Questions about the Harry Potter Movies

I know where these two appear in GOF (when they block Harry from exiting the hallway and show off their Potter Stinks badges), but can anyone point out to me where they were in COS?

I didn't know that the girl with Ernie in GOF was Hannah.....it wasn't the same actress...and the one who plays hannah has been in all the three previous movies....

But yes....Ernie is quite tall now, isnt he?

I didn't know that the girl with Ernie in GOF was Hannah.....it wasn't the same actress...and the one who plays hannah has been in all the three previous movies....

But yes....Ernie is quite tall now, isnt he?

I'm not 100% that it was Hannah in that particular scene, but imdb credits her being in the movie and her being played by the same actress from CoS.


Hannah appeared in one of the deleted scenes of Chamber of Secrets.

If you have the special features edition of CoS there's a cut scene of them talking about Harry being a Parcelmouth. Also after Hermione asks Prof. McGonnagal to explain the chamber of secrets the scene flashes to Harry and Ron then Hermione and Susan then Seamus and Neville then Ernie and Hannah, they get about one second screen time so look out for them. And yes, Ernie isn't the short chubby boy now, he's annoyingly tall.

Lately there have been many queries about certain aspects of the Harry Potter movies. This is a thread to ask any questions you may have about anything in the Harry Potter movies, from Philosopher's Stone all the way through Goblet of Fire.

Discuss! :)

One thing that causes a problem with me is how much the characters have changed as far as there appearance. If you ever watch Sorcerer's Stone and then watch Goblet of Fire, you notice almost everything has changed.

From the Weasley's hair, to the clothes, to the attitude; I just think it should've stayed the same. What with all the director changes, the movies are completely different and I don't like that.

I seem to remember that Chris Columbus thought that two is enough. So they had to get a new director. I think that as long as the main actors stay we should be happy.

A question we will never get an answer to is, would they get boring in the end if the first director had stayed theough all seven?

62442al_Man I see you're fourteen years old.
Now look at the pictures when you were eleven.
Do you dress and look the same?

I personally like the way the movies develop. It's definitely more interesting to see the characters grow up and change a bit. They change a bit in the books as well, so that doesn't bother me at all.

Also, I am really glad that Chris Columbus did only the first two movies. I didn't like his style.

P.S.: Thanks, mods, for this thread. I think it was needed. :)

Do you dress and look the same?

I feel that people generally dress the same their entire life.

When POA was released there was a lot of discussion about the
radical changes of the students at Hogwarts.I have not seen GOF
but it will be interesting to see where they take the "look" of the students
at Hogwarts.

thanks

The Orbweaver

Nice thread Idea Mods!

Anyway, I do have mixed Feelings on the movies. I love them all, but I believe that both POA and GOF are far superiour to PS and COS. Why? because they are styled correctly for the big screen.

There is much critism of COS and to an extent PS that they were too long and dragged out. However when this was changed in POA and GOF, there was critism that things were left out. This bugs me. Most of the people who see these movies know the stories. We know about the many interesting and funny back plots, like SPEW for example but we don't need these taking up valauble screen time. The last 2 movies have been screen adapted, what with the Dragon chase etc, which i really really like.


Also, what makes me laugh is, many people go on about minor details, for Example, they don't like Hermiones Dress in the Yule Ball, or that the students wear too many "muggle" clothes But they forget that Dan's eyes are blue, when Harrys are green. And this is an important fact, as it has been stressed by JKR herself, that the Link between Harry and his mother is Key!

Anway, rant over......

Oh yes, i also like the way the cast develop. Its just natural. Isn't it? They are growing up with the Characters, so to speak.

I am whatching GoF, while Harry is wating outside of Dumbledore's office, and we hear Dumbledore say 'A man has died here Fudge, and he won't be the last.' I thought that this was intertesting that he said this, and what did Dumbledore know.

One thing that causes a problem with me is how much the characters have changed as far as there appearance. If you ever watch Sorcerer's Stone and then watch Goblet of Fire, you notice almost everything has changed.

