BOOKS/MOVIES: Harry Potter and the Billion Dollar Franchise

[James]

i wouldn't want to see harry die but we can't rule it out as a possibility -jk has strongly hinted that harry could die.,

[Leia]

I've decided I can live with it if Hermione and Snape make it through...

[Leia]

Harry would need help from someone within Voldy's circle. Enter Regulus Black, and to a greater extent, Severus Snape.

Trilo, Regulus Black is dead! He died in the first war.

[Whitesaber]

Trilo, Regulus Black is dead! He died in the first war.

Actually, Trilo's theory isn't blind guessing. He's been listening to the MuggleCast podcast and many seem to think that Regulus Black is R.A.B., the initials found in the locket Harry found at the end of the Half Blood Prince.

[BobPalpatine]

Well I think that R.A.B is Regulas as well, but I don't think he's alive. I think he planted that locket right before he died. So I doubt he'd come to help Harry save the day.

[James]

I think the same as BobPalpatine. I think Regulus is RAB and is dead and will not be in HP7 but will be talked about quite a bit I think.

[Trilogist]

Trilo, Regulus Black is dead! He died in the first war.
Indeed. But it was the mystery of Regulus' last days that might provide a vital clue leading to the downfall of the Dark Lord. RAB may very well have paid Harry an invaluable service. We only have but to find out next summer.

Personally, I think he'll be huge in Book 7. That's why I said he'll be a big help to Harry. Plus factor in the whole issue with Sirius, Harry, and the mirror gifted to him in Order of the Phoenix, which JKR has also hinted might play a role.

[Leia]

Oooh, ok :D I agree that R.A.B is Regulus, but I thought you meant that he was going to personally help Harry! I was very confused ;)

Whitesaber!! :hug: Why aren't you in your pub!

What I think is funny is that Rowling made a big deal about there being only 7 books because there are only 7 years at Hogwarts, but this last year they won't even be going to school!

[borgmatrix]

i wouldn't want to see harry die but we can't rule it out as a possibility -jk has strongly hinted that harry could die.,
I have no problem with Harry dying. I'll admit I'm much more interested in finding out exactly what's going on with Snape.

[James]

me too...

and leia, on a related note, i do have a hunch that hogwarts will have some role to play in HP7, but whether big or little, i'm not sure.

[Trilogist]

Yeah, I think something's going to happen during the summer that's going to change Harry's mind. Either when he goes to say goodbye to the Dursleys, or at Bill's wedding, or when he goes to his parent's house at Godric's Hollow. Somehow he's going to end up going back for his seventh and final year at Hogwarts.

Come to think of it, that does seem like the appropriate place for Voldemort to die, don't you think?

[James]

i don't think that Harry will actually be going to Hogwarts as a student - i mean, there's a strong likelihood that the school will be closed, in all probability due to it being exposed as a dangerous place and parents not wanting to send their kids back.

but somehow or other, harry will be visitng the school, using it as a base, researching voldy, or whatever... harry is now on his own...he has lost his parents, godfather, and mentor in the fight against Voldemort, the school can offer great moral support but no one can take the place of Dumbledore.

And have you heard that JKR has said that two characters will die in Book 7? Well one of them will obviously be either Harry or Voldemort but wonder who the other will be......

[Whitesaber]

Dobey the House Elf.

[James]

yyeah i'm hoping so, he's like a Harry Potter version of Jar Jar Binks.lol

[Leia]

Lol! I got the impression that when she said two main characters, she wasn't talking about bad guys...

Borgmatrix, I agree I want to find out the heck's up with Snape! (please let him be good! *bambi eyes*)

They made it pretty clear at the end of book 6 that Hogwarts will not be in session next year.

[borgmatrix]

Borgmatrix, I agree I want to find out the heck's up with Snape! (please let him be good! *bambi eyes*).
I have a strong feeling is is.

[James]

Leia, I agree with you Harry will not be going back to school but Hogwarts will be in the story somehow.not as a place to learn, but just a setting, perhaps...

[Trilogist]

Well, the fate of Hogwarts was put in question, but it wasn't clear at all if the school would be closed or not. The students were in the dark, and all we have is the students' perspective. They would find out over the summer. Harry even made the decision not to come back, as if a decision could be made one way or the other.

[Leia]

We'll see, but if people were hesitant sending their kids to Hogwarts for the 6th year, how are they going to feel when not even Dumbledore was safe there?

[Trilogist]

I understand, those are very good questions. I would say some if not most would not feel safe, that Hogwarts, despite all the magical protections it has, is a target. And they'll want their children out of harm's way.

Won't that be cool if the school is closed but a few people still live there? It would be like one long holiday. There's still plenty to be learned there.


Or what if the school closes and Voldy takes over the place? He and his Death Eaters set up headquarters there.

Or, what if the Order takes over the place, places a fidelius charm on it, and no one except Order members can ever find the castle again?

Sorry, I just rambled on that one. Too many crazy ideas.

[GeneralDirection]

I'm sure Harry will be back at Hogwarts at some point, though not to learn. We've been promised that Neville will play a role in the war and that we'll see some "impressive magic" from Ginny, so they'll be getting involved againt somehow.

As for R.A.B., JKR did confirm in an interview 2004 that Regulus Black is dead. Personally I'm 99.999% sure that Regulus is R.A.B., and the fact that he's dead is going to make it very difficult for the trio to find out whether he ever destroyed that Horcrux or not.

[empire21]

Evidence of some people with to much spare time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_re_us/potter_protest

Nut!!

[James]

Yeah I read about that couple days ago what a nut. She has waaaaay too much time on her hands.

[Zedekk]

Evidence of some people with to much spare time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_re_us/potter_protest

Nut!!

Yeah I read about that couple days ago what a nut. She has waaaaay too much time on her hands.

Agreed.

[GeneralDirection]

Yeah I read about that couple days ago what a nut. She has waaaaay too much time on her hands.

Not enough time to actually read the books, though. They're "too long", apparently.

Maybe there should be a law saying only people with intelligence are allowed into a courtroom.

[James]

LOL!!

[Balnazzar]

I nearly sent a threatening letter to J.K.Rowling after I had found out about Dumbledore`s death.
His actor died and now as a reward she has killed Dumbledore himself.

[James]

^I would really put that in a spoiler tag if I were you.

[Balnazzar]

Maybe I will.

[James]

Why don't you, then?

[Jjm3233]

Of course the book has been out for how long now? Doesn't really qualify as a spoiler anymore. ;)

[James]

Yeah, ok, but it's a vital bit of info and for those who haven't read it it's very spoilerish.

[James]

Some cool new pics from OOTP are now online!!
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0373889

[leiaorgana]

There's also a small 10 second trailer in mugglenet!!! OMG!!! :w00t:

[kopernikuz]

Yeah, ok, but it's a vital bit of info and for those who haven't read it it's very spoilerish.
What exactly is the statute of limitations on spoilers? :nahnah:

I mean honestly... at some point you should be able to discuss these kinds of stuff, right?

Would it be inappropriate to point out that Vader turns out to be Luke's dad? ;)

Hurry up and read the book people of this thread! Before the next one comes out at least, right?

Perhaps the argument could be made that some people don't care about the book, and only enjoy the films, in which case wouldn't know a lot of things yet... two books worth of things. But the thread is Books/Movies, so what can be discussed and what can't?

[Trilogist]

I was rather 'underwhelmed' at the trailer. It seemed uninspired. And no Albus action scenes, which is what I'm looking forward to! Seriously, Michael Gambon's performance of Dumbledore is what's going to make or break this film. Not giving us a glimpse makes me ... uncomfortable.

Anyway, check it out: http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/orderofthephoenix/teaser/teaser_300.asx

[BobPalpatine]

I thought it was one of the best teaser trailers they have done yet. Remember it's only a teaser so they are only giving you a taste. What I saw I liked.

[Darth Octavious]

Like it too. They are now so grown up, Harry looks like he's been hitting the weights.

[James]

Coolness!! That trailer is awesome. Left me wishing for more.

[Leia]

What exactly is the statute of limitations on spoilers? :nahnah:

I mean honestly... at some point you should be able to discuss these kinds of stuff, right?

You would have had to be living in a cave not to have been spoiled about this already, lol. Anybody who loves the books enough to even post in this thread should already have read book 6 :lol:

[Leia]

Yesss, Snape occlumency scenes!! I'm glad they changed the Death Eater mask, the whole skull thing was so cliche and disappointing.

[leiaorgana]

I was quite surprised about it ^... and I love it! I agree with Bobpalpatine I like what I saw!
I like the way Dolores Umbridge & Bellatrix are characterized.
I can't wait to see DA, Snape's occlumency.. so many things, I love the books but I have to say I rather enjoy the movies also!
Hopefully Daniel will keep doing 6 & 7... I would hate to think that he doesn't continue playing potter.

[Leia]

Only thing that struck me as odd was the whole "If Dumbledore is assembling an army, I want to join it!" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Harry ever says anything of the sort... That was the whole point of "Dumbledore's Army," it's ironic because Dumbledore wasn't creating an army as Fudge feared...

[kopernikuz]

You would have had to be living in a cave not to have been spoiled about this already, lol. Anybody who loves the books enough to even post in this thread should already have read book 6 :lol:
I have kids, and I'm trying to get them to hurry through them so I can actually discuss this stuff in the house, lol. My 11 year-old daughter is about half-way through HBP but it's like pulling teeth to get my 12-year old boy to read, LOL. He hasn't even started OOTP.

My deal has always been since Chamber of Secrets... if they read the book I'll take them to the movie as a reward. As a result, my daughter read Goblet of Fire about three months early... and my son was scrambling to finish it right up until Thursday night before it premiered... ;)

I figure he's got til summer to read this one... if he wait until the last minute again, he may miss out :)

The younger kids get a break on it... they get to see the movies on DVD without having read them. A little out of their reading level at this point. :)

[leiaorgana]

Only thing that struck me as odd was the whole "If Dumbledore is assembling an army, I want to join it!" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Harry ever says anything of the sort... That was the whole point of "Dumbledore's Army," it's ironic because Dumbledore wasn't creating an army as Fudge feared...

