Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (film)

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by SSS1365

But that wouldn't have provided a reason for Harry and Cho to break up without going into the whole Valentine's Day thing. They killed two birds with one stone this way, whether the faithful book readers like it or not.

I explained myself slightly better in a subsequent post. In a nutshell, Harry could have started to hate Cho based on what her friend did. It wouldn't be completely far fetched, because we all know how illogical teens can be.

[SSS1365]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I explained myself slightly better in a subsequent post. In a nutshell, Harry could have started to hate Cho based on what her friend did. It wouldn't be completely far fetched, because we all know how illogical teens can be.

I guess I can see that, but I think that would have actually annoyed me more than just having Cho be the one to out the DA, because either way it's still not true to the book and Harry would just be an idiot.

[Marie]

Ok, so I watched the movie yesterday, and I was pretty much disappointed with some of the same areas.

In regards to Cho and Harry splitting up...I assumed that they were introducing that when Cho was expressing regret over Cedric's death & Hermione spoke on how conflicted she must be. It seemed like a natural and smoother progression to let their relationship falter off in that way rather than as the 'DA outter'.

I also agree with those who noted that a 'random student' other than Cho could have blown the whistle on them. There were lots of 'no name' students that had a line or two during the inital meeting and practices. It could have just as easily been one of them. Plus it would have been fun to see Hermione's spell in action.

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.

I felt that there was stuff missing just from a movie standpoint. If I had never read the books I would have been confused. 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?" Also, I don't remember them deciding on the name Dumbledore's Army. If I hadn't read the book, then that would have confused me as well.

No complaints about Sirius's death. I honestly thought that it was pretty lack luster and confusing in the book as well, so it seemed to be appropriately done.

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.

Agree with those who missed the lack of a real convo btwn Dumbledore and Harry at the end. Sometimes those conversations tie the whole movie together and provide inspiration going forward.

Loved Luna Lovegood and Prof. Umbridge. They were both excellent. Bellatrix Lestrange was cool, but I wasn't blown away by her.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Marie

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.

[CutiePie2000]

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]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

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]

Thanks for clarifying that...that makes a lot of sense.

[polarpi]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

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)

[Marie]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

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**

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

...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]

Originally Posted by Marie

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 )

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[lyrica9]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by lyrica9

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.

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by lyrica9

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.

Plus if you want to get all "reality" , 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