Wait - didn't he see them fifth year? (Cedric was killed in the fourth year) That's the discussion going on with the current movie, too (OotP) :)

Yes, that is what I meant. I will edit.

I believe he will be. But Hermione was supposed to be hysterical about Grawp, not talk to him like a stern babysitter. I really don't see the point in changing that. It's just like Neville not being able to see thestrals--it didn't cut down on movie time and help the plot along, so what was the point?

I'm not talking to you, CP2000, but I needed to quote that to bring up a oiint---why do people keep repeating this, like we missed it? We know that happened, we just didn't like it. It still seems like a pointless change to the story, as it creates more plot problems than it fixes. Their relationship could have ended a number of ways (including with the blame off Marietta) without the movie running too long--if we could come up with time-saving options that stayed true to the book, the director should have been able to do so as well!

I've always wondered that too and I don't recall JKR ever explaining it. He would have seen his mother die when he was a baby. So in second year, he should have been able to see the Thestrals.

Never mind, I posted before I read the following posts. Thanks for clearing it up.

No problem - I just had to read it and then re-read it to make sure I was understanding :cool:

I'll probably get flamed for this, but...


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure JK HAS to APPROVE each script. So therefore, if I'm correct let's just stop the complaining. Yes, it sucked but the reality is that they had to considerabley edit OotP. It was the longest book. And if JK approved it and was happy with it... well that goes a long way in my book.

Whether she has to approve each script, I don't know, but she has been consulted heavily on all scripts. An interview with her and Steve Kloves (scriptwriter of the first 4 scripts) can be found here.

An excerpt:

Steve: I think the thing...What's always been great about Jo is that, from the beginning she gave me tremendous elbow room, but when you're in the middle of a series like this it's important that I talk to Jo along the way and ask her, beyond advice, just simple advice, and certain sequences and things, but just, ,"Am I on the right path?" and Jo's always been good about, in that, she's maddening in the sense that she will not tell me what's going to happen but she will tell me if I'm going down the wrong path...

JKR: I've given you more than I've given anyone else which I probably shouldn't probably say...on screen, or they'll kidnap and torture him, and we need him. But yeah, I've told Steve probably more than I've told anyone else, because he needs to know. Because it's incredibly annoying of me when he says "Well shall we cut that", or "I wanted to do this" and I say, "Well no... because, you know, in book six, something will happen and you'll need that in" or "that will contradict something that happens" and I can feel him on the end of the emails, you know, [does impression of frustrated Steve typing] "would you mind telling me why?" So I have told him things. But he's very good at guessing. He's guessed more shrewdly than anyone else, I think.

ETA: I did find a transcript of an interview she gave Larry King when the first movie was in production, and she specifically said in that interview that she did have script approval. If she had it for movie #1, I think it's safe to assume that the movie rights contract gave her script approval for all of the movies.

Yes it sucked, and ues we understand why things had to be cut, but in reality, 2 hours and 18 minutes isn't that long for a movie, and could have been extended. Lord of the Rings did it. Hell, Hamlet (the Kenneth Brannagh [sp?]) version was 4 hours long and I sat through the whole thing and that had to be one of the most boring movies I've ever watched. So really, when you think about it, extending the movie an extra 15 or 20 minutes wouldn't have killed anyone.

Overall I think most of us here really enjoyed the film, and are not complaining about the movie as a whole. I know I did some of the griping, but I would pay to see it again. It's very rare that a movie ever does the book justice, and I guess this is just one more example.

Get out of my head!!! I keep thinking to myself...I understand the plot change...I just disagree with it.

As a side note...I feel like we give J. K. Rowling too much credit. I mean it has again and again been repeated that he remembers the flash of light and heard his mom screen. Luna can see them (and I don't believe that she witnessed her mother's death), and Neville can see them when his parents aren't even dead. J. K. just slipped up a little on this one. That's cool, but it surprises me that she can pull any explanation out of her azz, and folks are like "Oh ok...genius how you planned it that way."

**This is not directed at you, lyrelyre or CutiePie2000**

I kinda wish they would've had a couple of scenes at St. Mungos... in the film... I feel like they kinda worked really hard to make it less dark than the book, because the book was really the darkest, and saddest of them all IMO...

Umm, no, she's assuming you actually read the books and can reason a little.

Seeing a flash of green light and hearing his mom scream =/= seeing her die.

Luna never says one way or the other whether she actually saw her mother die, although her comment that "it was rather horrible" can give rise to the inference she saw it. Since that scene in the book comes after the scene where it's explained that "the only people who can see thestrals are people who have seen death" (p. 446, US hardback edition), you're reaching to find some inconsistency and afterthought explanation.