You're right and that's the irony of being called Dumbledore's army since he didn't create it nor have any participation in it at all, at least not directly.
It reminds me of how pissed off I was at first with Goblet of fire when they totally omitted Winky, doby, the whole S.P.E.W. and some facts like doby helping harry on the 2nd task...

[Leia]

The younger kids get a break on it... they get to see the movies on DVD without having read them. A little out of their reading level at this point. :)

You don't read it to them?

[BobPalpatine]

You're right and that's the irony of being called Dumbledore's army since he didn't create it nor have any participation in it at all, at least not directly.
It reminds me of how pissed off I was at first with Goblet of fire when they totally omitted Winky, doby, the whole S.P.E.W. and some facts like doby helping harry on the 2nd task...

In GOF I thought eliminated SPEW was a good thing because it was more of a side plot and not essential. It didn't move the story along at all, with the constraints that had it was probably one of the easier cuts. Now eliminated Dobby and Winky might come back and bite them because I think they'll have a role to play in Book 7.

The only part of Goblet of Fire that I sorely missed was Mrs. Weasley and Bill coming to see Harry at Hogwarts before the final task. It showed that Harry finally had a family.

[James]

Yeah, BobPalps is right the SPEW thing wasn't essential, and it was probably one of the first things the GOF scriptwriters decided to get rid of. I missed Mrs. Weasley in GOF too, she is important to Harry. What I really missed though was the Dursleys in GOF, now that it's been revealed how important Aunt Petunia is to the whole thing.

[kopernikuz]

You don't read it to them?
Nah... Currently I'm going through the Unfortunate Events series with everyone as a read-aloud because they like all the voices I do for it, plus it perfectly lends itself to a read-aloud with its conversational narrative style. We're on number nine right now, so we're nearly done.

We tried Potter as a read-aloud for a while, but they were still too young to stay focused on all the goings-on. We're letting Harry Potter be everyone's first... "older kids" novel that they try to conquer on their own... :) There's a lot of confidence gained from overcoming one of those book's sheer size, lol. The satisfaction my 11yo daughter gets from finishing one is priceless as she feels great knowing she can discuss it with me and harbor some of the surprises from the other kids unless they do it to ;) Of course, just now she has decided to put finishing OOTP on hold, which I never recommend, in order to read Eragon, because she wants to see that movie.

Funny thing is... I never made seeing Eragon a reward for reading the book... she just wants to read it first now. Not a terrible habit to instill in a kid :)

[Leia]

Lol, I want to do the same thing! I've seen that book floating around, but never taken any interest. I saw the trailer and thought, hmm, I better read the book soon! The only movies I did the other way around (on purpose) were LOTR. Those books are the most boring things on the planet... *sigh*

[James]

Hey! The LOTR books aren't boring! ;) oh well everyone to his own...

[leiaorgana]

Hey! The LOTR books aren't boring! ;) oh well everyone to his own...
Well you do have a point there, I just would have like to see it that's all, but it's true it was non-essential to the story.
Anyway... which are your expectations for OOTP?

[James]

I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie, as it was my favourite book so I have great expectations for this one. They adapted GOF and POA really well seeing as they were longer books, and not just doing a show-and-tell version like what Columbus did. Hopefully it won't get derailed on any of the secondary plot points they have chosen to include.

[kopernikuz]

Only thing that struck me as odd was the whole "If Dumbledore is assembling an army, I want to join it!" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Harry ever says anything of the sort... That was the whole point of "Dumbledore's Army," it's ironic because Dumbledore wasn't creating an army as Fudge feared...

He doesn't say that... in the trailer he says "If Voldemort is building up an army... then I want to fight." Just for the record :)

[Luvinna]

We have the title of Book 7!! (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/index.php?articleID=9343) :happydance:

Now we just need the release date.

Let the speculation begin...

[Zedekk]

I speculate November 2007

[nefertiti]

And this is the last one, right? Isn't there rumor that she is going to kill him off?

[BobPalpatine]

It's a rumor. There is a 50/50 chance at the end of any book that a character might kick the bucket. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. I hope it doesn't personally.

Damn, I want this book out now.

[Cydon]

I hate Harry Potter.

[kopernikuz]

I hate Harry Potter.
Wow... thanks for sharing. :tease:

[James]

If you don't like Harry Potter, don't post in this thread.

Luvinna you beat me to it!! So.... the "Deathly Hallows". Interesting title. I think that someone is definitely going to kick the bucket, the title strongly hints at it.

[BobPalpatine]

I hate Harry Potter.

What an insightful statement.

[Cydon]

:bow:Thank you.

[Ripley]

Title's a bit "eh" to me. Still looking forward to it.

[James]

The cover art of Deathly Hallows has been revealed!

Awesome stuff!!!!!

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/gallery/default/dhuk

[BobPalpatine]

I'm pretty stoked for this summer.

[James]

Yeah I'm crossing off the days on my Jumbled Jargon from George Bush calendar.


Let's speculate!!!!!!!

[Zedekk]

betcha Harry dies to save his friends... and kills Lord Vader.... uh Voldamort in doing so.

[James]

That's kind of what I'm thinking too. I've got a bet with my cousin over who will die. I can't wait!!!!!!!!!! I'll be buying my own copy to avoid civil war in my household.

[R2-D2]

OK HERES Harry Potter The International Trailer:
http://video.aol.co.uk/video-film/1891890
ENjoy Comment Cause I just Pee'd (Joke)

[leiaorgana]

This year is very exciting indeed, new book and 5th movie! and waiting very enthusiastically for both, of course the book is first on my list but nedless to say I think this movie will also kick a$s

[Trilogist]

I remember hearing somewhere that in Deathly Hallows there will be a critical character who helps Harry, a member of the Order of the Phoenix who 'hasn't been properly introduced.' A lot of people I've talked to think it's Aberforth Dumbledore, but I've been mulling, musing and pondering about that. And I thought about it, too. Here's a crazy idea: I want to find out what happened to Ollivander. You know, the old wand maker. I like to think he went into hiding to finish the mission Dumbledore started: preparing Harry for what he must do.

Or the simple answer to the problem would be Snape. He's a member of the Order, but we've never known exactly what he's meant for. Or why Dumbledore trusted him.

[James]

I'm looking so forward to the new book. I think Snape is stil gonna help Harry out somehow... I don't think Dumbledore blindly trusted people, there was always a reason in spite of what everyone else says.

And, apparently, the 'international' trailer isn't 'available' in my area. Weird, or what? For anyone else affected by this, I watched it here: http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/04/harry_potter_and_the_order_of_1.php

And Dolores is a b*tch. lol!

[Darill Cyllem]

Can we post speculations here?
I think it's likely Snape will die to save Harry, thus proving to Harry and company once and for all there's a reason Dumbledore trusted Snape. Probably Harry will die (perhaps Harry is a horcrux?), and i have a bad feeling for poor Neville.

I think i'll make it as long as Ron and Hermione live. If one of them snuffs it, i will be v. sad!

[Trilogist]

Here's another crazy cough-medicine induced idea:

What if Dumbledore had a gleam of triumph when he realized good was going to win no matter what? Since Voldemort has Harry's blood now, what if by killing Harry Voldemort turns into a muggle, and a mortal one at that? There are things worse than death.

[BobPalpatine]

I just re-read HBP last night because I was a little bored and now I'm real excited because we have about a month until the OOTP premiere and a little over a month until Deathly Hallows comes out. Is anyone else starting to get excited?

[Ripley]

I just re-read HBP last night because I was a little bored and now I'm real excited because we have about a month until the OOTP premiere and a little over a month until Deathly Hallows comes out. Is anyone else starting to get excited?
I'm rereading the series right now (currently at OotP). Have to say the Potter books are way better in reread than any other big long fantasy series I've read.

[Trilogist]

I've been re-listening to the UK version audiobooks read by Stephen Fry. They are amazing. Right now I've just started listening to Half Blood Prince again. Awesome, can't wait for the final book.

[ForceFlow]

my dad and i were looking at the cover art and we think that Sirius may not be dead. if you notice voldemort and harry are in the same place where sirius may have died and the curtains are the curtains that "killed" him.

can anyone tell me are the adult harry potter books any diffrent from the kinds kids read?

[Kapit]

Hey everybody, a couple interviews with Rupert Grint:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33122

and the director David Yates, who's also directing the next film:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33125

[James]

Hey Forceflow! No the adult versions are no different, except for cover art. :)

And great links Kaputski, thanks heaps!

[Kapit]

you're welcome! :D

[Sam]

Ebert review of "Order of the Phoenix."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070709/REVIEWS/70620005

[Kapit]

Good flick, actually saw it back to back tonight (one employee screening, another the midnight show)

I wouldn't say it's as good as the last one, which I really liked. But as a fan of just the movies and having never touched the books, Order of the Phoenix seems like one big set up for the next movie in line. The end fight btwn Dumbledore and Voldemort was pretty sweet and entertaining. The kids have definitely stepped up the acting another level, and that's a huge plus.

Oh, and Alan Rickman is the best.

[James]

Thanks for the link Sam. And you're so lucky to have seen it already, JK! I'm going tomorrow night, it seems like the next 24 hours are going to go really slow.

