# Rate Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (spoilers)



## Krug (Jun 1, 2004)

Saw this last night... thought the pacing was a bit slow but the visuals were quite stunning. Anyway, let me know your thoughts.


----------



## kingpaul (Jun 1, 2004)

Curse you!  I can't see it here in the States until Friday.


----------



## KenM (Jun 1, 2004)

Quick question, is it as long as the first 2 HP movies? I hope at least it is.


----------



## Yraen (Jun 1, 2004)

*Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban*

Saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. It's been a couple of years since I read the book and this was good because I wasn't questioning what was in and what was out and what was artistic licence...something I did with The Lord of the Rings.

It will definitely be joining the previous two in my DVD collection later in the year


----------



## Krug (Jun 1, 2004)

It was about 2.5 hours if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 1, 2004)

I saw it yesterday and it seemed to fly by, like alfonso had made it from the notes, not the story. Things were cut here and there, but _it was still amazing_. 


Spoiler



My biggest dislikes were: The lake+demonter scene, the other Patronum scenes, the quiditch scene was good (read: better then other quiditch scenes) but didn't follow with what should have happened, we should have seen the other weasleys and learnt about them and percys headboyness. I seriously dislike the way the dementors suck happiness, I should be a passive affect IMO, no active sucking. This way harry is out sooner on the train and the dementors can advance accross the lake. Also I wanted to se Sir Cadogan!

My favourite aditions: Fat lady... LMAO, The bits and pieces in the knight bus, the heads, the ice from the dementors, the look of the werewolf. Lumos maximus, the court yard and other added scenery.



But like I said amazing, but 2 hours is too short.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 1, 2004)

I'm pretty disappointed in that last post to be honest.

The movie isn't out yet in the States.  You knew the movie had not reached wide release yet.  You knew that by posting, you were giving a little smile to people that you had seen it early (which is fine).  However, you also knew that talking about scenes from the movie was a spoiler, AND THAT 99% OF THE PEOPLE READING THIS THREAD HAD NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YET.

I can deal with spoilers a few weeks after release...but spoilers BEFORE WIDE RELEASE?  Come on now, I expected better of EnWorlders.  Now I am just pissed, because I know a bunch of stuff about how things will work in this movie, and I didn't want to know that.  I just wanted some spoiler-free reviews of the movie...which is what everyone else in the thread knew how to do.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2004)

See, I was hoping for more spoilers.  I want to see how it compares to the book, which I've read several times.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Jun 1, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'm pretty disappointed in that last post to be honest.
> 
> The movie isn't out yet in the States.  You knew the movie had not reached wide release yet.  You knew that by posting, you were giving a little smile to people that you had seen it early (which is fine).  However, you also knew that talking about scenes from the movie was a spoiler, AND THAT 99% OF THE PEOPLE READING THIS THREAD HAD NOT SEEN THE MOVIE YET.
> 
> I can deal with spoilers a few weeks after release...but spoilers BEFORE WIDE RELEASE?  Come on now, I expected better of EnWorlders.  Now I am just pissed, because I know a bunch of stuff about how things will work in this movie, and I didn't want to know that.  I just wanted some spoiler-free reviews of the movie...which is what everyone else in the thread knew how to do.




The title of the thread had the movie icon and asked to rate the picture. Considering that you gennerally have to see a picture before you can rate it, I think that would be enough of a warning to stay away from the thread. The first several posts didn't give any spoilers and you could have seen they were talking about the movie and you could have thought "Oh they're talking about the movie I haven;t seen yet, I'm going to leave this thread before I learn any spoilers"

I agree, maybe a spoiler warning could be added, but I think there was enough of a warning in the words for people to not read the thread if they haven;t seen the picture.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 1, 2004)

There's also the point that the book has been out for at least 3 years and is currently available nearly all over the world and is actually cheaper than a movie ticket making spoilers seem somewhat unnecessary.  Most of what was described in that post were descriptions on elements straight from the book.

Additionally, the movies have so far shown a tendency to not deviate too much from the book except to exclude scenes for pacing purposes. The movies are very close to the books with very few differences.

Just my 2 coppers.


----------



## ASH (Jun 2, 2004)

I am excited to see it.

I really like how everything seems to look in the trailers.

i did not think that the fore-mentioned post spoiled much.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 2, 2004)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> The title of the thread had the movie icon and asked to rate the picture. Considering that you gennerally have to see a picture before you can rate it, I think that would be enough of a warning to stay away from the thread.



Its *always* a good idea to stay away from threads of any kind about upcoming movies on the internet.  You just can't expect people to be considerate when it comes to spoilers.  Its just the way it is.

That being said, anyone who's been posting on this forum for more than a few weeks knows that there are always two kinds of threads for new movie releases; "Rate X" threads and "X Spoiler thread."  This isn't the spoiler thread.  Spoilers shouldn't be mentioned and they certainly shouldn't be mentioned without blacked out spoiler text.

I didn't read more than a couple of lines of Ferret's post because, like I said, I just don't expect others to be considerate and I could tell he was going to start talking about the story.  I wouldn't even be skimming this thread if I was really, really looking forward to the movie but it does look like it might be good.  However, if what Mistwell said is true, then I can't say I approve, but again, he read it at his own risk.

You read reviews to get any idea as to the quality of a picture, not to have key plot points given away.


----------



## Krug (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't think his post spoilt much; nothing more than the trailer has anyway.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 2, 2004)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> The title of the thread had the movie icon and asked to rate the picture. Considering that you gennerally have to see a picture before you can rate it, I think that would be enough of a warning to stay away from the thread. The first several posts didn't give any spoilers and you could have seen they were talking about the movie and you could have thought "Oh they're talking about the movie I haven;t seen yet, I'm going to leave this thread before I learn any spoilers"
> 
> I agree, maybe a spoiler warning could be added, but I think there was enough of a warning in the words for people to not read the thread if they haven;t seen the picture.




I should have remembered, I'm so used to seeing movies _after_ the US. Sorry I've put spoiler tabs on it now.

Seriously, go watch it I haven't said all the good points in the movie, plus the money you spend will go towards the next movie!

Sorry.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2004)

You mention the look of the 



Spoiler



werewolf


; how does that compare to the look of the same from Van Helsing?  Which I thought looked pretty cool?


----------



## nikolai (Jun 2, 2004)

Joshua Dyal; I like the look of the 



Spoiler



werewolf


. I don't think that 



Spoiler



werewolves


 have ever been done really well on film, but the CG effects are good. I suppose much depends on your personal preference for the look, but I think the 



Spoiler



werewolf


 effects are better than was the case in 



Spoiler



Van Helsing


 or 



Spoiler



Underworld


.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 2, 2004)

That's good to know.  I didn't particularly like the 



Spoiler



werewolves


 in 



Spoiler



Underworld


 but like the ones from 



Spoiler



Van Helsing


 much better.  I guess I just always like the whole 



Spoiler



Werewolf RPG crinos form as a representation of what a werewolf would be like.  In the actual PoA book, though, Remus Lupin seems to be much more like a wolf when in werewolf form.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 2, 2004)

Sorry, Mistwell, I'm not seeing major glaring sins in that "spoiler" post.  There's much more of a spoiling nature in the previews.  As for a rating, I'll do it after the midnight showing tonight.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 2, 2004)

Good movie. I rated it 8. It matched my expectations. It doesn't have that extra special beyond-the-call-of-duty feeling which marks a real masterwork, but it is very well-rounded. I think that no aspect of the movie had glaring flaws.

 ...no, they haven't started showing movies in Italy before the USA, I'm just in the UK now.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2004)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> The title of the thread had the movie icon and asked to rate the picture. Considering that you gennerally have to see a picture before you can rate it, I think that would be enough of a warning to stay away from the thread.




Except that is the opposite of how things tend to work on this board.  The ratings threads are usually movie reviews, and are kept spolier free using the spoiler tag.  A separate thread is usually opened for spoiler discussions...since the rating thread is for a poll.



> The first several posts didn't give any spoilers and you could have seen they were talking about the movie and you could have thought "Oh they're talking about the movie I haven;t seen yet, I'm going to leave this thread before I learn any spoilers"




I come to the ratings thread of a movie I have not seen yet because I want to see what my peers think of the movie...hence the purpose of the thread.  Why read a ratings thread AFTER you see it...the ratings help you decide if you want to see the movie to begin with.



> I agree, maybe a spoiler warning could be added, but I think there was enough of a warning in the words for people to not read the thread if they haven;t seen the picture.




There was NO WARNING. NONE. Not one scintilla of warning that this was going to be a spoiler thread.  I assumed it was called rate harry pottery because it was going to be about rating harry potter!


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> There's also the point that the book has been out for at least 3 years and is currently available nearly all over the world and is actually cheaper than a movie ticket making spoilers seem somewhat unnecessary.  Most of what was described in that post were descriptions on elements straight from the book.




Actually, the spoilers were SPECIFICALLY THE THINGS THAT VARIED FROM THE BOOKS.  Did you just not even read the post we were talking about?


----------



## ASH (Jun 3, 2004)

So, there are spoiler tags now. Happy!  

