really big on making sure there is order, and is countered by pure chaos in the form of Peeves.

 Remember, in the book (dunno if it's in the movie) he goes to get the _proper form_ to allow him to do a whipping.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 14, 2007)

The wife and I really enjoyed the movie.

I was expecting something a little disappointing like the last one but this one was really well done, for the same reasons that Shayuri gave.

Even though I listened to the audiobooks (I only read D&D books), the first half hour of the movie I expected Harry to kill himself.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 14, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> Also, regarding Flich -- consider him Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil, sorta Harry Potter's version of a Vogon. He's cantankerous and spiteful, but won't break rules. He's really big on making sure there is order, and is countered by pure chaos in the form of Peeves.
> 
> Remember, in the book (dunno if it's in the movie) he goes to get the _proper form_ to allow him to do a whipping.




I forgot that.  Yeah, he follows the rules.  He just likes Delores Umbridge's rules a lot better than Dumbledore's rules.  


My biggest disappointment with the movie is the how interesting secondary characters get almost no screen time.  I remember Lupin saying, "Hello, Harry," but did he even have any other dialogue?  We needed more Tonx, too.  And I wish Emma Thompson (Professor Trelawney) had something to do, other than stand there and be incompetent.  Though, that is right from the book, pretty much.  She had one real prophecy, right as Dumbledore was about to not hire her several years ago.  Now that the prophecy is smashed, maybe she'll have another one in book 7.  

Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith still rule, at least!  And Imelda Staunton was fantastic.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 14, 2007)

Remus Lupin said:
			
		

> It goes by quickly, but what happens is that Belatrix LaStrange hits Sirius with an Avada Kadavra curse, and he falls through the portal




So THAT'S what she said!!!  I could have sworn I heard her say "Abra Ca Dabra".  I was rolling my eyes at that one, but now it makes sense, lol.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 14, 2007)

One thing that I was pondering...  They mention that Voldemort skilled Cedric Diggory, but techncially it was Wormtail...  Is it Voldemort who skills Cedric in the book maybe?


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 14, 2007)

I'm pretty sure that Wormtail is the one that killed Cedric in the book.

I saw the movie last night with my sister-in-law (my wife and her boyfriend have no interest in the series). We both enjoyed it, but I could definitely tell that there were pieces missing from the book. However, I think they did an incredible job keeping the story line as tight to the book as they did with the omissions that they performed.

The actress they got for Luna was spot-on.


----------



## sckeener (Jul 14, 2007)

I liked it.  This was my favorite book, so I am glad it turned out so well.  Having said that, of the film versions, I think this is my 2nd favorite with #3 PoA being my favorite.  

I liked the scene with Neville and Luna holding hands or them protecting each other.  Since JKR said that they will never be a couple despite fans liking the idea, I was glad the film gave some nods that direction.

I can't remember from the books if Luna's Patronus Charm was a rabbit...if it was just in the movie, I think that was a great addition!

One aspect I disliked was the films version having Cho Chang betray Dumbledore's Army.  In the book it was her best friend who had reluctantly joined the DA.  The reason I dislike the film version is because it made it sound like Snape actually gave Veritaserum (truth serum) to Dolores Umbridge causing Cho to betray the group and Harry. Thus it either makes Snape or Cho a betrayer....neither seem like that.

Not in any paticular order:

Creature's part in Sirius Black's death was left out.
No scene with Rita Skeeter and Harry's true story in the Quibbler.
I missed seeing Petunia's reaction to the rise of the dark lord again.  In the book she actually responds to Harry's explanations about what is happening and gets a Howler from Dumbledore.
Dobby is cut from the films again.
Peeves' actually taking a command from a student is cut from the film
The trip to St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries was cut and thus the scene with the Longbottom's.
Harry didn't get to see Snape as a kid.
The info that thestrals can find any location was cut.
Lupin didn't get to talk about what he was up to for the order...i.e. infiltrating werewolves..
Lupin and Sirius didn't get to defend James' actions against Snape.
Harry didn't get to see Lily's disgust at James.
Minerva McGonagall didn't take several stuners when Hagrid was dismissed by the Ministry.
Draco's and friends' dads weren't in the paper going to Azkaban.
Since Quidditch was cut completely, Ron making the team didn't appear....thus the Weasley is our King song wasn't sung.
Ron and Hermione's becoming prefects wasn't mentioned in the movie.
The fact that Sirius as an Animagus was leaked to Daily Prophet didn't make the movie. 
The DA coins inspired by the Death Eater's arm markings didn't make it into the movie.
Harry confronting Nearly Headless Nick about Sirius' death was left out.


I'm sure I am forgetting several scenes....however, a lot of these deletions I find a bit strange since they would build for the next movie.  I could understand one director not caring about building for the next, but in this case the next director for movie 6 is the same one that did 5.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 15, 2007)

They did show the Snape as a kid scene (Occlumency flashback).  However, there is a continuity error.

Harry is teaching the DA the _Levicorpus_ spell when they first meet in the training montage, but the first time he sees the spell is in the Snape flashbback, and he doesn't actually learn the spell until Book 6.

In general, though, all the cuts from the book did a good job of keeping the movie focused without sacrificing plot-essential stuff.


----------



## dravot (Jul 15, 2007)

I was quite pleased with the fight at the Ministry of Magic.  It was the best magic-combat I've ever seen in a movie.

The rest of the movie was quite good too.  It's too bad that they had to cut stuff out, but the movie was 2:10 as it was.


----------



## sckeener (Jul 15, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> They did show the Snape as a kid scene (Occlumency flashback).




I was referring to Snape as a little kid, not a teen-ager, when Harry got to see him as more human.  That was when Harry did Protego and not during the scene with Snape as teenager.  We missed out on Snape using the Pensieve to put memories he didn't want Harry to discover.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 15, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Harry is teaching the DA the _Levicorpus_ spell when they first meet in the training montage, but the first time he sees the spell is in the Snape flashbback, and he doesn't actually learn the spell until Book 6.



I noticed that as well. Leads me to believe that they're going to cut that piece of Snape's book out in HBP when it comes to the big screen.


----------



## Jeysie (Jul 15, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I was referring to Snape as a little kid, not a teen-ager, when Harry got to see him as more human.  That was when Harry did Protego and not during the scene with Snape as teenager.




We did see that actually, IIRC. Just before the scene with Snape being bullied, we briefly see him sitting in a dank room with his knees drawn up to his chest. I think we also saw a shadowy glimpse of someone yelling at him (or yelling at someone else in his presence).