[kopernikuz]

I saw it last night as well... here's my basic takes *minor spoilers* if you've read the book, not really spoilers at all:


Staunton was eerily creepy as Umbridge... perfect casting in my book.
All the kids have stepped it up a notch, they're really settling into these characters.
Snape is always cool, but underplayed here... more on that in a sec.
Helena Bonham Carter will haunt my nightmares. She is now on the official "scary" list, lol.
Some of the CGI was more obvious than usual, but not too bad.
Grawp was just the Incredible Hulk from the Ang Lee movie. Meh.
Thestrals were cool-looking, but why did they address that only those who've seen death can see them, then skip the fact no-one else could see them when it came time to actually ride them? We never see any pushback from Ron and the gang at riding invisible creatures, lol... Overall, I liked it, but it wasn't the most cohesive of the films... in fact as the books get bigger, what I feared would happen has kind of happened. The films get cut to shreds and are almost too rushed to get everything in. This one seems slightly disjointed and I have to wonder if only those who have read the book fully grasp what's happening from time to time. There's just no time to really setup some of what is going on and at times you feel like someone is pushing you to get to the end. Almost like being near the end of a book and just skimming, even skipping whole pages, just to find out what happens next. The prophecy thing was not properly explained, nor why Voldemort needed it so badly. Even the occulmency never developed or was fully explained as to what was happening... but perfectly teased the next film ;) Awesome moment there with Harry and Snape :)
Please don't read this wrong, I did like the film... I just felt the cuts made it like less of a movie independent of it's book basis... but a Cliff's Notes video summary of the book... where you get the basic gist, but never really get it unless you read the actual book.

It'd be a perfect "setup" film if the next film were the finale, but it isn't, lol. Which makes me worry the next one will have the same feeling. But overall a decent entry into the series, but maybe not as fun as the last one, which I really liked a lot.

[borgmatrix]

It'd be a perfect "setup" film if the next film were the finale, but it isn't, lol. Which makes me worry the next one will have the same feeling. But overall a decent entry into the series, but maybe not as fun as the last one, which I really liked a lot.
I was disappointed with the last one. The pacing was off. It felt uneven. My favorite movie so far is "Azkaban".

My favorite of the books might be "Phoenix", so I'm looking forward to this one. Different director, so I'm hoping it flows better than the last.

[TAGLINE]

This was the best Harry Potter movie. I am stunned.

[kopernikuz]

I was disappointed with the last one. The pacing was off. It felt uneven. My favorite movie so far is "Azkaban".

My favorite of the books might be "Phoenix", so I'm looking forward to this one. Different director, so I'm hoping it flows better than the last.
Oh I agree completely... so far I like Azkaban the best... my point about the previous film was that it also had pacing issues and certainly had its fair share of cuts... but I still felt as thought the basic "gist" of the story was not dependent on having read the book. This one is not totally dependent either, but I did just get a slight feeling some might be confused. Since I've read them, I guess really I couldn't say, since I'll always have the whole story in the back of my mind. Someone who is a fan of the movies only probably would have a better idea. My wife for instance, who has not seen it yet and doesn't read the books, but loves the films.

Again, I really liked it, thought it was a great addition and it's gotten me more and more pumped for the last book here shortly. I still felt rushed a bit and recommend enjoyment of the books as well.

[James]

Only 3 hours to go!! My favourite HP film so far was GOF, I wonder if this one will upstage it or not.

[Ripley]

I saw it last night. Honestly I was a bit let down. Why plots like Gwarp were left in and important plots such as Snape's Worst Memory was cut down baffles me.

[kopernikuz]

Well, I agree on the Snape's memory... but only partly... as those who've read the books know, the next film will go into much more detail on this... so I kind of liked that it was a little teasing... though what bothered me is that they didn't go into any real reaction from Harry to what he saw... and come on... he should have had a reaction as his picture of his perfect dad and uncle could crash there.

But they didn't go into the Occulemency as a whole enough in my opinion. This is one of the areas I think some people might have been like "huh?" during... they just didn't properly explain what Snape was doing and why.

[kopernikuz]

Okay... I usually have no problem seeing midnight shows... but as a few days had gone by, I began to seriously consider my attentiveness to the first viewing of OOTP... as I think back, I realize that I was not falling asleep, but I think I can honestly say I was in that "zone" where I was awake, but my comprehension was foggy. That said, I felt it was unfair to judge OOTP until I'd enjoyed a second screening.

Now, I still hold my little niggles here and there about not explaining things well enough... but I definitely enjoyed it more in the light of day, lol... and I would say though my grumps still stand, it was a very good movie.

Here are a few more niggles and bright spots though (Spoilers for anyone who hasn't read the books!):

The ending was too rushed and the Department of Mysteries a complete letdown. Giant brain strangling Ron anyone? It was a dark room full of shelves of breakables. Whoopee.
Seeing Dumbledore throwdown with Voldemort? Irritatingly short, but still freakin' cool, lol.
I can't say enough about how creepily sweet Staunton was. She was Umbridge in my book... brilliant.
I always hated how at the end of the Azkaban film Sirius leaves and then in GOF film, we hardly are even reminded of his existence except for a brief conversation in a fire. I told myself then, they'd better really play up his relationship with Harry in the OOTP film, otherwise, no one is gonna care about the ending at all... well, I thought they did a really nice job making Sirius more likable and more "in touch" with Harry, so you can appreciate the loss. Kudos to that part. However, the grief Harry expresses at the end of the book is not as obvious in end of the film. Not sure if this was a writing gaffe, or Radcliffe just not growing into as great an actor as we thought... but there wasn't enough grief as the book had allowed.
Again... Helena Bonham Carter... wow... mad as a hatter. Wonderful.
Loved the little dialogue between Harry and Cho prior to the kiss.
The Luna Lovegood actress was fun as well.Again, I have some gripes... but overall my opinion actually went up after seeing again... just on the whole a fun time.

[Sam]

I saw "Order of the Phoenix" Thursday night and liked it better than Ebert did in his review that I posted before the opening. Over the course of his reviews, Ebert seems to be having a problem with the Potter films getting darker as the characters get older. He misses the "magic" that he saw mainly in the first two films. If so, he needs to take up the issue with author J.K. Rowling. I haven't read the books, but my understanding is that the darkening conflicts and more grown up tone in the stories are what Rowling planned all along.

I think OOTP has the most intriguing plot of any of the films so far, and there are more real-world analogies to be drawn from it than from any of the previous ones. Previously, it was "Chamber of Secrets" which held that distinction. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson keep getting better as actors. Rupert Grint is good also, but didn't make a much of an impression this time. And Imelda Staunton is chilling as a Prof. Umbridge who reminds me of my evil, right-wing half-sister.

I like it that Ron and, especially, Hermione, are are active and in on the main action this time, unlike in "Goblet of Fire" where they were sidelined and, in one unbelievable sequence, made into objects requiring rescue. (Regarding GOF, it's one thing to have a tournament requiring the contestants to put their own lives in danger. It's quite another thing to intentionally put their friends' and relatives' lives in danger as part of the contest. I don't think a school system in its right mind, magical or not, would do that. It would have been more palitable if, as part of the tournament, the contestants' friends and/or loved ones were inserted as active participants. At least, in that way, it would have helped prepare them for the real battles they would be fighting in OOTP and beyond.) I especially like the scene in OOTP where Hermione talks Harry out of going it alone, telling him, "We're in this together."

On the other hand, in terms of filmmaking style, I found OOTP to be the the least-well directed of the Potter films. I read that director David Yates' background is in television, not feature films. On the plus side, he's good with actors (which automatically puts him ahead of a certain writer/director who must not be named), and with political intrigue, since he's done a television series about it. Yet, he has neither the storybook style of Chris Columbus, nor the you-are-there realism of Alfonso Cuaron (which Cuaron went on to perfect in his sci-fi masterpiece "Children of Men"), nor Mike Newell's emphasis on relationships. Though closer to Cuaron and Newell than to Columbus,Yates appears just to be going through the motions.

As many have said, this is the shortest of the films, despite its being based on the longest of the books. Critics who don't like long movies are praising Yates and screenwriter Michael Goldenberg for their discipline, but I'm with the people who are finding parts of the film disjointed (which appears to also be part of Ebert's problem with the film),as it looks like some vital scenes are missing. Example: Helena Bonham Carter is in this movie, playing an undeveloped, one-dimensional, hahahahahahah-evil character who, in just a few minutes of screen time, gets to do something really major that makes Harry really, really angry and almost turns him evil. I caught a glimpse of her on Sirius' family tree, but, unless I missed something Sirius says to Harry in the scene, there's no information as to how she got that way and why she does what she does.

Another thing that appears to be missing: The romantic/sexual tension which was developing between Ron and Hermione through the previous two films seems to be on hold in this one. I guess when you're training to fight back against an inquisition that's taken over your school and interfering with your education, you don't have time for romantic relationships, though Harry does get a little time with Cho Lin. Incidentally, I think the most well-developed relationship in the Potter films is not a romantic one, but is, instead, how close Harry and Hermione are to each other without any thought of becoming lovers.

Then there's the soundtrack. The new composer Nicholas Hooper makes no attempt to build upon the musical ideas of either Williams or Doyle, which would be OK, if he had good ideas of his own to replace them with, but he doesn't. The score is merely functional. Nothing more.

So, overall, I still rank "Prisoner of Azkaban" as the best of the Potter films, followed by "Chamber of Secrets" then "Order of the Phoenix" then Goblet of Fire" and, last, "Sorcerer's Stone."

[Sarah-Leia]

I am seeing number 5 tomorrow in an IMAX theatre! :lol:

[Zedekk]

I saw the movie last night. I must say I was very pleased with this one, I think it might be the best Potter movie yet. I was disappointed with the last one as it seemed to me to be a Highlights of the book movie than an actual stand alone story telling movie, but its difficult enough to bring something to the scren that can measure up to ones own imagination. Still all in all Order of the Phoenix was very entertaining!

[James]

Here goes - I really liked this film, I was impressed how coherent it was seeing as it was such a huge book, with so many plots and subplots which are necessary.