To get back to the topic, and away from grumpy-ness.
 I am seeing this movie tonight at 12am. I am pretty excited. Hopefully the theater will not be too packed but I have a feeling it will be.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 3, 2004)

I'll be watching it tommorrow.  THose spoilerts were pretty weak IMO, not worth any time to get grumpy over.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 3, 2004)

I agree 100% Crothian.  Also with the watching it tomorrow sentiment.  

Tomorrow night it's me and my wife (I'll try and finish reading the book with her before then, but if not, oh well, I've read it several times before.)

Saturday we might go again with the kids.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 3, 2004)

Ha ha with the spoilers guys, very funny. The 



Spoiler



werewolf


 is in the 



Spoiler



trailer


.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 3, 2004)

it was also in the book


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 4, 2004)

first, the thread is called RATE THE MOVIE. which to me, means "see the movie, then come comment" i depise the annoying spoiler tags that make threads impossible to read, so proceed at your own risk

i dunno.having read the books, i can only make my judgments on them as adaptions and not stand-alone movies.

i liked the first one, cuz it did a good job of staying faitfhul to the book (some say too much so). it LOOKED like i expected it too. i also liked the added comedy bits to make the move a bit more light-hearted and cut out some of the redundant exposition in the books

i liked the second one cuz it played up the silliness and worked well as a companion-piece to the book. yes, the ending was pretty brutal but i never liked the ending of the book either, and was already sufficiently pleased with the rest of the movie.

this one? it didnt LOOK right. i know everyone is raving about cauron, but i didnt like the constant long views, i didnt like the fact that most of the movie took place outside, and was brightly lit. to me, it was counter-productive to the scary mood the movie should have been setting with the dementors. I thought the over-use of the "real" clothes would bother me, but it didn't. But the constant daylight annoyed me to no end. And the werewolf looked almost as bad as the centaur in the first movie. Yikes. Also, the dementors looked great, but the using of their powers was ridiculous.

The first time through the books, this was my favorite, but a recent re-read had me deciding that this book was 75% exposition with harry having no clue what was going on. I must have really just been into the mystery.  I think that story-wise they did an ok job with what they saved and what they cut, and dan's acting has improved some. (at least he pulled off angry ok, which will be important later) So I'm just as happy with the content of this movie as I am with the other ones, just the look bothers me. And the music. The music was bothering me to no end. UGH.  Can I have the harry potter theme back and not this something wicked this way comes nonsense?

I'm gonna give it a 7 for now. but will probably have to watch it again to really decide.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 4, 2004)

I liked it better than the first two movies. The first felt flat somehow, despite their lavishness. And of course the additions to the cast were as great as the return characters. Oldman, Thewlis and especially Thompson were great!



Spoiler



I liked the werewolf, but it doen't really look like a "Chrinos", but rather a long-legged furry creature with a snout  I loved the hippogriff and the demeontors were scary as heck! Coool visuals. I was astonished how great they worked, despite having seen them in trailers for quite some time now.



I am a little apprehensive of the next director, but Cuaron was the right choice, definitively. Rated it 8.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 4, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> I am a little apprehensive of the next director, but Cuaron was the right choice, definitively.




While he couldn't do #4 (time constraints--it comes out in 17 months), he has expressed interest in doing another film in the series.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

Ferret said:
			
		

> Ha ha with the spoilers guys, very funny. The
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, but apparently it's not allowed to discuss things in 



Spoiler



the trailer


 lest you incite the ire of Mistwell, who 



Spoiler



ignores anything related to the movie except the movie itself.  And threads on ENWorld.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 4, 2004)

Berandor and stevelabny:

I also thought the first two movies were fun, but a little too dry to really represent the books well - flat, if you will.  Harry's character in particular comes across as flat and _boring_ in the movies relative to who he is in the books.  (Although I haven't seen the third movie -- got another six hours or so until the showing I bought tickets for...)

I also initially enjoyed PoA the best as a book for quite a while, but have more and more been aware of the plot holes in it.  For instance, if all Moony has to do to keep from transforming is not go outside in the moonlight, why's being a werewolf such a problem?

I still like the mystery, I like the twist of the book and the implications it has for the next one, etc. but I think GoF is my favorite book at the moment.  Although another recent rereading of OotP has also raised it in my esteem as well.

BTW, any word on when the sixth book is to be expected?  I know the 5th one only came out a year or so ago, but I'm a little out of the loop and don't know what to expect for no. 6.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 4, 2004)

JK's publishers have foregone a deadline because of the pressure it put on her. www.jkrowling.com has some more info on that topic, somewhere.


----------



## kingpaul (Jun 5, 2004)

Well, I just saw it.  I thought it wasn't as well done as the 1st 2 were. Granted, because of the length of the movie, they had to cut stuff out, but I wish they hadn't.  They also rearranged some events as well. I am, probably, being over-picky.

I have to agree that 



Spoiler



the werewolf wasn't done all that well...but that may be from being spoiled from the Van Helsing werewolf


.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 5, 2004)

Enjoyed it, didn't like the amount of stuff they left out though.  I thought that created some story problems with the movie.   I'd say I don't like it as much as CoS, but better than SS.   It felt rushed as one who has read the book a few times.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 5, 2004)

The Whomping Willow ruled.


----------



## Tiberius (Jun 5, 2004)

I found it to be enjoyable, but was a little disappointed with what was cut.  While I understand the rationale of "Pick one theme/plot and stick with it", I was really looking forward to seeing 



Spoiler



the members of House Syltherin being attacked by Harry's Patronus after they dress up as a Dementor


 and 



Spoiler



Professor Snape bellowing about how Potter must have been involved with the escape of Black, despite the fact that everyone knew he was in the hospital wing 


.  I was also surprised that 



Spoiler



Sirius didn't deliver his "I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for!" line.  Perhaps it was thought to make the character less likable?


 (shrug)


----------



## Crothian (Jun 5, 2004)

the movie was pretty good.  THe sets and backgrounds were as great as ever, but the story itself seemed lacking.  I know they had to cut a lot of the book (and I mean a lot) but I'm not sure the movie holds the story together that well at all.  Haveing read the book, its hard to tell if the movie works by its self.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2004)

I saw the movie this afternoon.  It is clear the kids have learned a good deal about acting over teh course fo the previous two movies, because they are doing a pretty good job.  The visuals, as others have said, are very good. I liked the cinematography.  The casting was excellent - Mooney, Sirius, Trelawny, Pettigrew, and the new Dumbledore all did excellent work.

I wasn't so pleased with the editing.  A few things that I feel are pretty crucial were left out.  Many of the scene changes seemed forced and ill-rationalized.  I fully understand that they are trying to cut down a long book into a movie, but I simply disagree with many of the cuts.  I expect the movie to be able to stand alone, without having read the book, and some of the wrong things ended up on the cutting room floor, IMHO.  If there's an extended edition someday, it might do a better job in that sense.  

Oh, and as for 



Spoiler



the werewoolf


, I thought it was well done.  I am glad it didn't look exactly like those seen in other movies.  

To address somethign Joshual Dyal said - 



Spoiler



I don't recall the book closely enough, do they actually say that it is direct moonlight that causes the transformation?  In the movie, it can be seen either as moonlight, or moonrise.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Jun 6, 2004)

I saw it this afternoon as well.  I thought it was a brilliant adaptation, where I felt the first two were flat.  As for things that were cut, I didn't really miss them.  I thought the pacing of the film was more fluid and natural than the other two, which bored me dreadfully.  

A couple of reviewers (Roger Ebert and Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe, maybe?  Or maybe just one and not the other?) have said that the film lacks the amusement park feel of its predecessors.  I agree, and, what's more, really liked the way it was shot to give the world a little bit more of a real feeling.  It felt more natural when the kids arrived at Hogwarts to me than it had before (which very much had a Magic Kingdom vibe going on IMHO).  I don't want to go so far as to say that it's the darkness of the film, as that sort of thing can be bad, too, but it's not quite so bright and picture-bookish as the first two films.  It just looks more like a film.

In the end, I felt that Cuarón made a film, rather than filming a book, if that makes sense.  Which, for me, was good, as out of all the HP books, Prisoner of Azkaban was my least favorite.  This does put me in the minority, at least according to some stuff I've been reading.

As for the 



Spoiler



werewolf


, I was underwhelmed by it -- something just didn't feel right to me.  I liked the 



Spoiler



whomping willow


, though -- it just worked really well for me.

Best,
Nick


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 6, 2004)

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and thought it worked well.  Contrary to many people here, I thought the editting of the book to fit the movie medium was fine.

Now, the makeup department needs to be shot.  Watch the movie again, and pay attention to Harry's scar.  Not only does it change color, but also dimension and position... in one spot very noticeably, where it's practically in the middle of his forehead.

An amazing thing I noticed is that a lot of people in the audience were confused at the end, regarding 



Spoiler



Hermione and Harry's time-travel


.  Unfortunately I don't know how confusing that was, since I have already read the books, and obviously there for knew what was going on already.  I don't think a lot of the people in the theater had even read the books.  Then again, maybe people in Syracuse are dumb, because the whole thing made sense to me, and seemed like it would even if I hadn't read the books.  I don't know.