Anyhoo. Overall I thought the movie felt a little too much like the Cliffs Notes version of the book. Not in the sense that certain things were cut out (I don't really have a problem with that), but the sense that I thought they often jumped too abruptly between the scenes that were left in. We seldom had enough of a segue to explain why we were going from one place to the next (although the quite creative Daily Prophet montages helped a bit).

Then again, my friend who has never read the books said he had few problems following the plot and it's now his second favorite movie right after Chamber of Secrets, so maybe I'm thinking about it too much.

There were also a few spots where I couldn't help but think, "You know, that somehow seemed a lot cooler in my head than here in the film." Snape's memories seemed like more of a brief afterthought than a key bit between Snape and Harry. I found 



Spoiler



the first half of the Department of Mysteries sequence with the kids and Death Eaters kind of disappointing (although the latter bit with Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry was awesome)


. And Sirius 



Spoiler



dying was *way* disappointing. The bit with Harry being held back by Lupin with just the music playing and no dialogue was well-done, but the death itself seemed to lack any real dramatic weight.


 My friend agreed with me on that one.

Considering that the HP movies usually come up with something *better* than what I was imagining (the Boggart scene in Prisoner of Azkaban comes to mind, for starters), this was kind of disappointing.

There were several things I liked, though. Neville shines as usual, and Luna was her serenely loony self. Umbridge is a delightfully nasty piece of work (and the wall of kittens *was* freakier than what I had imagined). Grawp was less annoying than I would have thought (although I was rolling my eyes like mad when he got all sweet over Hermione. Whatever happened to book-Hermione as opposed to Mary Sue-Hermione?). I thought the "family tree room" with all the names and portraits was cooler and more wizardly than the tapestry in the book, actually. And Bellatrix was *awesomely creepy*... I just wish there'd been more of her!

I guess I give it an overall "It was fun." I'll enjoy seeing it on DVD when it comes out, but I have no itch to see it again in the theater.

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 15, 2007)

Remus Lupin said:
			
		

> I think they did it this way in the movie so that they wouldn't have to do all the exposition on "Is Sirius dead or not? What's the nature of the curtain," which would have slowed things down. As it stands, I think it was good.




I have to agree. The movie was slow enough to begin with. It wasn't as boring as the last one. (Evidence: I stayed awake through the new one.) Nevertheless, I have yet to get the fascination. The movies are predictable (and I've not read but part of the first book, which bored me to tears, and I read Augustine's _Confessions_ a second time for fun, which seems to indicate I've got a pretty high tolerance for dull text), either poorly acted (when considering the lead children) or talent wasting (when considering stellar talent like Maggie Smith slumming presumably to pay her bills), uninteresting to mind-numbingly dull, and can't even claim the saving grace of having really cool special effects.

The best I can say about _Order of the Phoenix_ is that at least now I don't have to listen to my children ask to go see it anymore.


----------



## Krug (Jul 15, 2007)

I didn't find it too bad. The duel at the end was great, and Imedla Staunton was fantastic. I think the filmmakers know the three main stars can't quite carry the movie. They should really try to finish the last two movies soon, before the kids get even older.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 16, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Lupin didn't get to talk about what he was up to for the order...i.e. infiltrating werewolves..




This actually occurs in book six, not OotP. I'm re-reading Half Blood Prince right now. 

buzzard


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 16, 2007)

> I remember Lupin saying, "Hello, Harry," but did he even have any other dialogue?




Yeah he had a few lines when they were having dinner at the Order headquarters.

Regarding Dumbledore and Filch:  Filch is a Squibb (i.e. born to wizard parents but without any magical talent himself) as is Mrs. Figg, the neighbor who helped Harry after the Dementor attack.  That explains why they appear to be Muggles, have no powers, and yet know all about the wizarding world.  They have to be employed somewhere, and Dumbledore has a history of letting "undesirables" stay at Hogwarts and/or work there (Hagrid, Professor Trelawny, etc)

Filch being a Squibb also explains why he feels hostile towards the "normal" wizards who go to school at Hogwarts.  He's jealous and most of the time he's harmless - Dumbledore knows that.

It is also character building for young people to have to deal with people that they don't get along with.  That's why Dumbledore never intervenes when there's 2 different factions at the school (Harryphiles versus Draco-ites)

I enjoyed the movie but I thought that they crammed too much stuff into it.  It was understandable that they did, of course (and I'm probably the only person alive who was relieved to have NO QUIDDITCH, but ah well), but I know there were some things that my friends (who have not read the books) missed.

For example, when Fred and George lit their fireworks and left the school, my friends didn't realize that they were quitting school.  Even though they said something along the lines of "our scholastic career is at an end" or some such, right beforehand.  It just didn't come across very well.

I loved that part but was disappointed it wasn't longer.  That was my favorite part from the books and I waited for it for a long time.  I was really hoping that they'd have the sparkler spelling out "poo" in the sky but .. alas ..

Also no one mentioned that it was Sybil Trelawney who foretold the prophecy.  The whole prophecy thing was glazed over, imho.  It was like, why are they there?  Well, if you read the book, you knew.  But there was no exposition after the big battle that explained the prophecy at ALL.  And I was really disappointed that Dumbledore didn't tell Harry about the prophecy POSSIBLY being about Neville originally, but that Voldemort attacking Harry made it about Harry.

I had to explain those things to people or else they totally had no idea.  I felt like a Harry Potter snob.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 16, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I enjoyed the movie but I thought that they crammed too much stuff into it.  It was understandable that they did, of course (and I'm probably the only person alive who was relieved to have NO QUIDDITCH, but ah well), but I know there were some things that my friends (who have not read the books) missed.




I'll join the "don't miss Quidditch club". Thinking about it I realized that it was simply too preposterously stupid a game for me to bear. It seems to merely be a plot device invented so that Harry would be important to his house. Why else would a team sport be so over focused on the performance of one individual? I'm rather hoping they continue to ignore the "sport" in future movies. 

buzzard


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 16, 2007)

> I'm rather hoping they continue to ignore the "sport" in future movies.




Hear, hear.  Although I understand the need for it - the books *are* written with children or preteens in mind, and things like Quidditch and the Yule Ball and boys asking girls out, etc, are designed for those readers.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 16, 2007)

I liked it a lot, however I felt they left way too much out.  They needed at least another 20 mins, if not a full hour. Stuff was left out that I think plays a role in the next two books, and it will require the next director to juggle a bit to make up for it.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 16, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Why else would a team sport be so over focused on the performance of one individual?