Order of the Phoenix really gives a different Harry this time round. Struggling with his adolescent identity and misunderstood by the wizarding world and most of the idiots in government, Harry feels conflicted, emotional, and angry. What's more, he's at odds with a dark and sinister side of himself. Gone is the fun times of Quidditch and jolly Christmas parties, and in come sinister themes, bloodshed, brooding teenage Harry, and a fair bit of snogging.

Harry is no longer fighting off demons and oversized Bludgers. He's fighting fear - fear of failure and inner demons that threaten to destroy his mind. In addition, Hogwarts is no longer the sanctuary it once was, in the light of the return of Lord Voldemort, the death of fellow student Cedric Diggory, and the arrival on the scene of Dolores Umbridge, the Teacher from Hell, who is determined to toe the Ministry line and take over the school for herself.

David Yates claims to have created a far darker film than its predecessors. In this, he does well. Now, Harry has a real enemy to fight, none other than Voldemort, the murderer of his parents. Assisting him is the deranged Bellatrix Lestrange, who murders for no reason than for the delight of doing so, and who looks ugly enough to stand in as all three of Macbeth's witches combined. The crux of the story, however, revolves around Dumbledore and Harry trying to convince the magical world that Voldemort is once more at large, and the war will soon begin.

When Umbridge (something of a self-important bureaucrat who does nothing but shuffle paper, probably quite representative of most bureaucrats actually) refuses to teach practical spells, fearing that Dumbledore could manipulate his students into rallying against the Ministry, Harry, with the help of Ron and Hermione, forms a secret organisation so that his fellow classmates can practice spells in order to protect themselves.

It's not all tears and trauma for Harry though, as he shares a much-anticipated kiss with Cho Chang. Sadly, however, the romance fizzles out faster than you can say "snog". But you gotta love Harry's line, when Ron asks him how the kiss was, "Wet". That had the whole cinema in hysterics.

That's the good. Now the not-so-good.

As we all know, the books are becoming larger and larger as they progress. As a result, the films become somewhat shallower. Take for example, in the book, when Harry starts taking Occlumency lessons from Snape. Snape explains how it is not simply mind-reading, because "the mind is a complex and many-layered thing." In the film, Snape says basically yeah, it's mind-reading. OOTP is the longest book with the least amount of action.

Mind you, the Voldemort-Dumbledore duel at the very end is spectacularly realised. That was what I had been waiting for, and it definitely did not disappoint. The Ministry of Magic was well done as well, even though I had visualised halls painted in gold rather than in black. And the big portrait of Cornelius Fudge was a nice socialist nanny-state Big Brother-esque addition.

My verdict: 4 and a half out of 5. Awesome film, just lacked character depth. Other than that, I had no problems with it.

[STar war spUNK]

I saw it yesterday afternoon. My experience might have possibly been better if 1) I saw Ratatouille again like my sisters promised we would (instead we didn't see it at all!), 2) my sister did not choose the worst seat in the gigantic theater (she chose RIGHT below where the people are changing the reels for the movie meaning there was a huge light shining on us the whole time) and 2) if my sisters were not CONSTANTLY saying "THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BOOK."

UGH.

I have never read the books though, and perhaps I will once I see all the movies, but I realize that if you have read the books, you will be disappointed and I do not want that to be the case. In the case of OOTP, I found it good although some parts made me go :giveup:. Also, I totally thought Cho Chang would have a bigger part?! I've seen her (and definitely Emma Watson) everywhere in the news for this movie. Oh well!

[James]

Yeah, I know how you feel spunk. I really find it annoying when I'm sitting next to someone who is constantly yapping about what happens in the book. You may have seen my little rant about Snape, but when I watch the movie adaptations I try and disconnect myself from the books. That Snape thingy was just a technical issue really.

[Sam]

James, I mostly agree with your review of OOTP, except for the parts where you try to spin it to the right politically.

When Umbridge (something of a self-important bureaucrat who does nothing but shuffle paper, probably quite representative of most bureaucrats actually) refuses to teach practical spells, fearing that Dumbledore could manipulate his students into rallying against the Ministry, Harry, with the help of Ron and Hermione, forms a secret organisation so that his fellow classmates can practice spells in order to protect themselves.

I think you're missing the point of the Umbridge character. If she were actually representative of most bureaucrats (I know conservatives like you love to hate bureaucrats), she would not be the threat to the school that she is. Umbridge is a threat, becuase she's a political appointee with a clear ideological agenda that's contrary to the educational needs of the students.

OOTP illustrates more than do the previous films the fight between the "Strict Father" and "Nurturant Parent" value systems which linguist and cogintive researcher George Lakoff has found to be the basis of the current cultural divide in the US, Britain, New Zealand and many other countries. Over the course of the films, Hogwarts has been primarily a Nurturant Parent institution, though with a Strict Father faction always in the background threatening to take over. It does take over in OOTP, through Dolores Umbridge, an extreme Strict Father ideologue in the form of a woman with sickly sweet mannerisms and always wearing pink. This character is both a Nurturant Parent's and a feminist's worst nightmare, which is why the students, Hermione especially, must go to the lengths to which they go to get rid of her.

In terms of story structure, Dumbeldore is the main Nurturant Parent figure in all of this, though you wouldn't know it from Michael Gambon's portrayal of the character. The late Richard Harris was more in touch with who Dumbledore is and what he's about. And, no, I don't consider Prof. McGonigal part of the Strict Father faction. She's been strict with students at times, but what sets her apart from the real Strict Father ideologues is her belief in fairness. Snape is, of course, the wild card. He has a Strict Father attitude, yet he's allied with Dumbedore and is a member of the Order of the Phoenix, none of whom are like him. Is Snape really someone who can work across philosophical lines, joining those with whom he disagrees, for the greater good? Or is his hatred of Harry's father leading him down a path of subterfuge and revenge? I guess we'll find out in Book 7.

Now, the families: The Dursleys are, again an extreme case of, a Strict Father (or uncle) family. The Weasleys are a Nurturant Parent family. We don't see much of Hermione's parents, but given that they approve of her pursuing Witchcraft, even though they're not magical themselves, they are probably Nurturant Parents. The Malfoys are another kind of Strict Father family, the greedy kind, and one that's contemptuous of those who are not like them. Sirius Black has become a Nurturant Parent figure to Harry.

You're right that Umbridge opposes the teaching of practical magic in the Defense Against the Dark Arts course, due to fear that the students may be able to use what they learn against the Ministry. It's analogous, ironically, to science education, where many schools fail to teach the scientific method, but rather teach science only by rote. This is due mainly to cultural pressure. For, if students learn the scientific method, they can use it to figure out how ridiculous are many of the things which the powers that be expect them to believe.

And before you claim that Dumbledore's Army is analogous to the Strict Father model of military training, keep in mind that their chosen teacher, Harry, is not using the methods of a strict drill instructor. His methods of training the others are all about nurturance. Also, predictably, given the views you've frequently expressed about women, your review doesn't give Hermione enough of the credit for creating Dumbledore's Army. It's more her idea than anyone else's. She's the one who persuades Harry to teach her and the others what he's learned from the battles with evil forces that he's had and they have yet to have. She's the one who finds the secret room in which to conduct the training. Later, she's the one who persuades Harry to stay with the group instead of going it alone.

And the big portrait of Cornelius Fudge was a nice socialist nanny-state Big Brother-esque addition.

A Big Brother figure, yes. A socialist nanny-state figure? That comparison doesn't come from anything in the film. Rather, it's your own hatred, which you've expressed to me, of the woman-led Labour government in New Zealand talking.

[kopernikuz]

Interesting interpretations, but I think you've missed some of the obvious in there as well... like Voldemort posing a clear and present danger, but Fudge would rather play partisan politics and ignore this danger, assuming it is his political rival's imaginary threat designed to unseat him. And the giant poster of Fudge was clearly a "Big Brother" fascist-like reference... no question. But Fudge and his gang are bureaucrats.. clearly... politics over reason is the stamp of bureaucracy. When faced with the letter of the law... Fudge, a bureaucrat, points out that the law can be changed if he doesn't like it. He doesn't represent people, he represents an agenda... this is a bureaucrat. When the "government" sticks its nose into the school system, the school system becomes dogmatic and pointless, serving the will of the government, teaching the status-quo, not representing the best interests of the students.. This is why this muggle homehogwarts his kids, lol :P

Umbridge refuses to prepare the students for a threat she and her superiors believe is manufactured. They're not going to train the children to protect themselves, because there is nothing to be protected from. They study theory rather than practical protection... which considering that the threat is in fact real is quite scary indeed. You could draw similar parallels to the world governments ignoring threats gaining power while they play politics (writing "resolutions") until the threat lands on their doorstep... then suddenly, they're "concerned" as Fudge stood with egg on his face at the end.

You can draw multiple philosophies from the film if you truly want to look. There is no evidence that any of these are correct... which is why I like to apply this philosophical theory to the film (and book for that matter):

There are magical people fighting against evil. It was hella fun.

:P

[James]

Hello again, Sam. I agree with most of what you have to say, except the following.

I think you're missing the point of the Umbridge character. If she were actually representative of most bureaucrats (I know conservatives like you love to hate bureaucrats), she would not be the threat to the school that she is. Umbridge is a threat, becuase she's a political appointee with a clear ideological agenda that's contrary to the educational needs of the students.

No, I'm not missing the point of Umbridge. She's a bureaucrat, not interested in the real world, interested in her and Fudge's agenda. Because her and Fudge have a smear campaign going against Harry and Dumbledore, while the signs are growing that Voldemort has come back, their agenda is clearly dangerous. And apart from having the agenda, she's just such a total b!tch.

Is Snape really someone who can work across philosophical lines, joining those with whom he disagrees, for the greater good? Or is his hatred of Harry's father leading him down a path of subterfuge and revenge? I guess we'll find out in Book 7. I wouldn't say Snape provides much of a nurturing environment to the study of Potions. Most students except for his favourites, i.e., Malfoy, dread the subject.