From the Weasley's hair, to the clothes, to the attitude; I just think it should've stayed the same. What with all the director changes, the movies are completely different and I don't like that.Life in the books doesn't stay the same. It has become darker and more difficult for everyone.
I don't think that the clothes have changed that much, it's just that we don't see them in school uniform as much as we did.
Teenagers grow up and their attitude does change, I remember doing it myself. My mum had a terrible time with me.
Also, what makes me laugh is, many people go on about minor details, for Example, they don't like Hermiones Dress in the Yule Ball, or that the students wear too many "muggle" clothes But they forget that Dan's eyes are blue, when Harrys are green. And this is an important fact, as it has been stressed by JKR herself, that the Link between Harry and his mother is Key!Doesn't it make you want to slap your head and giggle.
Dan's eyes stayed blue as he tried several times to wear the green contacts but had a reaction to them each time.
JK has no problem with the fact that in the films Harry's eyes are blue and has continued to point out that it is the fact that he has his mother's eyes that is important.
Whilst we are on eyes, what about Voldemort's non-red eyes?

Doesn't it make you want to slap your head and giggle.
Dan's eyes stayed blue as he tried several times to wear the green contacts but had a reaction to them each time.
JK has no problem with the fact that in the films Harry's eyes are blue and has continued to point out that it is the fact that he has his mother's eyes that is important.
Whilst we are on eyes, what about Voldemort's non-red eyes?

Lol. I was quite dissapointed with that, but again its one of those Minor details, that would have been nice, but don't bother me too much. Overall i was very impressed with Fiennes as Voldemort and how the Directors et al portrayed him.

Altough he did not have the read eyes, let us remember they did do a great job, on digitally removing his nose and turning them into slits.

62442al_Man I see you're fourteen years old.
Now look at the pictures when you were eleven.
Do you dress and look the same?

Not their physical appearance........

The clothes, they went from having the ties well tied and the shirts tucked in to going preppy, sloppy, and all that; since the new director came. I don't really have a problem with it but it was a BIG change.

Obviously, they are going to look differently as they grow up; that wasn't my point.

And to Bunny, I don't see what you mean. Their appearance as far as hair and clothes has nothing to do with the books getting darker.

I suppose I understand that their attitude changes, as it does in the books; but it is a little much.

Lol. I was quite dissapointed with that, but again its one of those Minor details, that would have been nice, but don't bother me too much. Overall i was very impressed with Fiennes as Voldemort and how the Directors et al portrayed him.

Altough he did not have the red eyes, let us remember they did do a great job, on digitally removing his nose and turning them into slits.I was disappointed, but really only from the point of view of "oh, that's a shame".
I thought the face of Voldemort was spot on, well it was for me anyway.
I agree, Ralph Feinnes did a brilliant job as Voldemort.
The clothes, they went from having the ties well tied and the shirts tucked in to going preppy, sloppy, and all that; since the new director came. I don't really have a problem with it but it was a BIG change.
Obviously, they are going to look differently as they grow up; that wasn't my point.:huh: I'm sorry, what was the point?
The directors quite rightly are showing how growing into the teens is about learning about yourself and the world about you.
As they grow up they are exerting their personalities and this is showing in their dress and their attitudes.
And to Bunny, I don't see what you mean. Their appearance as far as hair and clothes has nothing to do with the books getting darker.

I suppose I understand that their attitude changes, as it does in the books; but it is a little much.One thing that causes a problem with me is how much the characters have changed as far as there appearance. If you ever watch Sorcerer's Stone and then watch Goblet of Fire, you notice almost everything has changed.The bolded area struck me as meaning (almost) everything ... in the films, not just the clothes and hair.
I felt that everything had changed in the books and this was being reflected in the films.
Certainly the end of GoF shows a big change in Harry's circumstances and these affect the whole of the wizarding world.

:huh: I'm sorry, what was the point?
The directors quite rightly are showing how growing into the teens is about learning about yourself and the world about you.
As they grow up they are exerting their personalities and this is showing in their dress and their attitudes.
The bolded area struck me as meaning (almost) everything ... in the films, not just the clothes and hair.

Perhaps you have not looked closely enough, but EVERYONE is dressed like this. Not just the "growing teens". When Harry was eleven, he was very well dressed, now, after Chamber of Secrets the whole style has completely changed. But, the first years dress like this, too...That is my point, this is turning into a big deal, I was just trying to get across a small point...

Seems like not a whole lot of questions here, just a bunch of quibbling...

In GoF, did Barty Crouch's voice stay the same (like Ron & Harry in CoS), with him just impersonating Moody's voice, or did his voice actually change (like it does in the books)? The reason I ask is, because when he was questioning Harry, it sounded like he did an impersonation of Hagrid's voice, and that made me wonder if he was doing it all along.

Does that make ANY sense?