As for Neville:

Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 21 ("The Eye of the Snake") (p. 449, US hardback edition):

"You can see the thestrals, Longbotton, can you?" [Umbridge] said.

Neville nodded.

"Whom did you see die?" she asked, her tone indifferent.

"My . . . grandad," said Neville.

Maybe she's giving some readers too much credit. ;)

Hmm...now that I've reread OotP, I realize that Luna never really did say she saw her mother die...Harry merely asked, "Who did you know that died?" and that's quite different, isn't it? Hmmm....in any case, I still feel that Harry should've been able to see them at the end of GoF, even if Cedric's death hadn't processed yet. That's not one of the conditions, is it? You've got to have seen death to see thestrals, not have seen it and come to grips with it as well. That was definitely a shoddy job of smoothing over, but she's done too much genius writing for me to really hold that one against her. ;)

Alright, I'm peacing y'all out! I'm boycotting the net until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is properly read!

Not to be flippant about (okay, maybe I'm being a little flippant), but if JKR says its one of the conditions, than its one of the conditions. She created thestrals, so she can make the conditions whatever she bloody well wants to.

In any event, I find it interesting that when Hermione answers Hagrid's question about why some people can't see the thestrals, she does not say that it's because "the only people who can see thestrals are people who have seen someone die." What she says is, "the only people who can see thestrals are people who have seen death." Is there a difference between seeing someone die and seeing death? I don't know.

Same here!

I popped back in to answer a question I thought was posted in this thread, but was mistaken--however, since I'm here, I thought I'd clarify that the condition to which I'm referring was NOT set in the book. JKR only said it on a site after she'd be caught in the slip-up. That makes a bit of difference than if it had been in the book--she can change things as she pleases, but it wouldn't be raising flags to people if it'd been set all along. But like I said, she's written to much genius for anyone to really hold it against her.

i got the impression that you had to comprehend the death for the thestrals to appear, which would explain why harry couldn't see them before, because i don't think the actual killing of his parents registered enough in his mind for him to truly appreciate death.

That's actually the reason why Harry didn't see the thestrals on the trip back home at the end of his fourth year. JKR has said that he didn't see his parents' death itself.

Plus if you want to get all "reality" :D, I read a study (years ago) that said most people don't remember alot (possibley bits and pieces) prior to the age of 7. Something about our long term memory, I don't know. So taking that "fact" into account with a fictional character, could be why. I mean when she's writing she is probably basing these fictional characters and places off a bit of reality. I don't think I'm making sense at all :D

He sees them because he witnessed Cedric's death...

I know that has already been said, just thought I'd say it again!

That's what I was getting at in wondering if there's a difference in "seeing someone die" and "seeing death."

ETA: I went back and found the interview where she talked about this. It was given at the Royal Albert Hall on June 26, 2003. Here's what she said:

Internet question from Jessica Wells, originally from Australia now living in London.

Email: "Harry saw his parents die so why hasn’t he been able to see the Thestrals before?"

JK Rowling: I knew I was going to get that one…that is an excellent question. And here is the truth. At the end of Goblet of Fire we sent Harry home more depressed than he had ever been leaving Howarts. I knew that Thestrals were coming, and I can prove that because they’re in the book I’d produced for Comic Relief (UK) "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them".

These are lucky Black Winged Horses. However, if Harry had seen them and it had not been explained then it would cheat the reader. So, to explain that to myself, I decided you had to have seen the death and allowed it to sink in a bit… slowly…these creatures became solid in front of you. So that’s how I’m going to sneak past that one.

The entire interview can be read here.

I have never read any of the books but this movie disappointed me. I totally didn't understand Sirius' death until my boyfriend TOLD me after the movie. Up until then I was like "Where did he go? What is that vortex thingy?"

The whole secret students' society seemed like a waste of time since they didn't do much.

THERE WAS NO BIG FIGHT. It was like Harry had all these things happen to him and then in the end absolutely nothing really happened. I/It felt so unresolved!

I didn't get a lot of the whole "prophecy" thing even though I knew it was coming the movie blew past it.

Honestly, they should get rid of the director or whomever shaved so much off. I don't read the books, but I like that the movie usually gets enough into it for me to not have to.

People like HP books and films because they are long and thorough. If I wanted a McMovie, I would have seen "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" or something.

After reading the last book I'm even more annoyed by how much they've cut from the movie. Almost everything that was cut is vital to the last book. :rolleyes:

My HP book club reckons that this director fit in more from the book than any other director has managed, but that it was edited it such a choppy manner, jumping from scene to scene, that it was much more easy to get lost.