I agree that the Seeker is important because their catching of the Golden Snitch stops the game, but just catching it doesn't mean you win. Remember the World Cup where Krum caught the Snitch but his team still lost?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 16, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Hear, hear.  Although I understand the need for it - the books *are* written with children or preteens in mind, and things like Quidditch and the Yule Ball and boys asking girls out, etc, are designed for those readers.




You'll notice that Quidditch has taken less and less of a role as the books have progressed.  

Brad


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> You'll notice that Quidditch has taken less and less of a role as the books have progressed.
> 
> Brad




They take less of a _central_ role, but they maintain their part in side character development (particularly Ron and Ginny as distinct characters), humor, and as a semi-realistic backdrop for other things going on. And by semi-realistic backdrop, I mean student participation in sports and other things students are typically obsessed with that don't involve just sitting around in the common room.
In this role, Quidditch is fairly dispensible from the movies, just like Dobby and SPEW, though still valuable in the books.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I'll join the "don't miss Quidditch club". Thinking about it I realized that it was simply too preposterously stupid a game for me to bear. It seems to merely be a plot device invented so that Harry would be important to his house. Why else would a team sport be so over focused on the performance of one individual? I'm rather hoping they continue to ignore the "sport" in future movies.
> 
> buzzard




Football tends to focus on the performance of the quarterback...

But I agree that Quidditch, as game design, doesn't work very well. The game is too skewed to the performance of one player. That said, having seeker able to score 6-7x the value of a regular goal wouldn't be too outlandish, particularly compared to 15x.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 16, 2007)

What bugged me was that the teachers seemed to ignore the fact their students were being *tortured*. Minor children being tortured I might add... One of those teachers couldn't have taken a few pictures and called a parent? Or maybe a child welfare agency of some kind? Were they so worried about losing their teaching positions that they could ignore physical torture of minors? I was appalled and disgusted...

On another note... did Black leave the house to Harry?

Why does Black keep a slave?


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 16, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Why does Black keep a slave?



Most house elves (Dobby and Winky being 2 exceptions that I'm aware of) are bound to a family or institution. It is the nature of the masters that dictates how they are treated. Kreacher is bound to the Black family, and Sirius dislikes him because of the connection to the Black family. He doesn't get rid of him because Kreacher knows to much about the Order.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 16, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> What bugged me was that the teachers seemed to ignore the fact their students were being *tortured*. Minor children being tortured I might add... One of those teachers couldn't have taken a few pictures and called a parent? Or maybe a child welfare agency of some kind? Were they so worried about losing their teaching positions that they could ignore physical torture of minors? I was appalled and disgusted...
> 
> On another note... did Black leave the house to Harry?
> 
> Why does Black keep a slave?




A lot of wizards keep house elves as slaves even Hogwarts has them that is how the feasts get made.

The reason why the house elf is in the Black's home is that his family has served the Blacks a long time and he is vry loyal to Black's mother. In the book the house elf goes around mumbling so everyone can hear about mudblood. blood traitors and such being in the house and how poor madam if she was alove would be upset.

But they can't free him because he knows to much and they worry about him going to the Dark Lord and telling what he knows.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 16, 2007)

> What bugged me was that the teachers seemed to ignore the fact their students were being *tortured*. Minor children being tortured I might add




I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.

In the book, it's only Harry that is tortured with the evil quill.

I didn't get why they changed that for the movie other than to give Fred & George a reason to leave.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 16, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.
> 
> In the book, it's only Harry that is tortured with the evil quill.
> 
> I didn't get why they changed that for the movie other than to give Fred & George a reason to leave.




I'm reasonably sure Fred and/or George also gets it in the book.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 16, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.




The torturer was confronted about it by Maggie Smith. There's also that pesky problem of all of those students walking around with bloody wounds on their hands. Who'd notice that?


----------



## joshhg (Jul 17, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably sure Fred and/or George also gets it in the book.



Actually, the only other person who is shown to receive the punishment in the book is Lee, a friend of Fred and George. I believe that is was suggested that she reserved this punishment for those who especially irked her.

Also, the punishment can't be overturned by any other teacher, only the headmaster, and harsher punishment may be more common across the lake. Dumbledore couldn't say anything, or one of those decrees would have just popped up.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 17, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> And they had to leave a lot out (so I've heard, never read the books) so not only did nothing happen, but not much made sense either.




Exactly so.

I have read the books, though it's been a while since OOTP. Of all the movies, why on earth do they make the shortest movie of the longest book? WTF?  Who, pray, decided that was a good move? 

I cannot imagine this movie making sense to someone who has not read the book.  Hell - I've read the book - and the movie barely made sense.

This one easily wins the worst of the five so far. My fave is still PoA, followed by #1, #2, #4 and now this, a distant on the horizon 5th.

The astonishing thing is that they rehired this director for _Half Blood Prince._ My hopes for the next film are vanishingly small.



> And Luna Lovegood was a lot of fun.




Luna was very good, agreed.  Though her role in OOTP through her father's magazine as the counterweight to the Daily Prophet  was left out. Then again, it seemed like virtually everything was left out of this movie.  A half hour more of film really WAS necessary. 

Also, while Luna came off very well, I rather thought she was *too pretty*. On film, she seemed like a natural love interest, while in the book, she was described as a plain jane loopy outcast that I always pictured far more as looking like the ghost in the bathroom in _Chamber of Secrets._

Quibbles with her comeliness aside, she absolutely nailed the role.

Anyways, I have come to enjoy this series of movies, but I'm not going to excuse a sub-standard hatchet job just because I like the overall brand. This was a poor Potter film. Compared to _Prisoner of  Azkaban_, it doesn't even rate.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 17, 2007)

dravot said:
			
		

> I was quite pleased with the fight at the Ministry of Magic.  It was the best magic-combat I've ever seen in a movie.
> 
> The rest of the movie was quite good too.  It's too bad that they had to cut stuff out, but the movie was 2:10 as it was.




It was visually compelling, yes, but it was also the worst thing they did in terms of betraying the book and  - indeed - betraying what they had spent 12 minutes of screen time on earlier.

The sacrifice of the competency of Dumbldore's Army on the altar of tension and tempo betrayed a major theme in the book - and even in the series.