If nothing else this third movie has made me realize even more why I'm not fond of the first ones.  Of course, I don't particularly like the first two books either, so it makes sense story-wise.  From a simple cinematography standpoint though, I think Cuaron's version just looks more realistic... the previous two made the whole thing just look... plastic, I guess.  Especially the "exterior" shots.

Oh, and to add me to the list of people with weird HP opinions, I think the fifth has been the best by far.  In fact, I would put them in the order of five, four, three, two, one. (contact!  )

What I think is beginning to happen, now that Harry Potter is such a big name, is that fans' expectations are starting to reach the unreachable by anyone.  I'm not saying they don't have a right not to like the movies... I prefer the books as well.  However, I think there's not going to be any way that directors are going to be able to be living up to these expectations, especially given the length and complexity of the fourth and fifth books.  I'm noticing it already, in my circle of people... my friends and acquaintences who didn't like it much are all terrible fans of the books.  On the other hand, the people who seem to like it more are the casual readers, who have only read them maybe once or twice.  Of course, that's just my own experience, and not necessarily indicative of... well, anything.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jun 6, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> An amazing thing I noticed is that a lot of people in the audience were confused at the end, regarding
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



I understooed what the movie said about it just fine, but the metaphysicas of this sort of time travel is illogical and circular.  There are a lot of bad sorts of time travel, but this kind is singularly unacceptable.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 6, 2004)

I think the issue with the 



Spoiler



time travel


 was that it wasn't set up as well as in the book.  It would have been nice if we had learned what Hermione was up to before it became relevant to the overall plot.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 6, 2004)

they do say what she was up to, it was short and in passing but it was there


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 6, 2004)

I was amazed by at least one bit that was cut - 



Spoiler



when Harry receives the explanation for who Mooney, Prongs, Wormtail and Padfoot (of magic map fame) were and why P., P. and W. became Animagi.  It makes the visual of the glowing Patronus Stag make more sense, and helps Harry connect with his father in the book.  I kept waiting for Harry to call out to Lupin as he's leaving, "How did you know how to work the map?" or something but it never came.


  Seems like the whole issue could have been wrapped up with about 30 seconds of dialogue, and would have made a lot more sense to people who hadn't read the book.

 I wonder if this was filmed?  It would make a crucial addition to the DVD, and should probably be edited back into the film.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 6, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I was amazed by at least one bit that was cut -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Supposedly they are going to give some of this info in later films.  What worries me is that there is already so much material that is going to have to be trimmed to fit books 4 & 5 into a 2-3 hour movie, adding stuff that should have been in earlier films will cause even more cuts.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 6, 2004)

I can't imagine why.  Along with 



Spoiler



Sirius escaping, the revelation about Harry's Patronum's form is one of the biggest emotional highs of the book IMO


.  The movie suffered a bit for it's excising.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 6, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I can't imagine why.  Along with
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree.  I think the ommissions were damaging to the story.  The more I think of it the more I think they screwed up.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 7, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I agree. I think the ommissions were damaging to the story. The more I think of it the more I think they screwed up.



See, I don't see it that way at all.  I don't think the story was really hurt at all by the lack of either of those revelations.

Though I will admit, adding either of them in wouldn't have really extended the movie that much.  It'd be a cool "Extended Edition" thing to throw in.  Especially because I loved Lupin, and David Thewlis's performance.

If you didn't like this screen adaptation though, I wouldn't waste your time with the fourth and fifth, as the screenplays are being written by the same person (Steven Kloves).  He also did the first and second, but then there was less to include.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 7, 2004)

Saw it on Saturday morning, and at the moment I'd give it a 7. I say "at the moment" because I really disliked the first movie when I saw it in the theater, and thoroughly enjoyed it when I watched it again on DVD. Once I know what to expect, I know how to approach the movie.

I'd say PoA is about as good as the first movie, and not as good as the second. Not having Chris Columbus in the director's chair made a surprising difference, and I chalk most of the things that I liked more in the first two movies up to that -- and the difference in the length of the books.

One of the folks I watched it with commented that she hopes they break book four into two movies, given how much needed to be cut out of PoA. It still makes a good movie, but I'm not sure how they're going to handle things for the fifth one.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 7, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Seems like the whole issue could have been wrapped up with about 30 seconds of dialogue, and would have made a lot more sense to people who hadn't read the book.




After watching PoA, my feeling was that they've moved solidly into the realm of expecting everyone who goes to see the movie to have already read the book.

I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but I agree that the part you're referring to should have been in the movie.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 7, 2004)

Having never read any of the Harry Potter books, I wasn't burdened with any baggage going in. I found the movie interesting and enjoyable. I'm sure there is a level of meaning that I just didn't get, but having no fanboy expectations for the film to live up to, I gave it an 8 as a work in its own right.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 7, 2004)

I'd really like to hear from some folks who hadn't read the book, to see if any of it was confusing to them.  It seems to me that it worked very well.  I really liked Cuaron's direction, and while I can see the points about the transitions being a little of a stretch at times, it was a lot of fun too. 

EDIT: I see we got Pseudonym responding from the "haven't read the book" camp. It seems things came through pretty clearly without needing to have the further details spelled out - as I thought it would.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jun 7, 2004)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I see we got Pseudonym responding from the "haven't read the book" camp. It seems things came through pretty clearly without needing to have the further details spelled out - as I thought it would.




I'd like to add my voice to that pile.  I wondered why the stag form and didn't like the time-travel sceme (I understood it, I just didn't like the logic), but having never read the books it was perfetly understandable to me.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 7, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Ah, but apparently it's not allowed to discuss things in the trailer lest you incite the ire of Mistwell, who ignores anything related to the movie except the movie itself.  And threads on ENWorld.



I was smart enough to not read this thread too carefully before seeing the movie, but that attitude just isn't cool.  So if a trailer gives something away, its okay to be a jerk to the next guy?  If you knew someone unfamiliar with LOTR who just started watching Fellowship of the Ring, you'd just give away the fact that Gandalf survives because it ends up in the trailer for The Two Towers?

I stayed off all messageboards on the internet for _months_ before Return of the King came out, because I _knew_ there'd be a ton of posts like yours.  Its like if a movie is based on a book or has a revealing trailer common courtesy is just thrown out the window.  "Oh you haven't seen the trailer that spoils the end of Cast Away?  Well let me tell it to you then.  Oh you haven't read the book?  Well its been out for a few years so let me ruin it for you."

Was the movie being discussed here ruined by any posts on this thread?  No.  But most people reading this forum are movie buffs, and we all like a good story.  Some people don't want the ending spoiled and some people don't want smaller surprises ruined like what kind of fantasy creature will be the focus of any given Harry Potter movie.  So why the snide attitude toward someone who just wants to preserve the maximum possible enjoyment of a movie when its so easy to _not_ be inconsiderate?


----------



## Stone Angel (Jun 7, 2004)

I am a huge fan of the books. And I love the movies. I am giving this a nine. I really loved the new landscape, I would of however would have liked to see more of the innards of the castle. Did anyone else notice that during Harry's and Buckbeack's scene that they showed the little hidden area from the PS2 game. Anyway I though that Lupin looked great. both of them. especially the later. It was a little refreshing to see one that had some different qualities to it. My fiancee never read the books and she had no problems understanding it or had any problems with the plot. Also I read this thread before I seen the movie and had no problems with the "spoilers".

My one complaint was at the begining it seemed to almost sprint, I feel that they could have put a little more yeast in the dough so to speak. I just felt rushed, but I loved it, everything about, look, music, feel, actors.


The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 7, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Was the movie being discussed here ruined by any posts on this thread?  No.  But most people reading this forum are movie buffs, and we all like a good story.  Some people don't want the ending spoiled and some people don't want smaller surprises ruined like what kind of fantasy creature will be the focus of any given Harry Potter movie.  So why the snide attitude toward someone who just wants to preserve the maximum possible enjoyment of a movie when its so easy to _not_ be inconsiderate?



The book has been out for years.  Previews and trailers have been showing for months.  The post that caused Mistwell's rant didn't spoil anything that wasn't in the trailer.

I understand where you're coming from Kai Lord, but at some point there has to be a line drawn between preventing spoilers and being ridiculous.  If you can't even discuss things that were in the frikkin' _trailer_ or any standard non-spoiler critic's review without getting someone mad, then I think you've come down firmly on the side of being ridiculous.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 7, 2004)

Saw the movie. It was good, but for some reason, I didn't like it as much as the first two.  The impression I got from PoA was that it was done more in the style of Burton in Edward Scissorhands.  The whole experience was presented as surreal and eerie in a Burtonesque style which I felt annoyed with considering the quaint-style of Columbus.

Understandably, this is a transition movie where the stories get darker, but the transition from quaint to surreal could've been emphasized better.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 7, 2004)

Liked it a lot.  I consider it the best of the three, so far, but it's a hard call to make.  I enjoyed the first movie much more when I rewatched it on DVD than I did in the theater.  I think the second one is better than the first...but I think this one holds together on it's own better than the other two.