Also, predictably, given the views you've frequently expressed about women, your review doesn't give Hermione enough of the credit for creating Dumbledore's Army.Um...excuse me? Don't put words in my mouth please.

It's more her idea than anyone else's. She's the one who persuades Harry to teach her and the others what he's learned from the battles with evil forces that he's had and they have yet to have. She's the one who finds the secret room in which to conduct the training. Later, she's the one who persuades Harry to stay with the group instead of going it alone. And because I didn't mention that I'm now a misogynist. Thanks Sam, thanks very much.

A Big Brother figure, yes. A socialist nanny-state figure? That comparison doesn't come from anything in the film. Rather, it's your own hatred, which you've expressed to me, of the woman-led Labour government in New Zealand talking.Hatred...that's a strong word to use, Sam. I don't give a toss if New Zealand is led by a woman or not, it's not the people in charge I'm worried about but the policies they are pursuing. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

[Sam]

Interesting interpretations, but I think you've missed some of the obvious in there as well... like Voldemort posing a clear and present danger, but Fudge would rather play partisan politics and ignore this danger, assuming it is his political rival's imaginary threat designed to unseat him. And the giant poster of Fudge was clearly a "Big Brother" fascist-like reference... no question. But Fudge and his gang are bureaucrats.. clearly... politics over reason is the stamp of bureaucracy. When faced with the letter of the law... Fudge, a bureaucrat, points out that the law can be changed if he doesn't like it. He doesn't represent people, he represents an agenda... this is a bureaucrat. When the "government" sticks its nose into the school system, the school system becomes dogmatic and pointless, serving the will of the government, teaching the status-quo, not representing the best interests of the students.. This is why this muggle homehogwarts his kids, lol :P

Umbridge refuses to prepare the students for a threat she and her superiors believe is manufactured. They're not going to train the children to protect themselves, because there is nothing to be protected from. They study theory rather than practical protection... which considering that the threat is in fact real is quite scary indeed. You could draw similar parallels to the world governments ignoring threats gaining power while they play politics (writing "resolutions") until the threat lands on their doorstep... then suddenly, they're "concerned" as Fudge stood with egg on his face at the end.

You can draw multiple philosophies from the film if you truly want to look. There is no evidence that any of these are correct... which is why I like to apply this philosophical theory to the film (and book for that matter):

There are magical people fighting against evil. It was hella fun.

:P

No, I didn't miss the obvious threat of Voldermort, nor did I miss Fudge's actions due to his being in denail of it. However, the closest real world parallel I see to it is not the present day example you're giving, but rather is in Britain prior to WWII. Contrary to what the Bush neocons today would have you believe, Neville Chamberlain was no lefty peacenik. He, ironically, ran his government very much like Bush/Cheney, believing in a unitary executive, marginalizing the role of Parlaiment, failing to seek a broad range of opinion before enaciting policy, accusing dissenters, including those in his own Consevative Party, of disloyalty, and tapping phones, including Churchill's. Why did Chamberlain not see Hitler as the threat that he was? Probably, because he was a lot like him. Churchill, by contrast believed in a strong role for Parlaiment and in building strong alliances through international organizations such as the League of Nations.

Below is an article by a historian who's book "Troublesome Young Men" is about the rebellion of Churchill and others in British Parlaiment against Chamberlain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902304.html

I looked up "bureaucrat" and "bureaucracy" in Webster's dictionary, and the definitions do not include their having an political agenda. You guys are fudging (pun intended) the fact that a bureaucrat with an agenda is something more than just a bureaucrat.

And, more often than not, home schooling is done by those who have a political and/or religious agenda to supress something that's being taught in the schools.

[kopernikuz]

bu·reau·crat (byŏŏr'ə-krāt') Pronunciation Key
n.
An official of a bureaucracy.
An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.
an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.
Pretty close to what I was trying to say, just better worded. Following the letter politic, the rote law or agenda without using logic or reason as it might deviate from said agenda.

And, more often than not, home schooling is done by those who have a political and/or religious agenda to supress something that's being taught in the schools.

That's about the most uneducated opinion of home schooling I've ever read, but don't be offended... it's not an atypical one. Most people who condemn home schooling have very little practical knowledge about it. Public school systems promote and agenda just as much as an individual or a religious family might... their agendas just differ... that's not wrong. Plus it's just as likely for the government to "supress" something that should be taught with their "approved" curriculums. Home schooling allows for more wide study and more broad options. That said, it's actually poorly funded and failing public school systems are the predominant reason we home school. They simply get a better education at home. They have better opportunities and we can't afford private school. Not sure what you were implying there, but there it is. Our kids are ahead of most public school systems in some areas, even in others... but they get the individual attention and more advanced training that the public school by virtue of it being "public" and therefore 30 students or more to 1 ratios cannot give. It's not the public school's fault... it's just more difficult to train and hold the attention of 30 kids than it is to train 1 or 2 personally and in vital invigorating ways.

Back to Potter...

Again... I saw evil magic people trying to overthrow good magic people and cool drama and action in between. Maybe I was looking for fun rather than politics. Sue me. :P

About ten chapters away from the end of Deathly Hallows... best one so far... most action and excitement hands down.

[Leia]

*randomly barges in* Yesss, I am vindicated! But very sad :(

[Sam]

Hello again, Sam. I agree with most of what you have to say, except the following.

No, I'm not missing the point of Umbridge. She's a bureaucrat, not interested in the real world, interested in her and Fudge's agenda. Because her and Fudge have a smear campaign going against Harry and Dumbledore, while the signs are growing that Voldemort has come back, their agenda is clearly dangerous. And apart from having the agenda, she's just such a total b!tch.

I agree about the smear campaign. However, as I indicated to kopernikuz, you and I have different definitions of the word "bureaucrat." And you just had to go and use that word "b!tch" again, didn't you?

I wouldn't say Snape provides much of a nurturing environment to the study of Potions. Most students except for his favourites, i.e., Malfoy, dread the subject.

You weren't listening to what I said. I stated in my post that Snape has a Strict Father attitude, making it unusual for him to be in with the Order of the Phoenix, none of whom are like him.

Um...excuse me? Don't put words in my mouth please.

I didn't put the word, "b!tch" in you mouth, which you've used more than once, or the word "commun!st," which you've used against political opponents and feminist authors alike.

And because I didn't mention that I'm now a misogynist. Thanks Sam, thanks very much.

"Misogynist" isn't a word I've used on this site, but I was planning to use the terms "reactionary and misogynistic" to describe the cultural agenda of a certain writer/director who, in this thread, must not be named, the next time I write about him. In light of our past debates, where I've learned your preferences and you've learned mine, I predicted that Hermione's role in organizing and holding together the student rebellion against Umbridge and the Ministry wasn't something you would have preferred to mention in your review of OOTP. Just as you could have predicted that it was something which I would view as one of the film's strongest elements.

Hatred...that's a strong word to use, Sam. I don't give a toss if New Zealand is led by a woman or not, it's not the people in charge I'm worried about but the policies they are pursuing. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

When you make Joseph McCarthy-style accusations of Communism against the people in charge of New Zealand, and approve of a political ad, titled "Helengrad," which makes up Prime Minister Helen Clark to look like Joseph Stalin, it sounds to me like hatred.

[James]

I agree about the smear campaign. However, as I indicated to kopernikuz, you and I have different definitions of the word "bureaucrat." And you just had to go and use that word "b!tch" again, didn't you?

Yeah, I used that word. Who cares?

You weren't listening to what I said. I stated in my post that Snape has a Strict Father attitude, making it unusual for him to be in with the Order of the Phoenix, none of whom are like him.

The magical world wasn't divided into Death Eaters and Nuturant Parents. Plus, you haven't read book 7 yet, so you don't know what Snape has coming for him.

"Misogynist" isn't a word I've used on this site, but I was planning to use the terms "reactionary and misogynistic" to describe the cultural agenda of a certain writer/director who, in this thread, must not be named, the next time I write about him.

I think you need to go to university and get some sociology education. You are incredibly tunnel-visioned and narrow-minded, and you don't seem educated enough to make sound judgments.

In light of our past debates, where I've learned your preferences and you've learned mine, I predicted that Hermione's role in organizing and holding together the student rebellion against Umbridge and the Ministry wasn't something you would have preferred to mention in your review of OOTP. Just as you could have predicted that it was something which I would view as one of the film's strongest elements.

For the last damn time, I have no anti-female agenda. Please stop assuming that I do and stuffing your hypocrisy down my throat.

When you make Joseph McCarthy-style accusations of Communism against the people in charge of New Zealand, and approve of a political ad, titled "Helengrad," which makes up Prime Minister Helen Clark to look like Joseph Stalin, it looks to me like hatred.

Again, you're demonstrating your ignorance. "Helengrad" is quite popular, the butt of jokes among a wide circle of people here in New Zealand. Ever been to NZ, or studied NZ politics in depth? Probably not, judging by your extreme lack on comprehension. I have nothing against the people in charge in NZ, I'm sure they're all fine and dandy, just the policies they're pursuing.

And about Chamberlain, of course he realised Hitler was a threat. But the reason he appeased Hitler is most probably because he had no real choice. The British were in no way ready to fight a war in 1938.





Back to more interesting topics...I've finished Harry Potter 7. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and there seemed to be the right mix of comical, serious, scary, and heart-wrenching scenes. Awesome read!

[Sam]

bu·reau·crat (byŏŏr'ə-krāt') Pronunciation Key
n.
An official of a bureaucracy.
An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure.
an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

Pretty close to what I was trying to say, just better worded. Following the letter politic, the rote law or agenda without using logic or reason as it might deviate from said agenda.

Yet, the actual definition you quoted doesn't say "agenda." When you add a political agenda to it, it becomes more than just a bureaucracy. That's what I'm saying.