The kids were depicted as being mastered by the Death Eaters as if the Death Eaters were only toying with them. The kids' spells were visually wussy and the kids were just _taken_ by the Death Eaters with little more than a shrug.

The showy oooh scarey razmatazz happens only when the OOTP show up.

And thereby it depicts Dumbledore's Army - who were in the book  pretty much holding their own - look like a bunch of babies. That's not the book.  It's not _Half-Blood Prince_ either - and my guess is that it will not be the scenes shown in Book 7 too.

That's a director and scriptwriter changing the material in the novel  to distort one of the underlying themes in the book, the series,  (and in the movie you were watching earlier) just for the tempo of the eye candy.

Bad call.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 17, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> The torturer was confronted about it by Maggie Smith. There's also that pesky problem of all of those students walking around with bloody wounds on their hands. Who'd notice that?




Exactly. Not to mention that at least ONE student might tell a teacher that they trusted. 

I have to admit that this pushed a personal button of mine. As a survivor of childhood abuse I always thought no adults knew. But I eventually discovered that adults outside of my family knew about the abuse and did nothing.

I don't ignore that type of thing. I *remember*.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jul 17, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Exactly. Not to mention that at least ONE student might tell a teacher that they trusted.
> 
> I have to admit that this pushed a personal button of mine. As a survivor of childhood abuse I always thought no adults knew. But I eventually discovered that adults outside of my family knew about the abuse and did nothing.
> 
> I don't ignore that type of thing. I *remember*.




Two points, in no way trying to discount your personal experience, but simply trying to put the events in the context of that world.

1) A recurrent theme of the books is the children refusing to go to authority figures precisely when those figures might be able to help them. A corollary of that theme is the adults refusing to believe the children when it counts, though this theme has diminished as the series continues.

2) It seems that there's an ethos at Hogwarts that discourages teachers from interfering with one another's methods of discipline. Hagrid can bring the children to the haunted forest if he wants, Snape can publicly humiliate them, McGonnagall and have them clean cauldrons, and, if she wants, Umbridge can make them "write lines." While I understand the ethos, it makes me glad we live in a world where, in fact, these things don't happen.

PS. Although it does occur to me that there are some limits, since Flich does complain that Dumbledore won't let him bring back "the old punishments."


----------



## sckeener (Jul 17, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> This actually occurs in book six, not OotP. I'm re-reading Half Blood Prince right now.




Yup, you are correct.  I thought he'd mentioned it when at the dinner table when they were filling Harry in on what was going on in the Order....but I was wrong.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 17, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> I agree that the Seeker is important because their catching of the Golden Snitch stops the game, but just catching it doesn't mean you win. Remember the World Cup where Krum caught the Snitch but his team still lost?




Yes, but of course that makes me wonder how Bulgaria got there at all if the rest of their team was so lousy besides their seeker. 

buzzard


----------



## sckeener (Jul 17, 2007)

buzzard said:
			
		

> kingpaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Personally all I think the game needs is a time limit and a change that catching the golden snitch doesn't end the game.  90 minutes sounds fine.   The Seeker would still be important, but the other players wouldn't be so worthless.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 17, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Personally all I think the game needs is a time limit and a change that catching the golden snitch doesn't end the game.  90 minutes sounds fine.   The Seeker would still be important, but the other players wouldn't be so worthless.




Yes, that would be a substantial improvement. Also a lower score for the snitch would be good as well. 

buzzard


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 17, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Exactly. Not to mention that at least ONE student might tell a teacher that they trusted.
> 
> I have to admit that this pushed a personal button of mine. As a survivor of childhood abuse I always thought no adults knew. But I eventually discovered that adults outside of my family knew about the abuse and did nothing.
> 
> I don't ignore that type of thing. I *remember*.





They don't cover this in the movie but in the book Hermoine and Ron keep encouraging Harry to tell someone what is happening. Harry refuses he feels that to do so would play into Umbrage's hands and also he is very upset with Dumbledore.

Also she was in a postion of power over the other teachers I don't think they could have stopped it without being sacked.


 As for informing the parents all communications in and out of Hogwort's was being watched both the Owls and the Floo network.

Another thing even if a parent found out about it all they could really do is pull their child out of Hogwarts. The one wizard paper was under the control of Fudge the Minister of Magic. And their were students at Hogwarts who were afraid that if they complained their parents would get sacked from their jobs in the ministry.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 17, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> They don't cover this in the movie but in the book Hermoine and Ron keep encouraging Harry to tell someone what is happening.




In the movie, it was very clearly implied that Hermione and Ron told Maggie Smith about what had happened.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Harry refuses he feels that to do so would play into Umbrage's hands and also he is very upset with Dumbledore.
> 
> Also she was in a postion of power over the other teachers I don't think they could have stopped it without being sacked.
> 
> ...




All of the rest you mentioned are just examples of why I cannot fathom how a series of such poorly plotted, acted, et cetera, movies could garner a fan base. The very idea that a gang of wizardly children would even submit to mass torture itself is ludicrous. They're ready to fight the Forces of Darkness, but can't stand up to a single bully? The parents of students who themselves are wizards couldn't do anything except withdraw their children? Absurd. That any institution could torture students with impunity and still retain any semblance of prestige is likewise ludicrous. It is quite obvious that important members of the faculty knew what was going on in the movie. That they chose to protect their jobs rather than their students reduces them to the status of moral cowards at best.

I watch a lot of movies, and OotP is easily one of worst I've seen this year.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 17, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> In the movie, it was very clearly implied that Hermione and Ron told Maggie Smith about what had happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't remember the kids telling McCongel anything. Or even that it was implied can you point me to the scene you are talking about?

And in the book the only being tortured is Harry and I think near the end Lee may get it.

The problem with the movie is that they have to cut so many plots out. 

As for the kids submiting to torture and not fighting back most of the kids cannot stand against an adult wizard. And none of them were tortured.

There is also the matter of Lord Voldermort in the books you know how many people he has slaughtered entire families. One of the reason Dumbledore and his loyal staff are not fighting back is that they are trying to keep a low profile as they move themselves into postion to have a chance against Voldermort and his followers and while doing this they are trying to stay out of Azkeban. Fudge is controlling everything the Daily Prophet, the wizard court. Most people are so afraid of Voldermort that they prefer to believe what Fudge says because the Dark Lord is so scary that don't want to believe he is back. 