 Cuaron and Klowes cut a lot of material, but kept the core intact.  There are lots of little things I would have liked to have seen added in, but the movie already went to 2 hours and 21 minutes, and I'm sure that Cuaron had to make tough choices.  Things like identifiying the four partners in crime, for example, would have required a great deal more background to not feel superflous and confusing, I think.  I fully expect that we'll get all that material summed up tidily in the next movie, instead, combined with the material on Snape, as well.

 With all of the characters, side-plots and continuing sequences, things have to drop to the floor.  That's what the DVDs can really adress, later.  Everyone's going to have their favorite moments or items that were missed...that's just the danger of having to do such an adaption.

 Mike Newell, the fellow chosen to do the fourth film, isn't exactly a piker, either.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 7, 2004)

A side note: the four mischief makers on the map (IIRC) is actually in Goblet of Fire and not covered in the book PoA.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 7, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> A side note: the four mischief makers on the map (IIRC) is actually in Goblet of Fire and not covered in the book PoA.



Sorry, you do not remember that correctly.  Lupin does clearly tell Harry who all four of them are when he gives the map back to him (and explains the whole deal about his father being a stag animagus.)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 7, 2004)

Not having read the books I rated the movie an 8. I wasn't confused at all about anything. There are a few minor details that I'm sure would be interesting from the book, but knowing that it was edited for time I just chalked those up to that. Everything that people seem to be complaining about wern't relevant to my understanding the broader plot or apreciating the movie as a whole. 

The biggest problem I had was the feeling I had about a lack of resolution to the story, and the whole final 1/2 hour story line (I don't like that kind of story line in anything), but I know that is not the directors/screenwriters fault as the movie was pretty faithful to the book.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 7, 2004)

Alright, few things up front.

Read the books. Love them.

Loved _Y Tu Mama Tambien_.

Rated it a 5, which means that I liked it about as much as I disliked it. Not a bad film in general, and some really good elements to it, but held back by a pretty major flaw.

Flaw first:

The screenplay. A couple of people have commented on the editing, saying the film felt a little slow. I don't think it's the editing at fault -- it's the screenplay. The problem is that there's not much story here. Nobody's trying to accomplish anything (except Sirius Black), so there's not a lot of tension at any point in the film -- which makes it feel slow. Sirius Black is not made much of threat, so we don't worry about Harry the way we do in the book, where you're wondering when this boggart is going to jump out of the closet. In the book it's very tense but the screenplay failed to produce that sensation. Likewise, in the closing act of the film, the threat of the Dementor's approach to the prisoner is not urgent enough, and again it feels flat and lacking in tension.

This carries over into other plot threads. 



Spoiler



Draco Malfoy is just a buffoon, and you never really worry about Hagrid's status. The Dementors pretty much cease being scary once the Patronus charm is taught to Harry.



Good stuff:

The look is gorgeous. This is the least cartoony of the films, and the more realistic appearance really lends a lot to the production. Of course the effects are spectacular, but the manner in which they are (for the most part) unobtrusively made part of the background breathes life into the setting. Not so many "Look at our special effects budget!" shots, which is welcome. The costumes are also excellent and understated (I was going to say the kids spend most of their time _out_ of their trim little uniforms, but that mental image quickly went places Eric's Grandma would NOT approve of).

The score is certainly one of Williams' best in recent memory. The previous films suffered from a bombastic score that overplayed every moment, but here the orchestra sits back and adds a light touch to each moment. Very nice.

Cuaron, unsurprisingly, gets terrific performances from the growing actors, and even if Rupert Grint is looking awfully robust for a thirteen-year-old, the three leads are all so unaffected and charming it's impossible not to believe them. Radcliffe is still convincing as Harry, though I wonder if he's not having a problem with intense scenes -- there were some abrupt cuts around scenes of him crying or yelling that make me wonder. Still, he's very much Harry Potter from the books. And Emma Watson's amazing.

Of course the old hands all take every opportunity to tear up their scenes. You can imagine the screenwriter coming up with lines specifically for Alan Rickman's precise diction ("Page three hundred and ninety-four"). Emma Thompson has a brilliant transition from eerie vision-seeing psychic to addle-brained teacher that brings the house down, and Robbie Coltrane, David Thewlis and Gary Oldman all deliver (though Oldman is sadly underused). Michael Gambon as Dumbledore suffices, though he by no means replaces Harris, and the filmmakers perhaps wisely keep Dumbledore to the sidelines for this go-round.

Also props for the walk-ons -- this film is full of unnamed characters who never speak (or have one throwaway line) but who nevertheless live and breath onscreen. The school feels for the first time like a living environment full of real people.

Cuaron has said he wanted this film to be about a boy's transition into adolescence, and that to some degree explains the choice to make such a unfocused, meandering picture, but that transition is not observed with much clarity or precision (compare with the transition from adolescence into adulthood in _Y Tu Mama Tambien_), and the film that results is saggy and lacking in dramatic tension. See it for the performances, for the gee-whiz effects, and for a number of great comic moments with some great actors. The sense of humour is a little more English than in the previous films, which is also appealing ("I'll just come back later, then").

The previous two films might have been condemned for too slavish an adherence to the books -- if you'd read the books there was very little to astonsih and delight on screen, just one depiction after another of moments from the books. This film offers a somewhat more idiosyncratic take on the Harry Potter story, which is welcome in and of itself, but Cuaron doesn't quite grab hold of what he was reaching for, and as result the film is unsatisfying.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 8, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The book has been out for years.



So explain how that overrules common courtesy.  The events in the books are hardly common pop culture knowledge, and to spoil the story of one medium because it first appeared in another is simply rude, pure and simple.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Previews and trailers have been showing for months.



And previews and trailers have been ruining surprises for _years_.  Following suit doesn't make someone less of a jerk (note that I'm not calling you a jerk, you didn't spoil anything, I'm addressing the people you're defending, which doesn't necessarily include Ferret either, it appears he just got a little overzealous and made a simple mistake.)



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I understand where you're coming from Kai Lord, but at some point there has to be a line drawn between preventing spoilers and being ridiculous.  If you can't even discuss things that were in the frikkin' _trailer_ or any standard non-spoiler critic's review without getting someone mad, then I think you've come down firmly on the side of being ridiculous.



Trailers aren't divine works of non-spoiling goodness.  A lot of them do exactly what a trailer should _not_ do.  So falling back on "but it was in the trailer" is a completely dismissable position.  You ignored it the first time so I'll say it again.  If someone spoils Gandalf's return after Moria because it was in the trailer for The Two Towers, he's an ass.  If someone spoils the fact that Tom Hanks gets off the island and says goodbye to his ex-fiance because "it was in the trailer", he's an _ass._  End of story.

And don't even get me started on saying its okay to discuss things that are mentioned in the reviews of professional critics.  Roger Ebert himself not only gave away the fact that there is a 



Spoiler



werewolf


 in the movie but also which 



Spoiler



teacher


 it is!  _That's_ ridiculous.

If you want to say, "look, the 



Spoiler



werewolf


 thing isn't that big of a spoiler in the context of the story," then fine, I can go with that.  But using the whole "but it was in the trailer/book that's been out for years/Roger Ebert's review" defense isn't a defense at all.  Its just saying you side with the punks who don't care if they spoil someone's fun.

Now, we don't need to carry this on any further 1.  because I want to get to discussing Harry Potter and 2.  the internet spoiler issue is a pet peeve of mine but one I've long since accepted.  For me personally its a non-issue because I'm smart enough to avoid any discussion whatsoever of movies I don't want spoiled in the slightest (Harry Potter obviously wasn't one of them.)

And most trailers and reviews suck so I avoid them too.      Rant over.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> I was amazed by at least one bit that was cut -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree, this was the only thing that really surprised me in its ommission. I think it is the key to understanding pretty much *everything* in the backstory as well as a couple of unanswered questions in the film 



Spoiler



like how lupin knew how to work the map, for instance. And while I'm inside spoiler tags, I'd just like to say that I thought the take on the werewolf was great - much more sinister and scary than the Van Helsing ones, for instance.


.

One other thing I'd always thought that the hippogriff was a dorky medieval fantasy creature, but Buckbeak has converted me, and I quite like them now.

Cheers


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 9, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *explain how that overrules common courtesy.  The events in the books are hardly common pop culture knowledge*




Umm, huh? How is ti that the contents of one of the best selling books of all time _isn't_ common pop culture knowledge. At this point Harry Potter is almost the definition of pop culture.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 9, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I agree, this was the only thing that really surprised me in its ommission. *snip*




I expected one more thing in addition to that.  



Spoiler



The very last scene should have been Pettigrew returning to Voldemort.  That sets up the cliffhanger for Goblet of Fire, and also fulfills the last bit of Trelawney's prophecy.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 9, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> If someone spoils Gandalf's return after Moria because it was in the trailer for The Two Towers, he's an ass.  If someone spoils the fact that Tom Hanks gets off the island and says goodbye to his ex-fiance because "it was in the trailer", he's an _ass._  End of story.
> For me personally its a non-issue because I'm smart enough to avoid any discussion whatsoever of movies I don't want spoiled in the slightest (Harry Potter obviously wasn't one of them.)