That's about the most uneducated opinion of home schooling I've ever read, but don't be offended... it's not an atypical one. Most people who condemn home schooling have very little practical knowledge about it. Public school systems promote and agenda just as much as an individual or a religious family might... their agendas just differ... that's not wrong. Plus it's just as likely for the government to "supress" something that should be taught with their "approved" curriculums. Home schooling allows for more wide study and more broad options. That said, it's actually poorly funded and failing public school systems are the predominant reason we home school. They simply get a better education at home. They have better opportunities and we can't afford private school. Not sure what you were implying there, but there it is. Our kids are ahead of most public school systems in some areas, even in others... but they get the individual attention and more advanced training that the public school by virtue of it being "public" and therefore 30 students or more to 1 ratios cannot give. It's not the public school's fault... it's just more difficult to train and hold the attention of 30 kids than it is to train 1 or 2 personally and in vital invigorating ways.

Though different people use home schooling for different reasons, the fact remains that the main force behind the home schooling movement today is the Religious Right, some of whose members, when they can't get schools to bow to their agenda, pick up their marbles and go home.

Back to Potter...

Again... I saw evil magic people trying to overthrow good magic people and cool drama and action in between. Maybe I was looking for fun rather than politics. Sue me.

OOTP is the most political of the Potter films so far. Before, it was COS. And I believe the author J.K. Rowling intended it that way. If the stories weren't about anything but evil magic people trying to overthrow good magic people, they would be rather boring, wouldn't they? Rowling isn't writing in a vaccum, and the themes she developing, the meaning of which can be debated, but the existence of which can't be denied, are part of the books' and the films' success.

[BobPalpatine]

Finished the book this morning....loved it. Will talk about it later when more people have had time to finish.

Most of my theories were on the money. Some were a little off but still close.

[Sam]

Yeah, I used that word. Who cares?

If you don't know what using that word says about you, then you must have missed something that sociology education you brought up.

The magical world wasn't divided into Death Eaters and Nuturant Parents. Plus, you haven't read book 7 yet, so you don't know what Snape has coming for him.

Again, you're not listening. I posed the question as to whether Snape can overcome his Strict Father/Death Eater background to work with the people he disagrees with for the common good, or whether hatred and revenge will cause him to betray them, and stated that the answer will be in Book 7.

I think you need to go to university and get some sociology education. You are incredibly tunnel-visioned and narrow-minded, and you don't seem educated enough to make sound judgments.

Now, you're getting incredibly insulting. FYI, I have a Bachelor of Science degree from George Mason University. It's in Chemistry, but it included Social Science courses. I'm going to use a PM (not right away, I've already composed much of it, but it's late here), to answer this and the rest of your post, since it's getting way too personal, and a detailed response would throw this thread further off topic.

[kopernikuz]

OOTP is the most political of the Potter films so far. Before, it was COS. And I believe the author J.K. Rowling intended it that way. If the stories weren't about anything but evil magic people trying to overthrow good magic people, they would be rather boring, wouldn't they? Rowling isn't writing in a vaccum, and the themes she developing, the meaning of which can be debated, but the existence of which can't be denied, are part of the books' and the films' success.
Naturally authors put a little of their beliefs in their writing... not even up for debate here... but if Rowling's politics are part of the books and films success they are miniscule. Billions of children who read the books don't give a rip about her politics... they wanna see Harry in a rip-roaring adventure. They want to see Harry succeed despite the odds. They want to see Harry get the girl. They want to see him overcome his losses in life. And the funny thing... most adults read it for the same reason, this is a fact evidenced by the plethora of adults dressed as Harry or Snape or Bellatrix or Hermione or whomever waiting in line at the mall to get the book... with signs reading "Trust Snape" or "Live, Harry! Live!" When it comes down to it... the Potter books are immensely popular because they are...

wait for it...

... fun. *gasp* There I said it.

Even the "Little Nell" books of old which this craze is being compared to had shades of politics or beliefs... but in the end... people just wanted to know... "DOES LITTLE NELL LIVE?" They cared about the character and the stories... they were entertaining and fun and engaging.

Stephen King includes a lot of his personal politics in his books too... but most people read them because they scare the pants off of you and are well written. Same applies here. Lucas clearly has some of his own beliefs and politics in his films... but in the end they're successful because they're about fun characters, huge space battles and laser swords.

You might have more fun if you spent some time cheering Harry on rather than looking for debate... just saying :P

By the way... Little Nell died :(

[James]

That's exactly the point, kope. People read and like HP because it's a lot of fun. That's why I read HP, that's why my sisters read HP, and even my grandparents read it. I don't think our political beliefs or the merits of boarding school versus homeschool has much to do with our like or dislike of the series. The story is fun, plain and simple. Rather like Star Wars, which, after all, is why we're all here.

[Sarah-Leia]

It took me 8. ****ing. Hours. To read the newest book. Ha. At least I enjoyed it and found it my favourite of all the books so far.

[Obidobi]

It took me 8. ****ing. Hours. To read the newest book. Ha. At least I enjoyed it and found it my favourite of all the books so far.
It took me the whole weekend... But then again, I had two lads running around craving my attention every 5 minutes...
I found the book on the net.. And yes I found those false ones too...:blink:

[P-Ray]

Some friends, my son and I sawe Order of the Phoenix tonight and we all give it an A!

[P-Ray]

Bonham Carter in Harry Potter 6!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=36824

[JediKeri]

Ok, I've just finished re-reading the series...took me two full weeks to finish reading it. Wow, what a series...shame one of my favorite characters bought it though.

[P-Ray]

DVD news!


http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/harry-potter7.html

[P-Ray]

single disc DVD!

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/harry-potter7.html

[TAGLINE]

So I guess this labor day weekend marked the official crowning for the Harry Potter franchise as the high grossing movie franchise in History. Star Wars and James Bond were taken down. And Harry Potter has two more movies to go.

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (http://movies.go.com/moviesproxy/buzzbin?columnid=917899&CMP=ILC-Flash1#)
A Little R&R What's Daniel Radcliffe most excited about filming next? His next showdown with Voldemort? A new Quidditch match? Nope, it's sitting for several days in a boat in a dark cave with co-star Michael Gambon. Yeah, after six flicks of this stuff, I'd probably want to just sit my butt down, too.

movies.com

[Brian]

J.K. Rowling Outs Dumbledore
by Natalie Finn

Albus Dumbledore took quite a few secrets with him to the grave. And it's possible that even he didn't know about this one.

After helping Dumbledore's favorite pupil uncover a treasure trove of information about the Hogwarts headmaster in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,the final installment of her billion-dollar fantasy series, J.K. Rowling has pulled something new out of the pensieve:

Dumbledore was gay.

(What you just heard was the sound of conservative religious groups scribbling down one more reason to loathe the Harry Potter franchise.)

"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling explained Friday in front of a packed house at New York's Carnegie Hall, where she capped off her first U.S. book tour since 2000.

Which explains why the brilliant wizard was briefly blinded as a young man by the charm and skill of Gellert Grindelwald, his companion turned archnemesis who turned out to be more interested in the Dark Arts than a three-bedroom craftsman in Hogsmeade.

After Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down," Rowling explained, he went on to destroy Grindelwald in what is considered in the wizarding world to have been the ultimate wand-toting battle between good and evil.

That love, she said to raucous applause, was Dumbledore's "great tragedy."

"If I had know this would have made you so happy, I would have told you years ago," Rowling said.

If this revelation seems almost too whimsical, consider this: Rowling, who penned much of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in a café while living out of her car, can certainly be a bit cheeky, but it seems highly unlikely that she would try to put one over on a Manhattan landmark full of kids and other readers who have made her one of the richest people in England.

While working on the sixth Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which focuses largely on Dumbledore and Harry's relationship, as well as the elder wizard's interaction with a young Voldemort, Rowling said that she slipped director David Yates an eye-opening note after noticing that there was a reference in the script to a girl in Dumbledore's past.

There's no word yet on if this will affect Michael Gambon's character in the final two Potter movies, which are slated for release in 2008 and 2010, respectively.

Dumbledore's sexuality has apparently been of great interest to bloggers and chat room denizens for years, with his history—and intimate affinities—becoming the subject of much debate and, ahem, original short stories.

"Just imagine the fan fiction now," Rowling joked.

Of course, one could always have shrugged off the lack of romance in his life, what with his hectic work schedule and his penchant for secrecy.

And, as the scarred one learned in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore could be quite temperamental, especially when protecting those he loved.
Who knew?

[Justin]

Think this will show up in the next movie?

[Brian]

Think this will show up in the next movie?
Largely depends on the director I suppose.

[P-Ray]

Think this will show up in the next movie?
I don't understand!

Was it in the books? I haven't read any of them!

[Justin]

I don't understand!

Was it in the books? I haven't read any of them!
No, apparently Rowling just revealed it. I'm sure there will be some reference to it in the next movie.

[P-Ray]

No, apparently Rowling just revealed it. I'm sure there will be some reference to it in the next movie.
Ok thanx! I was a bit confused.

[kopernikuz]

Since it is not mentioned in any of the books (even if it is hinted at), it seems absolutely irrelevant for her to even discuss this now. I mean, it really doesn't add anything. If it was implied but she has to explain it... then she's not much of a writer. It's like someone telling a joke and then feeling the need to explain the punchline. If you told it right, you don't have to do that.

She is clearly just trying to create some controversial buzz with the religious-righters (even so much as admits to it in one interview)... like she needs more of it, lol.

I just don't see the relevance now that all the books are out... people made their own interpretations of him in their minds anyway, so who really cares? I also don't see why they'd feel a need to reference it in the films... up to now they films have added little to the mythos... only taken away. It's irrelevant there too.

[Zedekk]

^ Agreed Kop.