As for the parents of the other children I don't find it surprising that most of them would prefer to keep their heads down. That is human nature. Most of them are not going to take a stand against the legal goverment of Wizards. But again I will point out that what was happening to Harry was not common knowledge. Other than Ron and Hermoine I don't believe any other students knew or teachers for that matter.

I didn't think the movie was that great myself mainly because they had to cut so much out and unlike the other movies I don't think it maintained the spirit of the books that the other movies did.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 18, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I don't remember the kids telling McCongel anything. Or even that it was implied can you point me to the scene you are talking about?




When Maggie Smith confronts Umbrage about torturing Potter (and, IIRC, she even uses that word to describe what went on), Potter shoots an angry glance (thus very nearly exhausting Daniel Radcliffe's on-screen emotional range) at Hermione and Ron, the actors of whom manage to pull enough talent to look guilty.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And in the book the only being tortured is Harry and I think near the end Lee may get it.




I'm not discussing the book. I'm criticizing the movie.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As for the kids submiting to torture and not fighting back most of the kids cannot stand against an adult wizard.




They had her outnumbered about a dozen to one, and they did a fine enough job against the generically bland evil wizards at the end (at least until the evil wizards turned into smoke and resorted to the unstoppable tactic of grabbing the kids).



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> And none of them were tortured.




 

Of course they were. They were children forced to write lines that resulted in self-mutilation. I'm certain even the most uncritical definition of "torture" would have to concede that the children were indeed tortured. Even you admit as much, since you describe the exact same punishment inflicted on Potter as torture.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> But again I will point out that what was happening to Harry was not common knowledge. Other than Ron and Hermoine I don't believe any other students knew or teachers for that matter.




A number of people in the movie certainly knew what was going on, especially after the mass torture.

Again, I just don't get it. The Potter movies are, at the absolute best, mediocre fair. Most of them have been train wrecks, but without the vicarious excitement. Perhaps the books are better. I don't know, since the first one couldn't hold my interest for more than 100 hundreds pages (putting it the same league as Interview with a Vampire).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 18, 2007)

I don't remember that scene in the movie but I will take your word for it.

My roomate reminded me that they showed an entire class room filled with kids writing lines with the quill. She said I missed it when I left to get the manager to come do something about the kid behind us throwing his popcorn and spilling soda down people's back while mommy  ignored him.

This is so different from the book and I agree with you now knowing about the scene that this is WTF Jump the Shark moment because there is no way that mass torture like that would be allowed by either the teachers or anyone else. 

I hope the rest of the movies are not like this but giving the size of the books and the more complex plots I am not holding out much hope.

The only reason I can think off why they changed it for the movie is that took out so many of the other things Umbrage was doing like giving Harry, George and Fred a lifetime ban from Quiditch. Or her causing Hedwig to be hurt. That they added scenes to make sure we knew just how bad she was.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 18, 2007)

> They don't cover this in the movie but in the book Hermoine and Ron keep encouraging Harry to tell someone what is happening. Harry refuses he feels that to do so would play into Umbrage's hands and also he is very upset with Dumbledore.




A very good point.

One thing that I think was downplayed mucho in the film was the occlumency.  Harry is trying to talk to Dumbledore and then he's whisked away by Snape.  Then he's thrust into this occlumency.  I don't think that they explained to the audience what was being done and why, very well.

Harry is angry at Dumbledore because he thinks that DD is snubbing him.  As it turns out (in the book), DD is trying not to look at Harry because he is aware of the connection between Harry and Voldy, and he does not want Voldy to see DD through Harry's eyes and, in a fit of rage, take over Harry to get at DD.  At least that's the way I believe I remember from the book.  So he avoids Harry's eyes and won't talk to him directly.

I don't think anyone who hasn't read the books got that point, until halfway through the movie he yells at DD, "LOOK AT ME!"  My friends who were with me were like "whuh?"  They hadn't gotten that DD was avoiding Harry until that point.

I thought the occlumency deserved more time and I would have really liked for them to explore Snape's motivations and memories more, as they did in the book (or was that all in HBP?) because it is important later.

As a side note:  what are they going to do in the movies if Rowling brings Sirius back in book 7?  They're screwed if she does; they specifically had him killed in the film, not "maybe killed" like in the book.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 18, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> As a side note:  what are they going to do in the movies if Rowling brings Sirius back in book 7?  They're screwed if she does; they specifically had him killed in the film, not "maybe killed" like in the book.




If I recall correctly, he's pretty doornail-dead in the book.  I seem to remember he took a curse to the chest before falling through the portal.

It seems vastly unlikely that he'd show up in Book 7.  (Or, for that matter, Regulus, who it's pointed out in Book 6 lasted a few days before the Death Eaters caught up with him)

Interestingly, AICN had some information where Ms. Rowling reviewed the OotP script and noted that they were writing themselves into a corner for the 7th movie, specifically about removing a character.  Who that is, is unknown...though we might know who it is come Saturday.

Brad


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 18, 2007)

The character that they had left out and then put back in was Kreacher.


----------



## sckeener (Jul 18, 2007)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> It seems vastly unlikely that he'd show up in Book 7.  (Or, for that matter, Regulus, who it's pointed out in Book 6 lasted a few days before the Death Eaters caught up with him)




Since JKR said that we'll find out more about ghosts in the next book, I'm betting that Regulus does make an appearance.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 18, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As for the kids submiting to torture and not fighting back most of the kids cannot stand against an adult wizard. And none of them were tortured.




How is deliberately sequentially inflicting minor wounds over time that are intended to cause pain and bleeding not torture?

When is any punishment that leaves the child bleeding acceptable?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> How is deliberately sequentially inflicting minor wounds over time that are intended to cause pain and bleeding not torture?
> 
> When is any punishment that leaves the child bleeding acceptable?





 I never said it was acceptable.  I had to leave the theatre and I missed the mass torture scene where Dumbledore Army's is having to write lines. That did not happen in the book in the book the only child tortured was Harry and near the end Lee. 

And none of the teachers knew what was happening in the book.

I saw the movie again today without the child from hell behind me so I was able to sit through the entire movie and concentrate this time.

I had some issues with it and I have no clue why they changed things. For example the scene where McCongeal is confronting Umbarge about the medeval punishment. She backs down when Umbarage basically says any interference will be considered sedition. And McCongeal backs right down. This did not happen in the book and it does not ring true for the character I don't see McCongeal backing down like that. To me it was totally out of character.