Um, you realize what youre calling yourself right?
I mean, here we're still yelling at someone for spoiling a movie in a clearly labeled "rate the movie" thread and you have a problem, because you seem to think that although "rate the movie" implies that we've all seen it, that there is some sort additional spoiler insurance.

BUT then you go and spoil two other movies, all the while claiming that any person who does so is an "ass". 

Pot. 
Kettle. 
Self. 
Or something.

Surely you realize that spoiling movies in threads about OTHER MOVIES is completely unforgivable, right? The argument about LOTR:TT being around for decades and in the trailer works for the side that believes that youre allowed to use common sense with spoiler tags, not your side of the debate. And Cast Away isnt even a genre film. 

And you had no problems spoiling them, but continue to use tags 2 pages into the discussion about Prisoner of Azkaban. Ridiculous. 

You just made yourself look really silly. 

Not to mention...his name is REMUS LUPIN. if someone cant figure out what he is they should have their geek license revoked.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> BUT then you go and spoil two other movies, all the while claiming that any person who does so is an "ass".



Spoiling The Two Towers at this point is like saying Darth Vader is Luke's father.  It ain't a spoiler anymore (certainly on a forum like this) when its so ingrained into public consciousness.  As for the "Tom Hanks" movie, well, I didn't name the movie in that post now did I?


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, huh? How is ti that the contents of one of the best selling books of all time _isn't_ common pop culture knowledge.



For the same reason that the average person on the street can't name all 12 of Jesus' disciples.  They were mentioned several times in a certain book that's sold legion more copies than the third Harry Potter book.  Everybody knows the name "Harry Potter" but the details of the books are virtually unknown by the public at large.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 9, 2004)

There are millions of people who have never read LotR or even the Hobbit but watched the movie.  Even now, there is a whole generation unfamiliar with the original Star Wars Trilogy, some of which are waiting for the the last of the prequels before the watch the Original.

Big difference is that books exist for LotR and Harry Potter.  If people cut down their TV/videogame time and crack open a book every once in awhile they wouldn't be spoiled when the movie versions come around.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for people who would rather (notice this word "rather")watch the movies while refusing to or don't even make an effort to read the books.  Those people should be spoilered on a regular basis for their laziness. Especially if they claim to be fans of the material (gawd all of the Movie LotR fans coming out of the woodwork and acting like they were fans from when they were younger is sickening).


----------



## kingpaul (Jun 9, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> Frankly, I have no sympathy for people who would rather (notice this word "rather")watch the movies while refusing to or don't even make an effort to read the books.



I've gone to several movies with co-workers of a friend, and one of them in particular has basically told me that I'm an idiot because I didn't feel that neither _Bourne Identity_ nor _Clear and Present Danger_ lived up to the books.  He said that I should be spending more time playing video games instead (and he was being serious about that).


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 9, 2004)

Well, Kingpaul, don't ever change and play more videogames instead of reading.  

While I agree that CP&D and Bourne ID were not as good as the books and were pretty much made on name recognition alone (especially Clear and Present Danger, bleh...) Bourne ID was actually a good movie, just nowhere on par with the cat and mouse game that the book was.

Movies are a different media than books, but they are for the most part an inferior medium. Changes are required and juciy tidbit scenes are cut out to make the movies.  While I do like watching movies and movies based on books, I am starting to see the disturbing trends that have made many authors (especially fantasy writers) decide not want their books made into movies.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 9, 2004)

Since there seems to be no further plans to actually discuss the movie...


			
				NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> Movies are a different media than books, but they are for the most part an inferior medium.



Are you sure you mean what you're saying, here? I mean, do you really mean to say that movies are categorically inferior to books?

Cause I'm going to want to some rationale for that one.

If you're saying that most movies made from books do not provide the same degree of artistic satisfaction that the book did, I won't squawk. But if you're just saying "Books are a superior art form to movies," I'll be asking you to defend that position.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 9, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> Frankly, I have no sympathy for people who would rather (notice this word "rather")watch the movies while refusing to or don't even make an effort to read the books. Those people should be spoilered on a regular basis for their laziness.



What a silly thing to say.  I'm not saying you're silly, probably a great guy, but the sentiment of your post is just stupid.    

Some people prefer the medium of films to books for the purpose of telling a story.  God knows I do.  A triumph in literature is one person's vision expertly transcribed to the page.  A triumph in film is one or more people's visions expressed through many different art forms; photography, writing, music, acting, editing, animation, etc.  There aren't any constraints in telling a story with a novel, but there are all kinds on film (budget, special effects technology, shooting schedule, conflicting creative ideas, and so on.)  Seeing the LOTR brought to life on film in the manner it was was every bit as amazing as Tolkien's original works.

Your elitist attitude may keep you warm at night, but it certainly doesn't add any validity to your opinions.  You're welcome to think so of course.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 9, 2004)

Hey Kai Lord, you completely missed the context of my post in your attempt at trying to be witty.

I in no way insulted the medium of film.  Please keep in context. Notice in my example, I mentioned Star Wars (while debateable as art/good story, etc.--just not by me) but referred specifically to LotR and HP as having books as sources.

What I commented on was the film adaptions of books and people who would rather watch the film adaptions of books and do not want the story spoiled despite the fact that the source material (books) tend to be cheaper and more accessible.

Some stories can only be told on film to truly express the scope and epic style.  Most of those stories, however, tend to already be stories originally on the screen.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 9, 2004)

Ok so according to the movie why did Snape hate Lupin?  Since they never mentioned the Animagus stuff was it just becuase Snape is an evil git?  There is nothing about the trick that Black played on Snape and Snape's reaction to it and J. Potters saving him.  There was nothing to explain the animosity Snape had for Lupin and the rest of the crew.  I don't recall them mentioning why Wormtail was living as a Rat for so long with the Weaslys.  He was hiding from...?  They don't give a reason.  Why wasn't he just hiding as a normal guy, according to the movie?


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 9, 2004)

Ahem.  Folks, the original offending post is now in spoiler tags.  You're not beating a dead horse here, you're beating a friggin' extinct horse.   May I suggest that, in the future:
1) Everyone try to give adequate warning before being the first person to post spoilers in a thread, and
2) If you're going to ask someone to warn about spoilers, you do it in a polite and friendly fashion, and
3) We drop this discussion in this thread, and continue discussing the movie?

Cuz I wanna talk about the movie.

I hated the first movie.  Loathed it, despised it, sneered at it, dreaded seeing it the second time.  (Stupid no-good promises made to my young cousins!  grumble grumble).  So I didn't see the second movie, got no desire to see the second movie.

I was delighted by this one.  One reviewer said that it was the first one in the franchise to be an actual real live _movie_, and that encapsulated my feelings about it.

Sure, a huge amount of stuff was excised.  Hardly any Quidditch, no Christmas feast, no end-of-year feast, etc.  I was very glad about that.  Whereas the first movie felt to me like a frenetic grocery-list of Scenes From the Book, this one, by ignoring the fifty bajillion mandatory subplots from the source material, was able to take its time in the telling of the central story.  It was able to draw some senes out lazily, was able to luxuriate in particularly nice visuals, and was just a lot of fun.

Spoilers ahead.

I had two problems with this movie, which is why I only ranked it an 8:
1) Poor Daniel Radcliffe still can't act his way out of a paper bag.  This wouldn't be so noticeable, except that his two young co-stars have gotten very good at their jobs, while Radcliffe is incapable of showing any intensity of emotion--like Keanu Reeves, he tries to substitute shouting for passion, and it irks me.  I very much ope he improves, because he seems like a nice kid, and I want to like him; but his flatness in several key scenes removed me from the action.
2) I really wish they'd taken the time to explain about Daddy Potter's Patronus.  It's a key scene in the story.  I almost wonder if Radcliffe couldn't achieve the complex combination of joy, grief, pride, and wonder necessary for the scene, and so Cuaron nixed it rather than put an unsatisfactory version on screen.

Still and all, the movie was very entertaining.
Daniel


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

Several times in the film I found myself thinking "why isn't this called Hermione Granger and the prisoner of Azkaban?" because out of everyone she seemed to be the smart problem solving one... Harry just seemed to be there for bad things to happen to!

Cheers


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 9, 2004)

FWIW, I have not read the Potter books, but I liked this movie.  That said, I have to qualify it by saying that a number of things didn't make much sense until after the movie when my Potter-reading friends explained them to me.  I can't comment on any subplots from the book because I haven't read it, but it seems a few critical points for the main plot were left out too.  

Come to think of it, they never did tell me what the deal is with Snape and his dislike for Harry's dad and pals...


----------



## DM_Matt (Jun 9, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Several times in the film I found myself thinking "why isn't this called Hermione Granger and the prisoner of Azkaban?" because out of everyone she seemed to be the smart problem solving one... Harry just seemed to be there for bad things to happen to!
> 
> Cheers




That's kind of like saying "Why's it called Inspector Gadget?  Penny does all the work."  Not every movie/tv show/book is named after the smartest/most skilled/most powerful character.