Perhaps you have not looked closely enough, but EVERYONE is dressed like this. Not just the "growing teens". When Harry was eleven, he was very well dressed, now, after Chamber of Secrets the whole style has completely changed. But, the first years dress like this, too...That is my point, this is turning into a big deal, I was just trying to get across a small point...For me, in the last two films the students were more normal. The children were far too pristine in the first two films.
Yes, you're right, this is getting a touch out of hand. I accept that you don't like the change. (whispers, "I do though" :))

For me, in the last two films the students were more normal. The children were far too pristine in the first two films.
Yes, you're right, this is getting a touch out of hand. I accept that you don't like the change. (whispers, "I do though" :))

Like I said, I don't mind it.

It was just a big change. I had not expected such a big change when they switched directors.

This thread was a nice idea, but it's just not working.

This thread was a nice idea, but it's just not working.

Why do you say so? I think it is brilliant.

I had a question; are they doing the "Become a Hogwarts Student" this year? I think I heard they were going to do it again, but I haven't heard much lately. I think it was Prisoner of Azkaban where the picked a winner who submitted their entry and the winner was cast as a student. I don't remember who won last year.

Perhaps you have not looked closely enough, but EVERYONE is dressed like this. Not just the "growing teens". When Harry was eleven, he was very well dressed, now, after Chamber of Secrets the whole style has completely changed. But, the first years dress like this, too...That is my point, this is turning into a big deal, I was just trying to get across a small point...

Actually that was one of my major gripes about the first two films. They were both very uptight. I don't recall a single moment in either one of them when kids like, well, kids. JKR often goes out of her way to describe how laid back the wizarding world is and how the kids are all normal, everyday kids who just happen to have magical abilities.

Do you dress and look the same?

I feel that people generally dress the same their entire life.

When POA was released there was a lot of discussion about the
radical changes of the students at Hogwarts.I have not seen GOF
but it will be interesting to see where they take the "look" of the students
at Hogwarts.

thanks

The Orbweaver

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Soory, but I have to laugh at that, I mean no disrespect, just reminds me of my twin sister....she was the sweet sugary, good little miss all through high school and most of college. Long skirts, no skin showing, hair in a bun. Now, we are older and have children; and she went punk/goth/freaky. Sort of a mixture between Trelawney on one day and something I can't descibe since this is a minor friendly posting.:lol:
No, our styles change as we grow dear.

i could actually see them either not putting that scene in or putting it in...it could go either way...im not sure if they put it on it would be nice but i could see the director thinking it would take up too much time and just have someone non chalantly annouse that dumbledore left the school or something cheezy like that

Seems like not a whole lot of questions here, just a bunch of quibbling...

In GoF, did Barty Crouch's voice stay the same (like Ron & Harry in CoS), with him just impersonating Moody's voice, or did his voice actually change (like it does in the books)? The reason I ask is, because when he was questioning Harry, it sounded like he did an impersonation of Hagrid's voice, and that made me wonder if he was doing it all along.

Does that make ANY sense?In the movie, Barty Jr. had Mad Eye's accent when he was Polyjuiced. When we see him speaking to Voldemort at the beginning of the movie, and during the trial with Karkaroff, Barty Jr. has an entirely different voice.

When we finally see Mad Eye in the trunk, and he speaks, it's Moody's voice, the same voice that we heard the imposter Moody speaking.

This was the way the Polyjuice Potion was supposed to work, how it works in the books...you take on the physical characteristics---including voice, while using Polyjuice.

In the CoS movie Harry and Ron retained their own voices while they were Polyjuiced...a mistake on the director's part, IMO. Here's a little snippet from the Jamie Waylett {Vincent Crabbe} fansite about the Polyjuice scene in CoS:Wednesday, September 15, 2004

There are two questions that I get asked most.....Was it my voice or Ron's in the polyjuice scene and were there any funny moments on the set.

When we filmed the polyjuice scene, it was filmed with my own voice, Josh and I had a Drama coach for weeks before the filming started and everyone said we were really very good.

We also practiced Harry and Ron's movement and facial expressions.

After working so hard to imitate Ron's voice, I was a little disappointed when I discovered that our voices were replaced with Harry's and Ron's.

Hey i have a question. What is the point of the crying picture Neville is looking at in the GoF.

I think it's meant to be empathetic, to express the emotion for Neville, so a 14 -year old boy doesn't have to cry.

(thanks Kingwidget, I agree, not changing the voices in CoS was a mistake).

Heres a question.

What do you all think of the Music for the Movies.

Im talking about the Main Piece. When you first heard the chimes that are now synonmous with Harry Potter, what did you think? Good?, Bad?.....Did it send a tingle down your spine?

