Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix (film)

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But I think, from a story-telling standpoint in a movie, they probably are necessary....

Neville (or someone other than Dobby) had to find the Room of Requirement because otherwise, we would have had to go into the whole thing about how Dobby now lives at Hogwarts, something none of the movies has addressed so far. It's cleaner from a movie story-telling to let one of our established characters find the room, and here it coulf be used to develop Neville a little.

I think it would have been better for Harry to have found the room, becasue after all, it was Dobby who showed Harry the room. I don't think it was really necessary to have Neville find the room.

Likewise with Cho. As I said before, using Cho to tell on the DA prevents the need to introduce an additional character and provides a reason for Harry and Cho not to end up together without going into the additional Valentine's Day scenes and the like.

I disagree. It could easily have been "Marietta" who ratted them out. In the scene with with Umbridge giving the students the Veritaserum, one of them could have been Marietta. They wouldn't have to give her lines or really identify who she was. The readers of the books would have figured it out, and those who didn't read the books, would have figured it was just another student.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I think it would have been better for Harry to have found the room, becasue after all, it was Dobby who showed Harry the room. I don't think it was really necessary to have Neville find the room.



I disagree. It could easily have been "Marietta" who ratted them out. In the scene with with Umbridge giving the students the Veritaserum, one of them could have been Marietta. They wouldn't have to give her lines or really identify who she was. The readers of the books would have figured it out, and those who didn't read the books, would have figured it was just another student.

I guess from a movie standpoint....it was easier making Cho the bad person because trying to explain the relationship they had in the book would have stalled the movie down altho I would have liked ot have seen that done....remember the spell harmonie put on the list?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I think it would have been better for Harry to have found the room, becasue after all, it was Dobby who showed Harry the room. I don't think it was really necessary to have Neville find the room.

Maybe. But that's an argument about choice once the decision has made to deviate from the book, not an argument about whether the deviation from the book was "necessary" to begin with, which is what I was responding to.

I disagree. It could easily have been "Marietta" who ratted them out. In the scene with with Umbridge giving the students the Veritaserum, one of them could have been Marietta. They wouldn't have to give her lines or really identify who she was. The readers of the books would have figured it out, and those who didn't read the books, would have figured it was just another student.

But then you still have the problem of Harry and Cho. If Marietta Edgecombe is the tattler, then how does the filmmaker tell why Harry and Cho don't work out after the mistletoe kiss? That was a pretty big moment, so it can't just get dropped or sloughed off.

In the book, we see Harry and Cho growing a little closer and we follow Harry's butterflies about it all, but then after the disastrous Valentine's Day date at Madame Puddifoot's, Cho is very hurt and she and Harry basically break up. If the filmmaker puts the Madame Puddifoot scene in, then he also has to give Harry a reason to have to leave and go meet Hermione elsewhere, thereby making Cho hurt and angry. In the book, the reason that Hermione wanted Harry to meet her was so that he could give an interview to Rita Skeeter, which brings in the whole Quibbler story, also not in the movie. Perhaps that story line was left out since the movie version of GoF didn't mention that Skeeter was an illegal animagus, so the filmmaker would have had to come up with reasons why she's no longer working for the daily Prophet as well as why Hermione could get her to write a sympathetic story. You see how it's not hard to get a snowball going.

Under circumstances like these, a filmmaker may find it works much better to let Cho be the tattler and let that betrayal provide the motivation for Harry and Cho to part ways.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe. But that's an argument about choice once the decision has made to deviate from the book, not an argument about whether the deviation from the book was "necessary" to begin with, which is what I was responding to.

But then you still have the problem of Harry and Cho. If Marietta Edgecombe is the tattler, then how does the filmmaker tell why Harry and Cho don't work out after the mistletoe kiss? That was a pretty big moment, so it can't just get dropped or sloughed off.

In the book, we see Harry and Cho growing a little closer and we follow Harry's butterflies about it all, but then after the disastrous Valentine's Day date at Madame Puddifoot's, Cho is very hurt and she and Harry basically break up. If the filmmaker puts the Madame Puddifoot scene in, then he also has to give Harry a reason to have to leave and go meet Hermione elsewhere, thereby making Cho hurt and angry. In the book, the reason that Hermione wanted Harry to meet her was so that he could give an interview to Rita Skeeter, which brings in the whole Quibbler story, also not in the movie. Perhaps that story line was left out since the movie version of GoF didn't mention that Skeeter was an illegal animagus, so the filmmaker would have had to come up with reasons why she's no longer working for the daily Prophet as well as why Hermione could get her to write a sympathetic story. You see how it's not hard to get a snowball going.

Under circumstances like these, a filmmaker may find it works much better to let Cho be the tattler and let that betrayal provide the motivation for Harry and Cho to part ways.

Ok, I see your point. But I think it could have worked if we had seen Cho at the DA meetings with Marietta, and then Marietta in the scene with Umbridge and the Veritaserum, and again with Umbridge and when she breaks up the DA meetings. She wouldn't necessarily have to be a major character, but the audience would see she was a friend of Cho's (but not necessarily know that her Character's name was Marietta - because for the non-reader of the books it wouldn't matter), and because of this, Harry no longer likes Cho.

We all know teenagers are illogical, so it would make sense for Harry to no longer like Cho because of what her friend did.

I can see why the writers would have done it that way, but I think my way would make sense as well, and be more true (can I say that?) to the book.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I can see why the writers would have done it that way, but I think my way would make sense as well, and be more true (can I say that?) to the book.

You can indeed say that.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You can indeed say that.

Hahaha, yes I suppose I can say whatever I like. I probably should have asked whether or not I was making any sense?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

Hahaha, yes I suppose I can say whatever I like. I probably should have asked whether or not I was making any sense?

Sorry I wasn't clearer. You were indeed making sense, and I meant my response to be taken that way.

[SoCalGirl]

I saw it on Saturday and was disapointed about how much was cut. I make it a point to not re-read the books before the movies come out so that I can do my best to enjoy the movie.

Honestly the thing that absolutely distracted me the most was that in the opening scene you can clearly see that the actor who plays Dudley Dursley has a real scar in the same spot as Daniel Radcliffe's fake scar. I kept thinking, "Did he always have that?". How bizarre that he would get that scar in that spot!

[SSS1365]

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

I disagree. It could easily have been "Marietta" who ratted them out. In the scene with with Umbridge giving the students the Veritaserum, one of them could have been Marietta. They wouldn't have to give her lines or really identify who she was. The readers of the books would have figured it out, and those who didn't read the books, would have figured it was just another student.

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.

[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.

[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 )