Also, part of HP's appeal is that hes an everyman.  There is sorts of a contradictory thread about him being special for some reason, but for the most part, if he was overly smart/powerful he would lose some of his appeal.  Thats why he needs friends who are better at this stuff than he is.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 9, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> FWIW, I have not read the Potter books, but I liked this movie.  That said, I have to qualify it by saying that a number of things didn't make much sense until after the movie when my Potter-reading friends explained them to me.  I can't comment on any subplots from the book because I haven't read it, but it seems a few critical points for the main plot were left out too.
> 
> Come to think of it, they never did tell me what the deal is with Snape and his dislike for Harry's dad and pals...





Spoilers abound!
By the third book you find out that Severus Snape was at Hogwarts in the same year as James Potter, Lupin, Black, & Pettigrew.   Well Snape was apparently always trying to get that group in trouble and he kept a sharp eye on them.  Reasons for this are explained a lot more in The Order of the Phoenix.  Well Lupin used to be taken to the Shrieking Shack when he was going to change forms, via that tunnel under the Whomping Willow, and Snape saw Madam Pomphrey taking him there one night.  Black played a gag and told Snape how to hit the knot on the tree that calmed it down allowing him to see what Lupin was up to, something Pettigrew used to do as a rat when they would go see the werewolf Lupin as animals.  Well Black knew that a werewolf was waiting for Snape but let him go anyway as a joke.  James Potter however stops Snape right as he gets to the Shack in the tunnel to avoid Snape getting mauled and killed, but Snape sees the werewolf and finds out what is going on.   He refused to believe that James Potter was trying to help him, he thinks he was part of the gag and got cold feet at the last second.   Dumbledore forbids Snape from telling anyone and that's that.  A lot more is explained about the relationship between Snape and that group in OtP.  After reading that one gets a different view of why Snape hates Harry and his dad.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 10, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> That's kind of like saying "Why's it called Inspector Gadget?  Penny does all the work."  Not every movie/tv show/book is named after the smartest/most skilled/most powerful character.
> 
> 
> Also, part of HP's appeal is that hes an everyman.  There is sorts of a contradictory thread about him being special for some reason, but for the most part, if he was overly smart/powerful he would lose some of his appeal.  Thats why he needs friends who are better at this stuff than he is.




He's not quite everyman.  He's better at a few aspects of magic than Hermione is, even though she is by far the brain of the group.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 10, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> What I commented on was the film adaptions of books and people who would rather watch the film adaptions of books and do not want the story spoiled despite the fact that the source material (books) tend to be cheaper and more accessible.



For people who'd rather see the story as a movie "cheaper and more accessible" is kind of a silly reason to spoil a story.  Any spoiler site on the internet is cheaper and more accessible than buying a ticket at the cinema *or* reading a book.  That hardly makes them the preferred means to view a story.

EDIT: Okay someday I'm going to have to talk about the new Harry Potter movie....


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Spoiling The Two Towers at this point is like saying Darth Vader is Luke's father.  It ain't a spoiler anymore (certainly on a forum like this) when its so ingrained into public consciousness.  As for the "Tom Hanks" movie, well, I didn't name the movie in that post now did I?




youre confusing me, how is spoiling star wars or lotr any different than spoiling harry potter? its the same thing. something insanely popular, that the average geek already knows the whole story too. youre either against spoiling the commonly known, or youre not.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 10, 2004)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> youre confusing me



Yes, I can see that quite plainly.      Tell you what, you go ahead and think I'm hypocritical, and I'll sit over here chuckling and being utterly amused that you think Professor Lupin is as entrenched in the public consciousness as Darth Vader and Gandalf.

Darth Vader.  Gandalf.  Professor Lupin.  Thanks for the laugh dude.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 10, 2004)

HP&PoA was the first Harry Potter movie that I have actually enjoyed.

Though the CG effects were more pervasive they were also more casual, at times even ignored by the characters. (The first two moves spent _way_ too much time with 'hey, look at the cool digital effects!' At least in my arrogant opinion. (I had an humble opinion once, me arrogant opinion ate it...)) It had a much greater feeling of immersion.

The only thing that I liked better in the first two was unavoidable, the actor havng died.

And Hermoine has _always_ been the real hero of the series!

The Auld Grump, who thinks that the invisible spolers are nifty.*

*But then again so are digital watches...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 10, 2004)

I think the first two were excellent movie adaptions of the books, they stayed true to the events as shown in the novels and didn't leave huge hunks of it out.  PoA was a good movie, and I enjoyed watching it at the theater, I just didn't like it as much as the first two due to what I feel were omissions from the story that detracted from the impact of what was happening on screen. 


P.S. 

IMO, people who don't want movies or books spoiled for them should avoid BB threads about the relevant material.  Seems like common sence to me.  You can't really expect people to discuss what thier views on a movie they have seen without giving away anything to the person who hasn't seen it.  Maybe that's just me.


----------



## jasper (Jun 10, 2004)

yeah kialord we all old farts who read the lord of rings book back when it was one of FEW fantasy books out there. Or star wars when we were about say 13. Give it 5 years and Harry will be as popular as star wars or lord.  and film wise the 7 movies will stand up better than star wars 6.  jar jar blinks anyone. 

Any way I rate this movie a 8 and wanted to shoot the makeup people due the scar moving around. I love the addition film of the dear aunt in the beginning.  Also the addition of inn/bar scene of the adults summed up about 4 chapters of the book. 

What is real cute is see the real actors age and grow at different rates. Remember the camera bug from 2. he is now taller than harry. I just wish they did not move the willow tree.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 10, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Spoilers abound!
> By the third book you find out that Severus Snape was at Hogwarts in the same year as James Potter, Lupin, Black, & Pettigrew.   Well Snape was apparently always trying to get that group in trouble and he kept a sharp eye on them.  Reasons for this are explained a lot more in The Order of the Phoenix.  Well Lupin used to be taken to the Shrieking Shack when he was going to change forms, via that tunnel under the Whomping Willow, and Snape saw Madam Pomphrey taking him there one night.  Black played a gag and told Snape how to hit the knot on the tree that calmed it down allowing him to see what Lupin was up to, something Pettigrew used to do as a rat when they would go see the werewolf Lupin as animals.  Well Black knew that a werewolf was waiting for Snape but let him go anyway as a joke.  James Potter however stops Snape right as he gets to the Shack in the tunnel to avoid Snape getting mauled and killed, but Snape sees the werewolf and finds out what is going on.   He refused to believe that James Potter was trying to help him, he thinks he was part of the gag and got cold feet at the last second.   Dumbledore forbids Snape from telling anyone and that's that.  A lot more is explained about the relationship between Snape and that group in OtP.  After reading that one gets a different view of why Snape hates Harry and his dad.



 Ah, so Snape was basically a Malfoy or did he have some reason for trying to get them in trouble beyond being a stuck up jerk?

Still, I can see why he would have a pretty low opinion of James Potter and pals.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 10, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> That's kind of like saying "Why's it called Inspector Gadget?  Penny does all the work."




Irony DM_M, I was using Irony!


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 10, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Ah, so Snape was basically a Malfoy or did he have some reason for trying to get them in trouble beyond being a stuck up jerk?



This is a spoiler for the fifth book, so I AM gonna use spoiler tags:



Spoiler



It gets complicated.  Snape is something of a wizard purist who can't stand mudbloods, and he was this way even when he was a student.  He was also an unpopular prat.  James and gang pick on him mercilessly, at one point stripping him and hanging him upside down in front of a girl he has a crush on, if I recall correctly; they really behave in a horrifying fashion toward him.  

Basically, Snape is a mean little nerd, and James & gang are mean jocks, and the jocks utterly humiliate the nerd.  Snape has never forgiven James for that, and sees a lot of James in Harry


 
It's been awhile sense I read the fifth book, so I may have gotten some of the details wrong, but I think that's basically how it went down.  (And if you want to respond to this and correct me, I'd appreciate it--just make sure you use spoiler tags, too!  )

Daniel


----------



## Laurel (Jun 10, 2004)

Waited to see the movie last night, but I enjoyed it and turned out very happy I did not re-read the book right before hand.  That way little things could catch me off guard, and I was not comparing every little quote or action to the book.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 10, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> This is a spoiler for the fifth book, so I AM gonna use spoiler tags:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, now we are talking about my favorite HP book so here is my opinion, you are pretty muc correct but



Spoiler



it's not just Snape that Potter & crew torment.  Potter would hex people just for fun while walking down the hall.  And in the scene that where Potter hangs Snape upside down, Black and Potter see Snape walking across the lawn after O.W.L. exams and they bushwack him for the hell of it.  I don't think there was a girl he had a crush on, they do it in front of Lily Potter who tells James Potter what a prat he is for being a stuck up and arrogant jerk.  Potter doesn't care and says he'll let him down if she will go out with him.   And hell they don't just hang him, they hit him with multiple curses.  It's shown what a show off Potter is and he isn't a saint by any means. 