I really like it. It suits the movie down to the ground.

Heres a question.

What do you all think of the Music for the Movies.

Im talking about the Main Piece. When you first heard the chimes that are now synonmous with Harry Potter, what did you think? Good?, Bad?.....Did it send a tingle down your spine?

I really like it. It suits the movie down to the ground.

I LOVE the original music. My daughter used to fall asleep to the SS/PS soundtrack, and I would get chills every time those first notes came out. Still do, come to that!

I had no objections with the new music composed for GoF either, it seemed well-suited to the action, and in keeping with John Williams' original feel.

I do love the original music for the first two movies.
I thought that the music for PoA was really well matched with the scenes - brilliant.
The music for GoF was well suited but I think that the PoA music was the best so far.

I love the music in the movies!! Every time i hear it I feel so happy and sad:grumble: It's kind of weird...

In the movie, Barty Jr. had Mad Eye's accent when he was Polyjuiced. When we see him speaking to Voldemort at the beginning of the movie, and during the trial with Karkaroff, Barty Jr. has an entirely different voice.

When we finally see Mad Eye in the trunk, and he speaks, it's Moody's voice, the same voice that we heard the imposter Moody speaking.

This was the way the Polyjuice Potion was supposed to work, how it works in the books...you take on the physical characteristics---including voice, while using Polyjuice.

In the CoS movie Harry and Ron retained their own voices while they were Polyjuiced...a mistake on the director's part, IMO. Here's a little snippet from the Jamie Waylett {Vincent Crabbe} fansite about the Polyjuice scene in CoS:


They were scared that 'little kids' wouldn't understand that they were Harry and Ron transformed.
Another feature of Columbus' attitude to think the audience is completely idiot.

In GoF, did anyone figure out the whole "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" bit? Barty Jr had already seen and touched the cut on Harry's arm, so what was the purpose of that? And why did Dumbledore so forcibly comply with him?

This thread was a nice idea, but it's just not working.
PFFFFT, apparently you're not trying hard enough. I'll start off


Y r Harree's eyes bloo not grn?
Where is Peeves?
Why did John Williams play the same theme over and over and over and over again in SS?
How do you get the caramel in a caramilk bar?
Eye speye with my little I, that Voldemort's eyes are not red....Y NUT?
Where is Peeves?
Why did Harry climb on Salazaar's statue in CoS? Did he knead a Phoenix-eye's-view?
How could previous wizards and witches not find the CoS considering how it was hidden in the film? An apprentice plumber could have found it!
O rly?
Amiright?

PFFFFT, apparently you're not trying hard enough. I'll start off


Y r Harree's eyes bloo not grn?
Where is Peeves?
Why did John Williams play the same theme over and over and over and over again in SS?
How do you get the caramel in a caramilk bar?
Eye speye with my little I, that Voldemort's eyes are not red....Y NUT?
Where is Peeves?
Why did Harry climb on Salazaar's statue in CoS? Did he knead a Phoenix-eye's-view?
How could previous wizards and witches not find the CoS considering how it was hidden in the film? An apprentice plumber could have found it!
O rly?
Amiright?


1. because Dan can't wear contacts & JKR said the color wasn't the important thing
2. takes up too much screen time and doesn't add to plot progression
3. BECAUSE I LIKE IT! :cool:
4. two chocolate molds, duh
5. red takes away from Ralph Fiennes excellent emoting
6. see #2
7. to be as tall as the basilisk so he could stab its head
8. how many witches and wizards who were looking were parseltongue? and in a castle as large as Hogwarts, you're not going to rip apart every single fixture just because it might lead to the Chamber

(ok, now answer MY question up above!!!)

In GoF, did anyone figure out the whole "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" bit? Barty Jr had already seen and touched the cut on Harry's arm, so what was the purpose of that? And why did Dumbledore so forcibly comply with him?

Dumbledore saw that the tattoo was strong and bold on Crouch Jr's arm, which was one sign that Voldemort was getting stronger, and then the cut on Harry's arm was evidence of the spell that Wormtail used to revive Voldemort. Crouch Jr wanted it to be clear to Dumbledore that Voldemort was back and he meant business.

I just wondering the other day if we were ever going to get to see Winky, and is Spew ever going to happen. They might not be important to the outcome, but they sure do change some of the basic plot line for the movie. Like Winky knowing so much about her master. Who knows in the 7th book she may stop crying and reveal some important secrets. House Elves know a lot. So whatever happened to poor sad Winky and the rest of the Kitchen crew. Oh, and whatever happened to Christmas. Ever since the first two they seem to cut out the Holidays.