Alright the whole dumbledore is gay thing. Fine I can say it doesn't matter because it was never in the books. I look at this as a ploy as more attention for her books. It's sad that the gayness is being used as a sensational book and movie seller instead of it being in the books as part of the story instead. That would have given more credence to Dombledor's character.

[Brian]

Right on, kop. The bottom line is, she wasn't courageous enough to put it in her books. She waited until the HP books made her billions of dollars before she decided to be "controversial," which is a load of crap.

[Justin]

We are talking about a book which is primarily for kids, so she probably thought that it was best to leave it out for a number of different reasons.

Plenty of writers come up with detailed backstories for their characters that never make it into the books. I'm sure there are tons of little things Rowling has made up about her characters that are not in the books.

Dumbledore being gay was unimportant to the story she was telling, so why does leaving it out make her a bad writer?

[Brian]

I don't think it makes her a bad writer. But the publicity stunt she pulled with Dumbledore's "outing" was lame.

I guess this isn't unprecidented what with Tolkien's Hobbits alleged to be gay as well as Gandolf.

[Zedekk]

Is that what you're supposed to do if you're a writer? Not address the sexual orienation of the protagonist and then later on if the book becomes a hit say that they are gay?

[kopernikuz]

Dumbledore being gay was unimportant to the story she was telling, so why does leaving it out make her a bad writer?
You're kind of missing the point, she DID put it in the book, she just didn't use the word "gay". According to Rowling, Dumbledore's unreciprocated crush for Grindelwald made it even more tragic when Dumbledore had to take him down. Cool. But here's the problem:



Either
1) She was not courageous enough to out him in the books because of the content and its for kids.

2) She was courageous enough and just didn't use the word, but used creative writing to "suggest" he's gay and let it go at that.

If the latter, then feeling the need to "out" him now is the same as explaining a joke to someone. If she was a good enough writer, it came through in the art... if not, well then it's irellevant then, isn't it? An author shouldn't have to explain the backstory if they wrote it right. And any good author is going to let you figure it out on your own, and if you don't then you missed the author's point.

Again, this is all contingent on Rowling's claim about he and Grindelwald. It speaks to Dumbledore's motivations for acting certain ways... in this case the backstory either SHOULD be in the book... or it's irrelevant. The tragedy works as best friends or gay lovers either way... so outing him is "explaining the punchline" which good author's don't have to do, because they got it right in the book itself.

Stephen King's psycho dad in The Shining doesn't just "go crazy". Everything that happens is based on the backstory, and King is brilliant at getting all that in creatively. We know he's an alcoholic... we know he's a mean drunk... we know his history with his son... and it all comes together and makes his fall all the more tragic.

Either Dumbledore's story with Grindlewald is tragic because he loved him as a friend or as something more... but it works either way. If she wrote it right... she shouldn't have to explain his backstory in future interviews (future "prequels" perhaps)... not if it's relevant to his actions in the story.

In other words... the story works thinking they're "just friends" since that's what a good percentage of the readership believed all along. They never read into the relationship more than what was on the page. Others got the hints she left in there and made their interpretations that he was gay... and the story works that way for them as well.

Outing him in an interview setting is just really lame. Either put it in the book or let the audience interpret the work as you wrote it. The fact that she did it this way leads us to the third interpretation which is probably the most accurate...

3. She wanted more buzz and more booksales. :happydance: We have a winner!


Personally I could care less if DD is gay... I got the subtle hints and it didn't matter to me. I think the Grindlewald situation WOULD have been more tragic had I known it ran that deep... but knowing in hindsight is kind of a waste.

She had to know she'd be opening up her work to a plethora of "Brokeback Hogwarts" jokes... or would it be "Buckbeak Mountain"? Ugh... that's bad. :innocent:

Anyway... it was just a really poor clawing grasp for attention. I'd had much more respect for her prior.

[Brian]

BWE PRESENTS: Exclusive First Look At This Week’s Shocking New Issue Of People

By now we all know that JK Rowling shocked the wizarding world last weekend by outing beloved grandfatherly wizard Albus Dumbledore as being gay. BWE.tv has leared exclusively, through our shadowy network of wizard tabloid operatives, that Rowling made the announcement only to pre-empt the shocking expose in this week’s People Magazine based on magical gossipmongering blogger Rita Skeeter’s sordid allegations about the wizard’s sexuality. Here’s an exclusive preview of the magazine.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/10/PEOPLE_dumbledore_ImGay.jpg

http://www.bestweekever.tv/2007/10/23/bwe-presents-exclusive-look-at-this-weeks-shocking-new-issue-of-people/

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (http://movies.go.com/moviesproxy/buzzbin?columnid=922762&CMP=ILC-Flash1#)
Brokeback Harry? Now that the book series has wrapped up, J.K. Rowling says she always considered Dumbledore as being gay … which is fine, but this gives a whole new subtext to the scene in the upcoming film where Harry's stuck in a rowboat with the headmaster.

movies.com

[JediKeri]

So DD is gay. Big deal, I figured that out long ago. I wasn't really surprised by that announcement.

[Justin]

Anyway... it was just a really poor clawing grasp for attention. I'd had much more respect for her prior.
I think you're being a little melodramatic.

It's not like she called a press conference to anounce he was gay, she just mentioned it during an interview. If she thought that up and decided not to include it in a specific way in the novel, is she not supposed to mention it ever?

Also, it's interesting that you speak with such authority on what makes a good writer, but have you yourself written a novel? Or created a whole world that you populated with characters and societies whom you created from the ground up?

The first Dune book is loaded with appendices (the others may be as well, but I've never read them). Most people will never read that stuff and learn all the little things about all the characters that are revealed there. Does that mean Frank Herbert was a bad writer because it's not all there in the text itself?

So she decided Dumbledore was gay, didn't think it was necessary to showcase that fact in the novels, and mentions it to someone in an interview in front of her fans. And for that she's less worthy of your respect?

By the way, someone who has sold millions of books, has legions of fans and websites devoted to her and her creation, and is currently touring the US and speaking at Carnegie Hall hardly needs to beg for attention.

[Trilogist]

ichc: (http://icanhascheezburger.com)

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/dumbledore-is-gay-lolcat.jpg

[borgmatrix]

If she thought that up and decided not to include it in a specific way in the novel, is she not supposed to mention it ever?
But why didn't she mention it in any of the novels? I'm not going to say she's less of a writer, since this has nothing to do with her writing skills. But if Dumbledore is gay, there's no reason to not mention it in the book unless she was afraid of fan reaction and book sales being hurt.

Finding this out now, all of sudden its very conspicuous that we didn't even get a brief reference to it, despite his prominence as a character over the 7 books and the solid look we received into his past.

She said Dumbledore's love was his "great tragedy." That doesn't sound like a minor thing. So why not just come out and say it in the books? Why is it now, after all the books have been released, that this slips out? She should have had the courage to put in print what she wrote/created, or else not mention it at all. Rowling didn't shy away from Harry's feelings when it came to love. Or Snape's. Or Ron's. Or Hermione's. What's the difference between them and Dumbledore. Well, obviously, its that he's apparantly gay.

If she doesn't have the courage to deal with that, then don't. Let it go. Don't sneak it in after the fact.

[kopernikuz]

Also, it's interesting that you speak with such authority on what makes a good writer, but have you yourself written a novel? Or created a whole world that you populated with characters and societies whom you created from the ground up?
ROTFL... now who's being melodramatic? You don't have to have published a novel to be able to critique one, please... :rofl: If that's true then we're ALL in trouble talking about films, politics, and well... whatever else we talk about here :P

I think she's a good writer... I just think there are a few established (from reading countless other novels) ways you can get that information into a novel. You either SAY IT, and it's obvious.... or you can SUGGEST IT and it's left to the audience's interpretation. Many authors choose the latter route, because it's an artistic choice versus a courageous one... and that's totally fine... but the good ones don't feel the need to reveal it later.

And if you think she didn't know and anticipate the flapdoodle that would occur from her revelation, you're naive. It was a very purposeful thing. And yes I think someone in her revered position DOES seek more and more attention. In fact, many people who reach her position from where she's been crave it all the more... that's not a dig, I'd probably crave it too, lol. But why is she immune from being a media hog? ;)

So she decided Dumbledore was gay, didn't think it was necessary to showcase that fact in the novels, and mentions it to someone in an interview in front of her fans. And for that she's less worthy of your respect?Again, you may not have fully read her revelation. I don't know where you get that she thinks it wasn't necessary to showcase it in the novels. In her interview she calls it "THE GREATEST TRAGEDY OF HIS LIFE"... LOL. How in the WORLD could that not be important enough to include in his history? It explains COUNTLESS other things and decisions and whatnot about his life. You could argue... "well, the book is about Harry", but she goes very deep into Dumbledore's past. She clearly thought it necessary... but chose to "suggest" rather than "show"... which was a good choice in my opinion... but revealing it after the fact is just a stunt.

I don't lose respect for her for leaving it out... I lose respect for her for making what appeared to be a kid-sensitive and artistic choice in the books... then blowing it out of the water by revealing it anyway. It's a stunt. I still like her and still love the books and will still see the movies... but now I get the sense that she is less concerned with the art than the attention it gets her.

She said Dumbledore's love was his "great tragedy." That doesn't sound like a minor thing. So why not just come out and say it in the books? Why is it now, after all the books have been released, that this slips out? She should have had the courage to put in print what she wrote/created, or else not mention it at all. Rowling didn't shy away from Harry's feelings when it came to love. Or Snape's. Or Ron's. Or Hermione's. What's the difference between them and Dumbledore. Well, obviously, its that he's apparantly gay.

If she doesn't have the courage to deal with that, then don't. Let it go. Don't sneak it in after the fact.
Agreed!

Of course, there's always the possibility that she's "Lucasing" his gay background... ;)

[Justin]

It's only a big deal because people choose to make it a big deal. I personally don't care whether or not Dumbledore is gay so for me it doesn't make a difference.