Snape from that book comes from an abusive home where his father apparently beat his mother in front of him as a child.  And Snape seems to have slightly shabby clothes as well which makes me think he didn't have a lot of money in the family even if they were pure bloods, kind of like the Weasleys.  He was unpopular with greasy hair and the "jocks" picked on him a lot.  He was a jerk though, so I'm sure he brought some of his on himself.  He still tells Lilly as she is trying to help him that he doesn't need any mudblood help.  After Potter discovers all this about Snape he really gets on his bad side, as if it's possible for Snape to hate Potter even more!


.  I am eagerly awaiting more background on Snape in the sixth book.  He's an ass but I really like him for some reason.  I think he's going to suprise people by the end of the series.   I kind of have the same feeling about Draco Malfoy but to a lesser degree, he may be just as bad as his father.  Evil to the core.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Tell you what, you go ahead and think I'm hypocritical, and I'll sit over here chuckling and being utterly amused that you think Professor Lupin is as entrenched in the public consciousness as Darth Vader and Gandalf.




As pointed out, to anyone under 15, (20?) They know more about Harry Potter than they do Vader. or Gandalf before they saw the LOTR movies.

And anyway, we werent talking about the public consciousness. we were talking about the EN WORLD consciousness. with is skewed much more to the geek side I think we agree. For example, its safe to assume everyone on ENWORLD knows the meaning of the word THAC0. Try that on the general consciousness.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 10, 2004)

*Steve*, and everyone else, can we let the spoiler question drop?

*Flexor*, thanks for the correction; I couldn't quite remember whether 



Spoiler



Snape had a crush on Olivia.  I sorta got the impression that he did, only didn't want to admit it, but I can't remember why I got that impression.

Definitely the blurring of good guy/bad guy lines in book 5 makes it my favorite book, too.


 
Daniel


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 11, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Ok, now we are talking about my favorite HP book so here is my opinion, you are pretty muc correct but
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, 



Spoiler



I'd always had a secret, inexplicable like for Snape.  It's starting to look like that was justified.  James Potter was a mean, arrogant jerk -- a typical jock in my experience.  I'd wondered about him when the whole quiddich thing came up in the first movie*.  Snape was evidently no saint either, but it sounds like he's doing pretty good to have turned out as well as he has.  I suppose I ought to condemn Snape more strongly than that but I have an automatic soft spot for the "picked on nerd" type.  I never really liked Malfoy, though I did feel a bit sorry for him when we saw his dad in the 2nd movie.

I'm starting to wonder what the relationship with Voldemort was like.  I'd always wondered why Voldemort went after the Potters.  What was so special about them that he needed to take them out?  I wonder if it was nothing more than payback for James Potter being a supreme jerk to Voldemort in their past.  (I'm not clear on Voldemort's chronology but I have the impression he was a contemporary of Jame and Lilly Potter.)

It also makes me think about the scene in the shrieking shack in a different light.  It would seem odd that Snape was so intent on catching the guy who had supposedly killed Potter in light of this new information.  Then again, I suppose Black was no nicer than Potter so he might have been just wanting to see someone who had been such a jerk to him back in jail.  

Of course, I start to look on the instance in the first book where Snape tries to save Potter during the quiddich match in a new light.  I think there is more to Snape's character than meets the eye.

* In fact, I've remarked to some of my friends on more than one occasion that I think its a wonder Harry has turned out as nice as he has considering what he has had to go through with the Dursleys.  It looks like he has even more bad heritage to overcome.


Note: Added a BUNCH of comments during the edit.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 11, 2004)

*Max*, I agree with you, except I'd add that 



Spoiler



Snape is doing the classic abuser thing:  having been bullied like crazy as a kid, he's now as an adult turning around and bullying kids himself.  Knowing about his past certainly makes him pitiable (which he would hate above all else), but it in no way excuses the abuse and unfairness he's heaped on Harry.

Still, he's a very cool character made heaps more compelling by the revelations in OotP; at this point, I'm more interested in his growth than in Harry's 


 
As an aside, would anyone mind if we gave up the spoiler tags for this discussion of the fifth book?  I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread who hasn't read Order of the Phoenix yet.  If anyone minds, maybe we should start a new thread to continue talking about it.

Daniel


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 11, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Max*, I agree with you, except I'd add that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I addressed this a bit when I edited my comments in my last post.  



Spoiler



I noted how Snape had tried to save Harry during the quiddich match in the first movie.  I'm wondering why he did that if he hates Harry so much.  One could argue that it was his duty as a teacher, but why weren't Dumbledore or any of the other teachers doing anything?  Was he really the only one who knew what to do?  

Also, I never really had the impression that Snape was bullying kids.  He's _very_ tough on them.  He's rather rude, sarcastic, snide and snarky when he talks to them or lectures them.  He's a stickler for the rules -- not surprising in someone who was probably picked on a lot more thanks to people looking the other way when it went on (a classic situation in bullying).  I get the impression he makes his class academically rigorous, but not unfairly so.  He doesn't seem to play favorites, even in the case of Malfoy (who would seem to be a natural ally).  In general, he seems to be scrupulously fair if thoroughly unlikable.  I suspect that may be why he tried to save Harry at the quiddich match.  He may dislike Harry, but he would never stoop to treating him differently.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 11, 2004)

SPOILERS FOR BOOK 5 IN THIS POST!  





> I noted how Snape had tried to save Harry during the quiddich match in the first movie. I'm wondering why he did that if he hates Harry so much. One could argue that it was his duty as a teacher, but why weren't Dumbledore or any of the other teachers doing anything? Was he really the only one who knew what to do?



I get the impression that he's very moral and very competent, but also very mean.  He's screwed up in the past--he supported Voldemort, IIRC--but he's trying to make amends now.  He doesn't want Harry to die, but he DOES want Harry to suffer.

For two reasons:  first, because he's acting out vengeance on Harry's dad.  Second, he's convinced that Harry is going to turn out as bullyish as his dad was, and he's trying to beat that out of Harry.



> Also, I never really had the impression that Snape was bullying kids. He's _very_ tough on them. He's rather rude, sarcastic, snide and snarky when he talks to them or lectures them. He's a stickler for the rules -- not surprising in someone who was probably picked on a lot more thanks to people looking the other way when it went on (a classic situation in bullying). I get the impression he makes his class academically rigorous, but not unfairly so.



I totally disagree here, but alas, it's been too long since I've read the books.  Over and over, however, he punishes Harry for things Harry didn't do, and lets Malfoy get away with murder.  Can anyone else back me up here with some examples?

He's a very complicated character, which is why he's so compelling; even as I hate him, I he earns my grudging respect and admiration.

Daniel


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 11, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Was he really the only one who knew what to do?




I think he as the only one who was distrustful enough of Professor Quirrel (sp?) to be on the watch for it.  All the others were intently watching the Quidditch match and didn't realize what was happening.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 12, 2004)

SPOILERS FOR BOOK 5 IN THIS POST!  



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I totally disagree here, but alas, it's been too long since I've read the books.  Over and over, however, he punishes Harry for things Harry didn't do, and lets Malfoy get away with murder.  Can anyone else back me up here with some examples?
> 
> He's a very complicated character, which is why he's so compelling; even as I hate him, I he earns my grudging respect and admiration.



I'll have to take your word for it.  I've never read the books so I'm going strictly by the movies.  If I remember, I'll ask my Potter reading friends tomorrow when we get together for boardgames.


----------



## Merlion (Jun 12, 2004)

Well, I enjoyed the 3rd movie quite a lot

I felt that not specficaly mentioning who made the map wasnt too bad, especially since they did hint the heck out of it.

Knowing exactly why Harry's Patronus manifests as a stag would have been nice though.

I also would have liked to have seen Dumbledore drive the Dementors off the Quidditch field, but I didnt really expect to.

The werewolf was a litte strange, but not bad...just very different. I thought David Thewliss did an excellent job of portraying Prof Lupin. I had had my doubts about casting him, but it worked out very well.

It was particularly nice in the Shrieking Shack scene where Snape and Sirious are fighting, and Sirious keeps being nasty to Snape and Lupin tries to get him to stop. he was always the one of the four who tried to keep the others out of trouble.

As for Snape as a character...well he is rude, and mean, and hateful, and nothing in his past can really excuse it, however he is in the proccess of redemption and this makes him a very interesting character. He had reason to dislike James and Sirious. However, taking that out on Harry, especially since Harry knows or till recently knew so little about his family anyway is rather unfair.

But then you have his attempt to save Harry's life in the first book/movie, and in the 3rd story he stands in front of the children to try and protect them from the werewolf.

I think he has gotten past his anti-"mudblood" problem, or Dumbledore wouldnt tolerate him. I am very interested to learn more about Snape's former relationsghip with Voldemort, and the exact nature and details of his current relationship with Dumbledore.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 12, 2004)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I think he as the only one who was distrustful enough of Professor Quirrel (sp?) to be on the watch for it.  All the others were intently watching the Quidditch match and didn't realize what was happening.



 So brooms acting up is common enough that nobody suspected someone was interfering in the match?  As competitive as they seem to be, I'd have thought there would be folks on the lookout for this sort of thing...