This may belong in the movie forum, I'm not sure, because I can't remember if it's in the book and have not have time to go back and look.

During GOF, the movie, someone says that the last person to enter the department of mysteries never came back out. Actually, I think it says the last boy. Then, someone mentions this later, is it in the book? And what does everyone think it means?

yeah, I'm pretty sure that this belongs in the Muggle Studies forum, but I think "Moody" is talking bout Crouch Jr. Perhaps Crouch made his son take a summer internship. However, I can't think of any canon to support this theory off the top of my head. I don't think he meant disappeared, as in phisically. I think he rather thinks that he(Crouch Jr.) lost his mind.

I don't think the Department of Mysteries is ever mentioned post-Order of the Pheonix. I could be wrong.

I don't remember it being mentioned except in passing, in any of the books until OOTP. I feel like I would remember hearing that someone disappeared there. I only caught it the 3rd time I watched the movie.

i believe Barty Crouch Jr. was talking about him self, as in the trail. i think. Isnt it the same trial room they used for Harry in OOTP? and i maybe be completly wrong but wasnt the trial rooms in the department of mysteries? i dont quite remeber. but i am pretty sure he was refering to himself going to Azkaban.

believe Barty Crouch Jr. was talking about him self, as in the trail. i think. Isnt it the same trial room they used for Harry in OOTP? and i maybe be completly wrong but wasnt the trial rooms in the department of mysteries? i dont quite remeber. but i am pretty sure he was refering to himself going to Azkaban.


That was the courtroom, it was not the Department of Mysteries, the DOM is where they went in OOTP, and saw the brain and the bird being reborn and where Sirius died. No, I don't think it is the same room at all. When Arthur was taking Harry to the Courtroom they passed by the department of mysteries. Later Harry remembers seeing the hallway leading to the DOM on his way to the courtroom, it's the same hallway that he dreams about. But they DO pass it on the way to the courtroom.

That was the courtroom, it was not the Department of Mysteries, the DOM is where they went in OOTP, and saw the brain and the bird being reborn and where Sirius died. No, I don't think it is the same room at all. When Arthur was taking Harry to the Courtroom they passed by the department of mysteries. Later Harry remembers seeing the hallway leading to the DOM on his way to the courtroom, it's the same hallway that he dreams about. But they DO pass it on the way to the courtroom.

Yeah I agree. Harry remembered when Snape was having Occlumency class with him. He was walking down the Hall, but turned before he could reach the door (which we found out was the door to the DoM) and Mr. Weasley led him to the courtroom.

I don't remember it being mentioned except in passing, in any of the books until OOTP. I feel like I would remember hearing that someone disappeared there. I only caught it the 3rd time I watched the movie.It actually was mentioned but briefly...just in passing."...and that's Bode and Croaker...they're Unspeakables..."
"They're what?"
"From the Department of Mysteries, top secret, no idea what they get up to..."Imposter Moody, in the movie, may have been referencing Augustus Rookwood...he was an Unspeakable, worked in the Department of Mysteries. Karkaroff gave him up {in the movie and in the book}.

Or, it could have been a clever plot device, simply introducing the DoM in the movie {just like the book}, laying a bit of the groundwork for the next HP movie, OoP.

For me personally, I liked GOF to a certain extent. GOF was good compared to the autrosity that was POA. Artistically POA was very good, but come on, Cuaron strayedfar from the book and I understand that not every detail is going to be in the movies but at least stick to some of the details!

62442al_Man I see you're fourteen years old.
Now look at the pictures when you were eleven.
Do you dress and look the same?

Good point! I think they've done a wonderful job of allowing the characters to mature into their older selves without losing their personalities... of course Fred and George grew their hair longer - they're rebellious! Ron's going through a phase, too - and I think he looks rather fetching in long hair! Harry's "do" is a bit too poufy for my taste (it kind of makes him look like a bobble-head doll), but they managed to pull it off so at least he looked great at the Yule Ball....

I reckon the only thing I have issue with regarding the movie character development is that they're all wearing muggle kid clothing at school instead of robes. If they're going to be at Hogwarts, then they should look like witches and wizards, not like muggles visiting a theme park.

I reckon the only thing I have issue with regarding the movie character development is that they're all wearing muggle kid clothing at school instead of robes. If they're going to be at Hogwarts, then they should look like witches and wizards, not like muggles visiting a theme park.


