GreekChat.com Forums
Page 6 of 7 « First 2345 6 7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Entertainment (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=205)
-   -   Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (film) (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=77196)

MysticCat 07-19-2007 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie (Post 1487996)
For instance, none of the previous movies have mentioned centaurs in the forest (that I can remember). If I saw them now...I would be like "who the hell are they?"
Firenze was in the first movie, when Hagrid took Harry and the others into the forest for their detention.

polarpi 07-19-2007 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie (Post 1487996)
Also...I though that Neville was able to see the 'invisible horses'. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought that was going to be a nice lead in for him to speak on his parents. I'm not really mad at that plot change, but I just thought that it could have worked as well.
That bothered me as well - it made it look stupid when he was just staring blankly (for those who know that he is *supposed* to be able to see them) at the thestrals (but then it did allow for the parents to be mentioned without having to actually go into everything from St. Mungo's :p)

CutiePie2000 07-19-2007 08:27 PM
I saw it and I quite liked it. I read the book when it first came out & haven't touched it since, so I forgot a lot of what happened & I think that helped me to enjoy the movie, rather than feeling like, "Hey, the book wasn't like that".

Oh, and Snape basically absolved Cho Chang of responsibility for outting Dumbledore's army, because he said that the last of the truth serum had been used up on Cho Chang, in front of everyone, when Umbridge was giving Harry the gears.

Question: how come Harry wasn't able to see the nestrals before that year at Hogwarts? Even if you've witnessed death (and he did, in infancy), do you have to be a certain age of maturity too? I'm sure JKR explained, but I can't remember.

lyrelyre 07-19-2007 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutiePie2000 (Post 1488444)
Question: how come Harry wasn't able to see the nestrals before that year at Hogwarts? Even if you've witnessed death (and he did, in infancy), do you have to be a certain age of maturity too? I'm sure JKR explained, but I can't remember.
J.K Rowling says on her site that Harry didn't actually witness the death of his parents. He was in his "cot" and only saw the flash of green light. He did not actually witness death until Cedric was killed. Further, he didn't see them on the way back to the Hogwarts Express during his fourth year because he didn't fully appreciate Cedric’s death. Thus, he couldn’t see them until OotP.

CutiePie2000 07-19-2007 10:11 PM
Thanks for clarifying that...that makes a lot of sense.

polarpi 07-19-2007 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrelyre (Post 1488469)
Further, he didn't see them on the way back to the Hogwarts Express during his fifth year because he didn't fully appreciate Cedric’s death. Thus, he couldn’t see them until HBP.
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) :)

lyrelyre 07-20-2007 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by polarpi (Post 1488487)
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.

christiangirl 07-20-2007 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie (Post 1487996)
I hated the introduction of Hagrid's brother both in the book and the movie. I hope that he plays a major part in the next book b/c otherwise I will still be shaking my head at that dead end storyline.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CutiePie2000 (Post 1488444)
Oh, and Snape basically absolved Cho Chang of responsibility for outting Dumbledore's army, because he said that the last of the truth serum had been used up on Cho Chang, in front of everyone, when Umbridge was giving Harry the gears.
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!

Lady Pi Phi 07-20-2007 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutiePie2000 (Post 1488444)
...Question: how come Harry wasn't able to see the nestrals before that year at Hogwarts? Even if you've witnessed death (and he did, in infancy), do you have to be a certain age of maturity too? I'm sure JKR explained, but I can't remember.
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.

polarpi 07-20-2007 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrelyre (Post 1488580)
Yes, that is what I meant. I will edit.
No problem - I just had to read it and then re-read it to make sure I was understanding :cool:

ASUADPi 07-20-2007 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl (Post 1488590)
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'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.

MysticCat 07-20-2007 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUADPi (Post 1488894)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure JK HAS to APPROVE each script..
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.

Lady Pi Phi 07-20-2007 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUADPi (Post 1488894)
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.
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.

Marie 07-20-2007 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl (Post 1488590)
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!

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

Marie 07-20-2007 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrelyre (Post 1488469)
J.K Rowling says on her site that Harry didn't actually witness the death of his parents. He was in his "cot" and only saw the flash of green light. He did not actually witness death until Cedric was killed. Further, he didn't see them on the way back to the Hogwarts Express during his fourth year because he didn't fully appreciate Cedric’s death. Thus, he couldn’t see them until OotP.
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**


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 AM.
Page 6 of 7 « First 2345 6 7
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.