I just don't understand why people are so offended that she is talking about something she thought up but didn't explicitly include. It isn't a big deal unless you are offended by the gayness (ha ha).

George Lucas has revealed countless tidbits and things about the Star Wars universe over the decades that weren't in the films themselves. Why is it ok for him and not for Ms. Rowling?

[Brian]

It's not like Lucas revealed that Darth Vader or Luke or Threepio was gay. It's the "gay" part that makes this a big deal. Gay = controversy like it or not. That's just the reality.

[borgmatrix]

It's only a big deal because people choose to make it a big deal. I personally don't care whether or not Dumbledore is gay so for me it doesn't make a difference.

I just don't understand why people are so offended that she is talking about something she thought up but didn't explicitly include. It isn't a big deal unless you are offended by the gayness (ha ha).
I'm not bothered by Dumbledore being gay, either. But apparantly Rowling is, because she wasn't comfortable enough to mention it in any of the books. That's all kop was pointing out, and I agree.

Now, one might say that she was aware it would be controversial and that it would be a difficult subject for kids, and so she didn't explicitly mention it in the books knowing a large chunk of her audience is made up of kids. But, as kop pointed out, why would she then go on to say it? That defeats the purpose of leaving it out in the first place. The only motivation I can see is that she was afraid it would hurt sales, and so she waited until the series was completed and she'd made a killing monetarily to "casually" let that little detail slip out.

Is it the end of the world? No. Hardly. But the way Rowling chose to reveal this is odd and questionable. I agree that it seems to be a stunt.

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (http://movies.go.com/moviesproxy/buzzbin?columnid=923908&CMP=ILC-Flash2#)
The Grim Reaper Although he's turned down directing earlier installments, Guillermo Del Toro (http://movies.go.com/moviesproxy/buzzbin?columnid=923908&CMP=ILC-Flash2#) now says he's up for helming the final film since the series has gotten decidedly darker. I say, keep him away. When Harry croaks at the end, Del Toro may just keep the boy wizard actually dead.


movies.com

[P-Ray]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39281

[P-Ray]

2 Harry Potter 6 featurettes!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39339

[Talcy]

Ok, I've just been flamed over at the IMDB boards for posting this, but what the hey.

A very good friend of mine, who has worked on all of the Harry Potter films, told me last night that Warners are planning to do Deathly Hallows as two films, shot back to back. This was not said as a rumour but the word "official" was used. He has no reason to lie to me and T can vouch for the fact that I've had several pals work on seriously big movies in the past, including this guy. My wife has told me that she reckoned they'd have trouble adapting the final book into a film as there is very little fat to be trimmed that would affect the telling of the story, unlike the other films where loads was cut out in order to trim it all down to a manageable length.

Make of it what you will.

[kopernikuz]

Well, I certainly hope it's true... otherwise, they better make a three hour movie or I will not be satisfied with it, lol.

[JediKeri]

Ok, I've just been flamed over at the IMDB boards for posting this, but what the hey.

A very good friend of mine, who has worked on all of the Harry Potter films, told me last night that Warners are planning to do Deathly Hallows as two films, shot back to back. This was not said as a rumour but the word "official" was used. He has no reason to lie to me and T can vouch for the fact that I've had several pals work on seriously big movies in the past, including this guy. My wife has told me that she reckoned they'd have trouble adapting the final book into a film as there is very little fat to be trimmed that would affect the telling of the story, unlike the other films where loads was cut out in order to trim it all down to a manageable length.

Make of it what you will.

That actually makes some sense, as so much happens in Hallows to begin with.

[P-Ray]

Rowling on 8th novel!?

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4012&Itemid=99

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (http://movies.go.com/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince/d925047/scifi)
Five down, and just one more to go after this one, which finds Harry and his Hogwarts buds facing two foes: Voldemort, of course, and also their raging hormones, as a couple of major future romantic couplings spark. For those who've already read the book, you know one of the Potter universe's most tragic losses occurs in Prince and sets up the ultimate showdown for book and movie seven. (Nov. 21)

movies.com

[Darill Cyllem]

But the way Rowling chose to reveal this is odd and questionable. I agree that it seems to be a stunt.
I definitely felt that way at first, though this certainly didn't affect how much i like Dumbledore. Now i feel a bit differently about it, though, as i seem to recall reading somewhere that in reviewing a script draft for one of the movies, Rowling came across a short bit where Dumbledore is reminiscing about an old flame (a female one), and she felt she had to set the writers straight re. her vision of Dumbledore. Then the timing of the "revelation" would made more sense to me, though of course i'm not sure how the script review fits in with book 7 being released - still, that helped me not be quite so cynical about it.

[Zedekk]

Rowling on 8th novel!?

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4012&Itemid=99
Could be cool, if she, as she claimes, doesn't center the story around Harry this time.

[Talcy]

Del Toro wants to do Deathly Hallows.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=21754

Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseoh pleaseohplease

[Zedekk]

that would be Awesome! :happydance:

[borgmatrix]

Then the timing of the "revelation" would made more sense to me, though of course i'm not sure how the script review fits in with book 7 being released - still, that helped me not be quite so cynical about it.
I'm not sure I'm cynical about it, just disappointed that she didn't reveal it in the books themselves. Like kop and I mentioned before, she referred to Dumbledore's love as his great tragedy. If its that significant to his life, there's no reason to not include it in the books. To me, that seems driven by a lack of courage and of fear over how people would react. I can't come up with any other reason to not bring any of that up in the books.

Its not really a big deal. But as far as my perception of Dumbledore based on the books, I can't really reconcile this revelation with it. It's after-the-fact revisionism that just doesn't feel real enough to give any credence to.

[Zedekk]

^ here's the flip side of that coin-"revealing the nature of Dumbledore's" *love*. If she had done it, and wrote it in the book, people would be up in arms about her writting that type of stuff in a "Children's Book" so I think she did the smart thing and said, "not for the book because think of the parents of the children," and revealed it later in a random interview where it's not in print in the book that people could call scandelous, because you know there are people out there that would.

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Old Hands Producers are thinking about splitting up the last book into two films since it's just so full of goodies. Remember when people used to worry if the young stars could pull off their roles when they hit puberty? At this rate, Hogwart's is gonna be filled with middle-aged wizard students.


movies.com

[borgmatrix]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Old Hands Producers are thinking about splitting up the last book into two films since it's just so full of goodies. Remember when people used to worry if the young stars could pull off their roles when they hit puberty? At this rate, Hogwart's is gonna be filled with middle-aged wizard students.
It's not necessary. Deathly Hallows would benefit from having content cut and/or "fixed". It most certainly does not need two movies.

[kopernikuz]

Eh, I like the idea... I felt the first four films were not bad, but did suffer a bit from all the cutting. The last one was the worst because I actually know many people who didn't read OOTP and got a little lost during the film because it kind of "assumes" things, particularly with Occulmency and the prophecy. Many who didn't read the book are still wondering why the heck Snape and Potter were doing what they were doing, lol.

On the whole though, I don't think all the cuts from the first five were too terrible... but Deathly Hallows has so much good stuff, they have to make it a longer movie or split it... the bank heist, the big battle, and various other cool moments would feel rushed and slapped together with no exposition in between if not longer, IMHO.

Personally, I'd just rather a longer movie.

[P-Ray]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Literary Device Although the book's so long you would think producer David Barron would be more concerned about what to cut out, he actually admitted in a recent interview that he's added a scene to better clarify the effect Voldemort's villainy has on the Muggle world. Because if there's one writer who needs more help on being clear it's J.K. Rowling.


movies.com

[P-Ray]

Daniel Radcliffe on The Half Blood Prince!

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4783&Itemid=99

[kopernikuz]

So this thread has languished a bit...

But here are some pics from the next flick to generate some interest maybe?

http://www.moviesonline.ca/gallery.php?movie=HPHalfBlood

One of them is this pic of Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn... Broadbent is awesome and seems to me to be a perfect fit in Harry's world... Looking forward to this!

Also... I'm very intrigued by the brooding Malfoy pic... considering the events in the book... that one is cool...

[Trilogist]

Still waiting for the trailer. It's taken longer than usual. Just a few more days .. Mugglenet reports it'll be attached to the Mummy. It will also be online at AOL.

[P-Ray]

Young Tom Riddle cast!


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47373

[Trilogist]

full trailer will be online tonight at 9pm EST.

[kopernikuz]

Young Tom Riddle cast!


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47373
That's funny... Ralph's nephew! And I see they recast the teen Riddle as well, from the guy who played him in Chamber of Secrets. Makes sense though I guess, since he was like 23 playing a 16-year-old in Chamber, lol... which would make him what... nearly 30 now? Still playing a teen... probably not likely, lol. This new guy is a total unknown though... so it should be interesting.

[P-Ray]

teaser trailer coming!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=47367

[Trilogist]

I saw the trailer online yesterday ... speechless. I don't have the link with me at the moment, but go to mugglenet.com and they'll have the link there. Great stuff.

[P-Ray]

I saw the trailer online yesterday ... speechless. I don't have the link with me at the moment, but go to mugglenet.com and they'll have the link there. Great stuff.
How'd you get a hold of that already!

[Trilogist]

From Mugglenet:

Warner Brothers has released links to Quicktime, Windows Media, iPod, and Flash versions of the trailer so you can download it in any flavor you prefer:

QUICKTIME HD - 1080 (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_1080.mov), 720 (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_720.mov), 480 (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_480.mov)

QUICKTIME STANDARD - Large (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_Large.mov), Medium (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_Medium.mov), Small (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_Small.mov), Standard TV (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_SD_LL.mov)

WINDOWS HD - 1080 (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_1080.wmv.zip), 720 (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/halfbloodprince/teaser/HP6_720.wmv.zip)<