That's how I feel, the books refer to most wizards not knowing how to dress in muggle clothes, and when they attempt to (like at the campgrounds in GOF) it ends up being silly, (like the man with nightgown). So it makes sense that they would not dress that way at Hogwarts, Harry does not have decent muggle clothes in the books, because most of his muggle clothes are Dudley's. Granted Hermione would have plenty of good MC, but Ron wouldn't. The first thing they usually do on the train is change into their robes.

Maybe I just like keeping the scenery magical.

Richard Harris portrayed Dumbledore as he is written in the books. He did not get excited; he always seemed to be in control and unshaken by events or other characters in the movies.

Michael Gambon, on the contrary, seems to be out of control. He actually shakes Harry almost violently after Harry was chosen as the fourth champion. He seems unsure of himself, has quite a temper, lacks the twinkling, kind eyes. He does not exude confidence, like Harris did. He runs about, unlike the calm, cool character that Harris played. Dumbledore doesn't need to jump around, show outward worry, like the Gambon version does.

Why don´t they give the role of Dumbledore to somebody else, Gambon has had his chance and he is simply not good.

We need some one that can bring the great Dumbledore portrayed in the Books to the movie.

That's how I feel, the books refer to most wizards not knowing how to dress in muggle clothes, and when they attempt to (like at the campgrounds in GOF) it ends up being silly, (like the man with nightgown). So it makes sense that they would not dress that way at Hogwarts, Harry does not have decent muggle clothes in the books, because most of his muggle clothes are Dudley's. Granted Hermione would have plenty of good MC, but Ron wouldn't.
Maybe I just like keeping the scenery magical.

It says in the books that the weasley kids wear muggle clothes in the holidays, so obviously, they know what they are.

As for them wearing them at Hogwarts, well if they aren't in classes or it's the weekend I don't see why they shouldn't. I don't think borders at normal highschools would wear uniforms on the weekends.

I found it very interesting that, when asked which actor is the most like his or her character, the trio replied "Michael Gambon!"

Michael Gambon i to weak in appearence in the movie and He seems unsure of himself, has quite a temper, lacks the twinkling, kind eyes. He does not exude confidence, like Harris did. He runs about, unlike the calm, cool character that Harris played. He is simply wrong to portray a Great Wizard like Dumbledore.

This thread is devoted to 'questions' about the HP films, not the actors performances...there are specific threads devoted to actors and the characters they portray...although the one on Michael Gambon was closed.I'm going to close this thread. I find it incredibly circular and frustrating and I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere.

Consider Michael Gambon a taboo topic on CoS.It may re-open at a future date, but I'm not holding my breath.

So, anyone with questions about the movies? Did anyone notice the differences in the Dark Mark at the camp ground---the one made by the spell of 'Morsmordre'...and the Dark Mark that appeared in the sky over the cemetery?

As posted by kingwidgit
So, anyone with questions about the movies? Did anyone notice the differences in the Dark Mark at the camp ground---the one made by the spell of 'Morsmordre'...and the Dark Mark that appeared in the sky over the cemetery?


The one at the QWC seemed more authentic. But I did not realise that was a Dark Mark in the cemetery scene. I thought that was just a theatrical way of the DEs being summoned.

This thread is devoted to 'questions' about the HP films, not the actors performances...there are specific threads devoted to actors and the characters they portray...although the one on Michael Gambon was closed.It may re-open at a future date, but I'm not holding my breath.

So, anyone with questions about the movies? Did anyone notice the differences in the Dark Mark at the camp ground---the one made by the spell of 'Morsmordre'...and the Dark Mark that appeared in the sky over the cemetery?

Sorry, wasn't criticizing Gambon... it was just something I'd noticed in the extras and thought it was fascinating.

Anyway, I thought it was kind of cool in the graveyard how the DE's came out of the skull's mouth.

FYI- There was some interesting conversation going on about Gambon
in "Muggle Studies" Miscellaneous Actor Speculation 4
(Last 2 pages)

Now for my question. Since COS we see how Dumbledore knows
about Tom Riddle. He knew he kidnapped Ginny. He knew he was
responsible for Moaning Myrtle. Although we get a bigger picture
in HBP about Voldemort, why did Dumbledore still not do anything to stop him?
I realize he has a kind heart. But I cannot believe he is that soft. When
Riddle was at Hogwarts he could of confronted him. Also, please help
restore my memory. Why did Riddle hate James Potter?

I think Dumbledore suspected Tom but had no real proof.