As for it being torture I think it was awful I thought it was awful in the book but JK Rowling is writing from experience and one thing that was allowed in British schools was caning. Caning leaves welts and bloody strips where it hits . It is nowhere the same as paddling. I read an interview with her about this and she said that she considered the quill along the same idea as caning. I don't know if they still allow caning in schools in Britian but it used to be quite common. In the movie and I believe the book Prisoner of Azkeban Uncle Veron's sister ask Harry if that school he goes to use a cane that she does not hold with all this touchy feely stuff.

There were a lot of boarding school stories written in Britian in the early years of the 20 th century and caning was often part of the subject. Harry Potter is part boarding school story as well as being a fantasy so Rowling drew from them for some of her inspiration.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> One thing that I think was downplayed mucho in the film was the occlumency.  Harry is trying to talk to Dumbledore and then he's whisked away by Snape.  Then he's thrust into this occlumency.  I don't think that they explained to the audience what was being done and why, very well.
> 
> 
> I thought the occlumency deserved more time and I would have really liked for them to explore Snape's motivations and memories more, as they did in the book (or was that all in HBP?) because it is important later.




One of the scenes I missed in the movie and thought was important was when Harry reads Snape's mind and see what his dad and friends did to Snape and that Lily tried to stop them. He is upset and he has a conversation with Lupin about how confused he is about his father and how upset he is about how is father was a bully and how Harry because of what Harry went though with Dudley sees a common experience between himself and Snape. Harry is disgusted with his father's behavior and feels for Snape.

It is one of my favorite parts of the book and ahows that Harry may look like James and sometimes act like James but he is not like his father that his experiences have made him a nicer more compassionate person that his father.


----------



## Rykion (Jul 19, 2007)

The movie scene with McGonagall putting up with Umbridge giving out "lines" does not fit in with the books at all. 

One of the main ideas from the books and movies is that the wizarding world is set apart from the normal world.  Wizarding society is still very much 19th century in outlook.  Umbridges "lines" punishment fits in with the kind of punishments doled out by some schools and homes in this timeframe.  Elf Witch mentioned caning, but hitting with yardsticks, and rulers on the knuckles was also a common and brutal punishment.  The more progressive wizards, like most Hogwarts teachers, would not put up with it, but many wizarding families and members of the ministry would allow it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The movie scene with McGonagall putting up with Umbridge giving out "lines" does not fit in with the books at all.
> 
> One of the main ideas from the books and movies is that the wizarding world is set apart from the normal world.  Wizarding society is still very much 19th century in outlook.  Umbridges "lines" punishment fits in with the kind of punishments doled out by some schools and homes in this timeframe.  Elf Witch mentioned caning, but hitting with yardsticks, and rulers on the knuckles was also a common and brutal punishment.  The more progressive wizards, like most Hogwarts teachers, would not put up with it, but many wizarding families and members of the ministry would allow it.




That is how I looked at it. When I was in Catholic school in the 60s here in the US the nuns used rulers and yardsticks on us. If we did something they considered we had to hold out our hand and it would get hit with a ruler you hoped that they would use the flat of the ruler because when they used the edge it hurt so much worse. Sometimes they would hit so hard it would break the skin.

Also sometimes if the nun did not know who did something wrong we all had to put our leg out and she would walk up the aisles hitting the leg of each student until the guilty party confessed or someone rated him out.

As for my parents my mom went to catholic school and she had no sympthy for us if we got hit with a ruler and she found out about it we would get spanked with either the belt or the paddle when we got home.

Now I would never allow this to happen to my child, times change what is acceptable can change as well.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 19, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of the scenes I missed in the movie and thought was important was when Harry reads Snape's mind and see what his dad and friends did to Snape and that Lily tried to stop them. He is upset and he has a conversation with Lupin about how confused he is about his father and how upset he is about how is father was a bully and how Harry because of what Harry went though with Dudley sees a common experience between himself and Snape. Harry is disgusted with his father's behavior and feels for Snape.
> 
> It is one of my favorite parts of the book and ahows that Harry may look like James and sometimes act like James but he is not like his father that his experiences have made him a nicer more compassionate person that his father.




It was in there. Or at least one of them was... it was a fairly quick scene. But I don't think the discussion with Lupin made it in there.



			
				Rykion said:
			
		

> The movie scene with McGonagall putting up with Umbridge giving out "lines" does not fit in with the books at all.




I know for sure she wouldn't have put up with it... but she'd be the "lone wolf" in defending Harry as far as the movie went.... Even after her discussion with Umbridge in that one scene...


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> It was in there. Or at least one of them was... it was a fairly quick scene. But I don't think the discussion with Lupin made it in there.
> 
> 
> 
> I know for sure she wouldn't have put up with it... but she'd be the "lone wolf" in defending Harry as far as the movie went.... Even after her discussion with Umbridge in that one scene...




I know the scene was in there briefly. I don't know if you have never read the books if you understand just how powerful that scene was for Harry.


----------



## Mimic (Jul 19, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> How is deliberately sequentially inflicting minor wounds over time that are intended to cause pain and bleeding not torture?
> 
> When is any punishment that leaves the child bleeding acceptable?




It would seem that a lot of you didn't got to school when the strap was allowed.

I still remember the time that when the principal of the elementary school I went to broke a yard stick across the small of my back.


----------



## Tetsubo (Jul 19, 2007)

Mimic said:
			
		

> It would seem that a lot of you didn't got to school when the strap was allowed.
> 
> I still remember the time that when the principal of the elementary school I went to broke a yard stick across the small of my back.




Causing another person pain without their consent is immoral. It has always been immoral.

And children, real or fictious, can't give consent...


----------



## mmu1 (Jul 19, 2007)

Mimic said:
			
		

> It would seem that a lot of you didn't got to school when the strap was allowed.
> 
> I still remember the time that when the principal of the elementary school I went to broke a yard stick across the small of my back.




Well, I didn't grow up in the US, so despite being relatively young, I have some experience with corporal punishment. Though it was of the relatively mild variety - hold out a hand, get smacked with a ruler, and certainly never hard enough to draw blood.

I could also expect to get spanked at home if I did something serious enough... Which, now that I think about it, was almost always about discouraging stupid and dangerous behavior rather rather than about punishment. (and was always as careful and deliberate as possible)

On the other hand, any (male) teacher who decided to break sticks across the small of my back would probably (without exaggeration) have my father out to hurt him. Badly.