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 12, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> So brooms acting up is common enough that nobody suspected someone was interfering in the match?  As competitive as they seem to be, I'd have thought there would be folks on the lookout for this sort of thing...




Well, if they were looking for the source, they would be looking almost anywhere but the teacher's seats - most likely they'd be intently scanning the Slytherin stands.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL! (Jun 12, 2004)

*It could be longer!*

The Shrieking Shack scene could be a bit longer, the people who didn`t read the book were propably quite confused!

Anyone thinks that Pettigrew looks like Bilbo who had too much of a Ring`s influence?

And I don`t like how Draco was portayed, he was too immature and covardly!


----------



## Merlion (Jun 13, 2004)

> The Shrieking Shack scene could be a bit longer, the people who didn`t read the book were propably quite confused!




It wouldnt have hurt, but I think it was deccent as is.




> Anyone thinks that Pettigrew looks like Bilbo who had too much of a Ring`s influence?




Somewhat yes. 




> And I don`t like how Draco was portayed, he was too immature and covardly!




But...Draco is immature and cowardly. And spoiled and mean spirited.


----------



## Aaron2 (Jun 13, 2004)

Some comments from a non-book reader .....

I like how the Hogwart's grounds seemed more expansive. In the first movies it seemed that Hagrin's hut was only about 30 yards from Harry's dorm. Why was anybody suprised that Serious Black snuck into the school? Harry and the scooby gang have been sneaking in and out for three movies now without a problem. Its too bad that they made Draco such a wuss. I was hoping that he would be a major bad guy for harry's gang but I can't see how anyone can take him seriously anymore. I have to say that I don't give a crap about Harry's dorky family. Boo hoo, get over it. 

I wasn't confused at all.


Aaron


----------



## D+1 (Jun 13, 2004)

Rated it 7.  In some ways the best so far, but it suffers a LOT from heavy-handed removal of material from the book for a bearable running time.  The maturity of the actors of the 3 main characters shows in that they finally have the ability to deliver dialogue that doesn't sound as if it's recited or rehearsed.

Buckbeak ROCKS!  Best thing about the movie, IMO.  Excellent animation there.  He flies like a hippogriff should.

They managed to keep a cohesive, interesting story despite cutting reams of material from the book but it does feel thinned out and there are several bits that just SCREAMED for more information that needed to be given to the viewer, even if only as a lame statement from someone to tie up loose ends. 



Spoiler



Of course I'm talking about the reasons for Hermiones time travelling and everything about the marauders map - the names on it, it's original purpose, etc.


It would only have taken moments and would have helped make more sense of things, even belatedly.

It's not so superior a movie as to be worth an 8 though.  In some ways it's better than previous installments in the series (better animation, acting, visuals - the campus exteriors are great!) but because of the large omissions of material earlier stuff has ultimately flowed better.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 15, 2004)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I'd really like to hear from some folks who hadn't read the book, to see if any of it was confusing to them.



That's me. I gave it a (5) - noting that I'm sure those that read the book would probably have appreciated the movie a lot more. I'm not really a big Harry Potter fan, and haven't read any of the books.

There were many moments that I had no idea what the significance was (and often chalking it up to "plot holes"), but I (thankfully) had Mrs. arnwyn there to constantly explain what everything meant.

I don't think the movie stands well on its own.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 15, 2004)

Harry has certainly absorbed massive abuse from the Dursley's, but he has also dealt out a significant amount of unpleasantness back at them.  One of the things I like about the series is that Harry isn't always perfect or likeable.  He's an utter twit sometimes, just like real people.  His treatment of the Dursleys is a good example.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 15, 2004)

I've talked to several people who talked of plot holes like Arnwyn does only to say after I explained the book, "Oh that's what that was about", or "Oh well that makes more sense now that you have explained that...".  It was just too short.  It needed about 20 more minutes to get everything down.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 15, 2004)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Harry has certainly absorbed massive abuse from the Dursley's, but he has also dealt out a significant amount of unpleasantness back at them. One of the things I like about the series is that Harry isn't always perfect or likeable. He's an utter twit sometimes, just like real people. His treatment of the Dursleys is a good example.



The Dursleys have never treated Harry like anything other than garbage. They deserve so much more misery than they have recieved. In the books they make it clear that Harry has always been treated like  by them, they have never accepted him, or treated him as anything other than an unwelcome burden. It must be a great feeling for a small kid to get a pair of your uncles old socks for Christmas while your cousin gets 30 gifts, or to never have your birthday celebrated except by yourself with a drawing of a cake in the dirt.  

Personally I'd enjoy it if Harry lost control and hit them with the Imperius Curse for a summer before he leaves.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jun 15, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Imperius Curse



Huh?  What's that?

FWIW, Everything I've heard about the situation indicates that Harry was being "done unto" long before he did anything back and that the Dursleys have dished out far more than Harry ever did in retaliation.  Of course, I haven't read the books...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 15, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Huh? What's that?
> 
> FWIW, Everything I've heard about the situation indicates that Harry was being "done unto" long before he did anything back and that the Dursleys have dished out far more than Harry ever did in retaliation. Of course, I haven't read the books...



A mind control curse. One of the three Unforgivable Curses that automatically gets you a life sentence in Azkaban.  They get into those in the next book/movie. 

And you are right.  Harry has always been a treated extremely poorly by his "family".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 16, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> As an aside, would anyone mind if we gave up the spoiler tags for this discussion of the fifth book?  I'm not sure if anyone is still reading this thread who hasn't read Order of the Phoenix yet.  If anyone minds, maybe we should start a new thread to continue talking about it.
> 
> Daniel




I have been reading this thread, I haven't read book5 yet... so if spoiler tags get dropped (and it looks as if someone has already) I'll have to give this thread up (which will be a shame).

It would probably be better to take HP book 5 chat off into a separate thread to ensure that nobody accidentally gets spoilers for the latest book (especially since the thread title doesn't warn of *that* possibility!)

What do you think?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 28, 2004)

OK, I've just read book 5, so I don't mind if people continue talking about it again. It was my least favourite of all the HP books as it happens. Somewhat over long and bloated and the few interesting revelations don't make up for the somewhat turgid plotline and lack of any surprising revelations. Each of the previous books has had a really decent twist towards the end; everything is deliberately telegraphed in this one.

Will she get back into her stride for book 6? It would be nice (but unlikely) for her to have an editor tell her to refine her story somewhat next time. 

Cheers


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 28, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> A mind control curse. One of the three Unforgivable Curses that automatically gets you a life sentence in Azkaban.  They get into those in the next book/movie.
> 
> And you are right.  Harry has always been a treated extremely poorly by his "family".






Spoiler



Except for that one thing revealed at the end of Book 5....and I suspect Petunia has regretted it ever since!


----------



## Staffan (Jun 29, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> SPOILERS FOR BOOK 5 IN THIS POST!
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



More spoilers for OOTP: 



Spoiler



It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall Snape wasn't a Voldermort supporter. He carries the mark of the death-eaters, but that's because he was a double-agent working for Dumbledore and spying on Voldemort and the Death-Eaters.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 29, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well...



Spoiler



my thought is that it's because they stood up to him, as part of the Order of the Phoenix.  A great many of the Order were maimed (like the Longbottoms) or killed during the War; it's scary how many, when you see the picture of them.  It's likely that the Potters, being Voldemort's opponents, and having a new baby, would've made a particularly impressive target.  Unfortunately for Voldemort, he chose...poorly.





> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm not clear on Voldemort's chronology but I have the impression he was a contemporary of Jame and Lilly Potter.)






Spoiler



Not sure why I'm putting this in spoilertext, but in Chamber of Secrets you see Voldemort in Hogwarts at the time Dumbledore is a professor, rather than Headmaster.  It takes time to accumulate the kind of wizarding power that Voldemort has, even if you're delving strongly into the Dark, so he probably wasn't a contemporary of James Potter and Lily Evans.  He was definitely older than them, but how much older is debatable...though I could ask my friend, but she's asleep as I write this and would kill me if I called, even if it is about HP.



Brad


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 1, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> More spoilers for OOTP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Snape 



Spoiler



was a Death Eater, but he turned on Voldemort and began to spy for Dumbledore.  He is an Occulumus and it enables him to close off emotions in his mind that allow others to know if he is lying or not.  They don't explain why or how Snape turned but I think it will be dealt with next book.  Know what I don't know is how Malfoy and the other Death Eaters didn't find out that Snape was a spy back in the hayday of Voldemort.   In Goblet of Fire Harry sees Dumbledores thoughts in the Penseive that are about the trial of Karkaroff where it is said that Snape has turned on Vorldemort and is working for the Ministry.   Malfoy has all kinds of pull at the Ministry, at least before the end of Book 5 he did.  How did he not know that Snape was a traitor?   The problem is that it's alluded to that Snape is in contact with the Death Eaters finding out what Voldemort is telling them.   Why wouldn't Malfoy and the rest have already killed Snape for his betrayal a long time ago?  

www.hp-lexicon.org has some timelines and they put Tom Riddles hogwarts days being in the 40's while Snape & James Potter and crew were there in the seventies.  It's a pretty cool site, but it's not really official I suppose.


----------