I don't believe Riddle even knew James Potter, who was much younger than he.

And what does this have to do with the movies?

If you reread my question please. I'll be more explicite.
In the movie, Chamber of Secrets we have seen scenes where
Harry opens the diary and is transported back to the time at Hogwarts
when Moaning Myrtle had been killed. On the stairs Dumbledore is
speaking to Tom Riddle. Tom does not tell Dumbledore the truth.
So then, Tom shows Harry this to confirm that he is the culprit to MM?
And it is obvious that Dumbledore is aware.
I am asking a question that carries on throughout the FILMS and
gives us more backround of Voldemort from book 6. If Dumbledore was as you say
"suspected" he seems to leave it be. In that film did Dumbledore know
what Harry saw and was it accurate or something Voldemort just wanted him to
see? THANKS for the answer about timeline of James Potter and Tom Riddle

Riddle showed Harry that memory to put the blame on Hagrid. He probably also was going to show Harry more things that would guide Harry to the Chamber's entrance if he could do so without incriminating himself, as he had already decided to try to ensnare Harry. However, Ginny's stealing of the diary intervened. Dumbledore obviously knew it was not really Hagrid (or he would not have gotten him hired on as staff), but did not have the proof he needed to put the blame on Riddle. I cannot believe Dumbeldore would ot have been using legilemency at this point, so it stands to reason that Riddle had already mastered occlumency: that probably came natural to a psychopath like him, since compartmentalizing is very typical of such persons.

I'm reasonably sure that Dumbledore had no proof that Tom Riddle was responsible for opening the Chamber and setting the basilisk on Myrtle at the time it happened. Dumbledore may have a trusting/forgiving nature, but he isn't stupid either, and I'm sure if he'd had proof that it was Riddle, he'd have done something about it then. But keep in mind, the "something" probably wouldn't have altered the course of history significantly because Hagrid, who was blamed for "accidentally" letting loose his pet acromantuala that was believed to have killed Myrtle, didn't land Hagrid in prison...it just got him expelled and his wand snapped in half. I believe Tom Riddle was 16 at that time, so he would have still been underage and probably would have only met the same punishment as Hagrid if he'd claimed it was an accident, he hadn't thought his pet basilisk would hurt anyone. We all know now how much Tom already knew (magically speaking) by the time he was 16, and how dangerous he already was, so I doubt expulsion from Hogwarts or the loss of his wand would have stopped his rise to power. (I expect he could have gotten another wand somehow).

ok it might be a dumb question but have we ever seen the guy who does the voice of dobby?

ok it might be a dumb question but have we ever seen the guy who does the voice of dobby?In the HP movies? I don't believe so. Toby Jones is a prolific actor though, appearing on stage, in movies/T.V. shows...

Here's a pic of him.

http://www.angelpoet.com/autographs/1autographtobyjones.jpg

That's how I feel, the books refer to most wizards not knowing how to dress in muggle clothes, and when they attempt to (like at the campgrounds in GOF) it ends up being silly, (like the man with nightgown). So it makes sense that they would not dress that way at Hogwarts, Harry does not have decent muggle clothes in the books, because most of his muggle clothes are Dudley's. Granted Hermione would have plenty of good MC, but Ron wouldn't. The first thing they usually do on the train is change into their robes.

Maybe I just like keeping the scenery magical.

I agree with this. We are on the same level. Finally, I thought I was the only one.

Does anyone agree that the mood of the movies have changed? Or perhaps I am the only one. It seems that it goes like this:

Cozy > Cheery > Funny > Cold

It just changed too much. You have to look beyond the clothes, the attitude, etc. sometimes and this time to understand what I mean, you will too. I find it hard to express. It could be just the camera lighting but that plays a big part. For color schemes, it goes:

Red > Orange > Green > Blue

If someone even gets the gist of what I ahve been trying to point out, please I beg of you, tell me.

After watching GoF for the third time since yesterday afternoon, I was just wondering why they decided to have both the Patil sisters in Gryffindor? Isn't Padma supposed to be in Ravenclaw?