----------



## Mimic (Jul 19, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Causing another person pain without their consent is immoral. It has always been immoral.
> 
> And children, real or fictious, can't give consent...




Children can't but parents can and did.

Its funny though, to this day I still think of that principle as one of the best teachers I have ever had.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 19, 2007)

Mimic said:
			
		

> It would seem that a lot of you didn't got to school when the strap was allowed.
> 
> I still remember the time that when the principal of the elementary school I went to broke a yard stick across the small of my back.




In my elementary school the principal had a wooden paddle in is office and was allowed to use it.

However, where the line is drawn between discipline and abuse seems to vary depending on which side of the pond you're on.

Forcing a student to cut themselves for hours is quite different than a few whacks with a paddle/belt/yardstick.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 19, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> In my elementary school the principal had a wooden paddle in is office and was allowed to use it.



The last school spanking that I recall was when I was in 4th grade ('84).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 19, 2007)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Causing another person pain without their consent is immoral. It has always been immoral.
> 
> And children, real or fictious, can't give consent...




The whole point of the Umbrage and the Quill is to show how evil she is you are supposed to hate her for that and for some of the other things she is doing.

One of the reasons I pointed out caning was because some people seem to think that the wizard children and the wizard parents would have fought back and so it made no sense to have it in the movie. And some of us are pointing out that forms of corporal punishment have always been around and what some parents supported it.

BTW I have an adult son I never hit him nor alllowed the school to lay a finger on him because I don't believe in hitting children.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 19, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> The last school spanking that I recall was when I was in 4th grade ('84).




For me it was 3rd grade (um... '85?); but that's not really the point.

What I was getting at is that there is a *huge* difference in what people believe (especially across national borders) is acceptable punishment/discipline for children and what is not.

I consider paddling/spanking to be acceptable.  I would *not* consider having children cutting lines into their own hands acceptable.  YMMV.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 21, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> The character that they had left out and then put back in was Kreacher.




Yup. Kreacher has his role to play in Deathly Hallows and HBP for that matter.


----------



## sckeener (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm currently rereading the book and one of the things that always annoyed me about this book was Harry being trained by Snape.  The last time Harry had trouble with a spell (the summoning charm in GoF) Hermione recommended the library and studying the theroy  of the spell....I just don't get why Harry didn't do that this time...why he didn't pursue any other means of learning the subject....

The main reason I don't understand is because it was Snape... I would figure Harry would want to prevent Snape from gaining access to his mind.

And I totally understand the problem from Snape's point of view...I mean if the dark lord is gaining access to Harry the last thing you want to be seen doing is helping the boy block the dark lord.... Dumbledore should have realized that issue so I am unclear why he placed Snape  in such a bad position.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 22, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I'm currently rereading the book and one of the things that always annoyed me about this book was Harry being trained by Snape.  The last time Harry had trouble with a spell (the summoning charm in GoF) Hermione recommended the library and studying the theroy  of the spell....I just don't get why Harry didn't do that this time...why he didn't pursue any other means of learning the subject....
> 
> The main reason I don't understand is because it was Snape... I would figure Harry would want to prevent Snape from gaining access to his mind.
> 
> And I totally understand the problem from Snape's point of view...I mean if the dark lord is gaining access to Harry the last thing you want to be seen doing is helping the boy block the dark lord.... Dumbledore should have realized that issue so I am unclear why he placed Snape  in such a bad position.




Because preventing someone from reading your mind is not a simple spell there are many that you can use to stop it. So he could just go and learn a counter spell.

Sure he wanted to stop Snape but not enough to practice and stop the dreams because Harry was just to damn curious for his own good he wanted to know where the door ended in his dreams as much as Voldemort wanted to get to the prophecy.

Snape was picked because he was really good at occumelcy alsmot as good as Dumbledore but Dumbledore was afraid to be to close to Harry because he was afraid that it would encourage Voldemort to possess Harry so he could use Harry to hurt Dumbledore or force Dumbledore to kill Harry to prevent the possessed Harry from hurting him.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 22, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I'm currently rereading the book and one of the things that always annoyed me about this book was Harry being trained by Snape.  The last time Harry had trouble with a spell (the summoning charm in GoF) Hermione recommended the library and studying the theroy  of the spell....I just don't get why Harry didn't do that this time...why he didn't pursue any other means of learning the subject....



I'm pretty sure that it was mentioned in HBP that Occulemency (sp) is an obscure branch of study. Sure, there may be some books laying around, but probably not many.


			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> The main reason I don't understand is because it was Snape... I would figure Harry would want to prevent Snape from gaining access to his mind.



Because Snape is trained in this form of magic


			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> And I totally understand the problem from Snape's point of view...I mean if the dark lord is gaining access to Harry the last thing you want to be seen doing is helping the boy block the dark lord.... Dumbledore should have realized that issue so I am unclear why he placed Snape  in such a bad position.



There's a reason that you probably haven't uncovered yet, if you're currently reading it and have gotten to the lessons.


----------



## delericho (Jul 24, 2007)

I've just returned from the film, and thought it was excellent. Certainly a vast improvement over Goblet of Fire. Although, like GoF, it suffers because the book is just so long - the film probably needed another hour or so, which would have been quite painful for much of the target audience.

As for the torture issue - it wasn't so long ago that corporal punishment was quite common in the UK. (Aparently, the use of the cane was finally abolished here in 1987.) Since the Wizarding world seems to mirror a somewhat older British sensibility, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the practice would continue. Furthermore, the students wouldn't rebel en masse because _that was just the way things were_. So, those scenes weren't particularly unrealistic.

Which should not be read as a defense of the practice, of course. But then, if you want to present a character as being particularly nasty and evil (as Umbridge was), the best way to do that is generally to show them doing things that are nasty and evil, no?


----------



## Brogarn (Jul 25, 2007)

Entertaining movie and probably my second favorite of the series with Prisoner of Azkaban being my hands down fav. Goblet of Fire was probably the one I least liked mostly because good chunks of it felt like an episode of any number of High School or Junior High "dramas". It was hard for me to take even knowing full well that I'm outside of the target demographic with these movies and was doing my best to overlook the parts I didn't like.

On a side note, I also haven't read any of the books. I'm waiting for the movies to complete, then I'll read the whole set.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 25, 2007)

Brogarn said:
			
		

> On a side note, I also haven't read any of the books. I'm waiting for the movies to complete, then I'll read the whole set.



From what I've read, that won't happen until 2010.


----------



## Brogarn (Jul 25, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> From what I've read, that won't happen until 2010.




With the stack of books I have waiting to read along with the fact that I read in spurts, I should be alright.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 25, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Forcing a student to cut themselves for hours is quite different than a few whacks with a paddle/belt/yardstick.




While true, remember that most injuries are apparently simple matters to heal in the wizarding world. Whole limbs or extremities can be regrown, so long as they aren't removed by Dark magic. Combined with the aforementioned older sensibilities, I suspect parents are somewhat less touchy about corporal punishment than the modern attitude dictates.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 25, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The kids were depicted as being mastered by the Death Eaters as if the Death Eaters were only toying with them. The kids' spells were visually wussy and the kids were just _taken_ by the Death Eaters with little more than a shrug.
> 
> The showy oooh scarey razmatazz happens only when the OOTP show up.
> 
> And thereby it depicts Dumbledore's Army - who were in the book  pretty much holding their own - look like a bunch of babies. That's not the book.  It's not _Half-Blood Prince_ either - and my guess is that it will not be the scenes shown in Book 7 too.




You might want to read those chapters again. The kids were decidely _not_ holding their own. They were split up, on the run, and battered around even if they did manage to get in a couple good stuns every now and then. Neville's wand and nose broken, Hermione unconscious, Ginny with a broken ankle, and what lasting effect did they have to show for it? A death eater with a baby's head, caused entirely by accident.


----------



## GreyRat (Jul 25, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Snape was picked because he was really good at occumelcy ...




Also, as Dumbledore said, he believed that for this vitally important task, Snape would make an effort to suppress his personal dislike of Potter; D. may have even hoped for a 'buddy movie' opportunity for respect and bonding.  As it turned out, neither of them was really making a good effort.  In the end, D. was forced to admit he had made a mistake.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The movie scene with McGonagall putting up with Umbridge giving out "lines" does not fit in with the books at all.
> 
> One of the main ideas from the books and movies is that the wizarding world is set apart from the normal world.  Wizarding society is still very much 19th century in outlook.  Umbridges "lines" punishment fits in with the kind of punishments doled out by some schools and homes in this timeframe.  Elf Witch mentioned caning, but hitting with yardsticks, and rulers on the knuckles was also a common and brutal punishment.  The more progressive wizards, like most Hogwarts teachers, would not put up with it, but many wizarding families and members of the ministry would allow it.




Yep. very true.  I got the idea from reading the books that the Wizarding world is much harsher than normal, heck the Tri-Wizard tourney was known to be fatal and kids took part in it.  It was a part of the world and that level of discipline was accepted.


P.S. I think I'm the only one who didn't really love the PoA movie, the cuts they made really affected the story for the negative IMO.  The whole deletion of the mauraders map history was a large negative.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Yep. very true.  I got the idea from reading the books that the Wizarding world is much harsher than normal, heck the Tri-Wizard tourney was known to be fatal and kids took part in it.  It was a part of the world and that level of discipline was accepted.



Heck, in movie 4, they cut the mention of even trying to keep the tourney safe. They had a dragon flying the school grounds chasing a student, while the wizards kept their seats and waited for an outcome...




> P.S. I think I'm the only one who didn't really love the PoA movie, the cuts they made really affected the story for the negative IMO.  The whole deletion of the mauraders map history was a large negative.




Movie3 had lots of flaws, but was okay. It left out too much of the background from the book to really be a good chapter in the saga.

Movie4 I didn't care for, because they trimmed lots of stuff from the book, which is fine, but then extended parts that went counter to the feel of the thing.

Movie5 was just badly directed I think. Lots of acting with gaps in lines, the camera focusing on the wrong person during conversations.  Still a decent movie, but should have been done easier.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

My favorite is still #2.  Will go see #5 this weekend.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Yep. very true.  I got the idea from reading the books that the Wizarding world is much harsher than normal, heck the Tri-Wizard tourney was known to be fatal and kids took part in it.  It was a part of the world and that level of discipline was accepted.




I think you're right.  I figure the main reason they don't mind kids jinxing and cursing each other is that's (a) a good learning tool and (b) the effects are usually temporary or annoying, and generally can be fixed with minimal effort.  Those that can't, or are otherwise exceptionally dangerous, *those* are banned.



> P.S. I think I'm the only one who didn't really love the PoA movie, the cuts they made really affected the story for the negative IMO.  The whole deletion of the mauraders map history was a large negative.




Especially with 4, GoF:

"So, we don't have time to go into a lot of stuff, but we'll spend two minutes watching the boat pull slowly into shore.  Great."

Brad


----------



## delericho (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> P.S. I think I'm the only one who didn't really love the PoA movie,




Nope, I didn't care for it either. In fact, the thing I didn't really like was the very same darker tone that a lot of people _do_ really like. I just found it jarring to be faced with that all of a sudden after the relative lightness of the previous two films.

I felt that #1 was okay, but suffered for being a bit _too_ close to the book, and therefore too long. #2 remains my favourite. #4 I didn't like, because it cut far too much from the book. Given the darkness and length of the source material, therefore, I didn't have high hopes for #5, but was pleasantly surprised.

So, my order of preference: #2, #5, #1, #3, #4 (or perhaps #3 then #1, depending on how I feel on a given day).


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Jul 26, 2007)

---> 5, 3, 4, 2, 1


----------



## nick2 (Jul 30, 2007)

What I don't understand is why Harry was the one leading the training of the OotP students, when Hermione has always been the best at magic, and the most knowledgeable about it.  It just seemed to go against the previous movies in that regard, but I guess Harry has to be the hero.  I also thought that the entire OotP students were experiencing the lines "torture", but that may have just been my impression of it.  I enjoyed the movie, and all of the kids sitting around me were quiet throughout the entire movie, which was a lot better than I had expected.


----------



## kingpaul (Jul 30, 2007)

nick2 said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why Harry was the one leading the training of the OotP students, when Hermione has always been the best at magic



The discussion got chopped from the movie. In the book, you find out that Harry is actually better at DAtDA than Hermione.


----------



## Jubilee (Jul 30, 2007)

I think we also learned in OotP (book) that Hermione has trouble producing the Patronis Charm - the only spell she has trouble with, apparently.

I think the idea was also that Harry had all this real world experience with facing dementors, the tri-wizard tournament, and fighting Voldemort himself, so he was better suited for teaching DAtDA.  It made sense in the book, and didn't seem that badly presented in the movie.


----------