After watching GoF for the third time since yesterday afternoon, I was just wondering why they decided to have both the Patil sisters in Gryffindor? Isn't Padma supposed to be in Ravenclaw?Padma is supposed to be Ravenclaw. Dedalus Diggle actually answered this question fairly well on another thread, the Little Questions thread.That was a deliberate deviation from canon. It cut out otherwise needless dialogue explaining that siblings don't have to be in the same house and with Harry getting Parvati to find Ron a date, too (as it turns out Ron had a date - Harry: at least that's who he spent all his time with ). Besides the two of them looked so amazingly cute walking in tandem together.It was cute...but I think they made a mistake...it's Parvati and Lavender that act that way...how are they gonna boot Padma, and insert Lavender for movie 6?The same way thay booted one of Draco's goons (I forget which - does it matter?) for some other goon when they had a notion.They had to replace Josh Herdman in some of the scenes as he was taking his A levels; they integrated the other boy---but Josh was in most of POA...

WB wouldn't halt the film for him, like they are gonna do for Daniel and Emma this summer---makes sense, he's a minor character in comparison to those two.

Thanks Kingwidgit, I suppose it makes sense from a directorial point of view.

ok this is a random question but its been killing me...who is the short guy with the short dark hair:huh: in the GOF movie, i mean they put so much emphasis on him in the movie and i have no idea who he's supposed to be...maybe im missing something so if someone could answer that would be very much appreciated :)

ok this is a random question but its been killing me...who is the short guy with the short dark hair:huh: in the GOF movie, i mean they put so much emphasis on him in the movie and i have no idea who he's supposed to be...maybe im missing something so if someone could answer that would be very much appreciated :)Do you mean the 'new' kid Nigel? He's in a lot of the scenes...his name is William Melling. I'm not sure, but I don't believe he's related to Harry Melling [Dudley Dursley]. Don't know why they added him, instead of letting the Creevey brothers be the Harry Potter worshippers.

Or did you mean Professor Flitwick? Very short, black hair, 'tache---conducted the orchestra at the ball? That's Warwick Davis---out of costume of the first two movies---Cuaron changed that in POA, and Newell kept the change in GoF. Warwick was happy not to wear all the prosthetics/make-up/hair that he'd had to wear for the first two movies.

Question about GoF: in the Yule ball scene, we shortly see Moody sitting. Is it a ferret he his holding?

Question about GoF: in the Yule ball scene, we shortly see Moody sitting. Is it a ferret he his holding?

I'm pretty sure it is! :D

The first thing they usually do on the train is change into their robes.

In the books they only change into their robes as the train nears Hogsmeade.

In GoF Voldemorts wand is very special and evil looking. Its supposed to be the brother wand to Harrys and I am sure it did not look like that when he bought it off Ollivander when he was 11.
Are we supposed to assume that he changed it himself to make it more fit for a dark lord?

In the books they only change into their robes as the train nears Hogsmeade.
I'm pretty sure the families with young kids are more attuned to the muggle world's current clothing styles more than the rest. Someone like the old wizard Archie at the Quidditch World Cup may not have had contact with muggles or muggleborns in fifty, or even a hundred, or more years - except to but his negligee :rotfl: .

In GoF Voldemorts wand is very special and evil looking. Its supposed to be the brother wand to Harrys and I am sure it did not look like that when he bought it off Ollivander when he was 11.
Are we supposed to assume that he changed it himself to make it more fit for a dark lord?
I thought that was awful. The moviemakers though his wand ought to look more sinister, but it was an Ollivander wand - it would not look so goofy. And voldemort would appreciate the wand that chose him enough not to add all those goth accoutrements.

Question about GoF: in the Yule ball scene, we shortly see Moody sitting. Is it a ferret he his holding?

I think it is a badger on his sporran, a bag commonly worn with a kilt, which he was also wearing.

I thought that was awful. The moviemakers though his wand ought to look more sinister, but it was an Ollivander wand - it would not look so goofy. And voldemort would appreciate the wand that chose him enough not to add all those goth accoutrements. I absolutely agree. I believe Voldemort has to have a certain class, or to say it in a different way, he doesn't need some bone accessory on his wand to be scary. And Ralph Fiennes does a good job and his robe are very appropriate, I thought that wand was out of place.

After the third task when everyone is in Moody's office, Barty Crouch Jr. says: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and shows his mark, why does Dumbledore show him Harry's cut?

After the third task when everyone is in Moody's office, Barty Crouch Jr. says: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and shows his mark, why does Dumbledore show him Harry's cut?

Very good question. Someone please answer that one because I cant figure it out either. Does Barty want proof that Voldemort is reborn and if so how come Dumbledore obliged? He could just force Barty to show his mark and not use Harry as some interesting specimen for show. There is nothing achieved by this and its not in the books either...

Very good question. Someone please answer that one because I cant figure it out either. Does Barty want proof that Voldemort is reborn and if so how come Dumbledore obliged? He could just force Barty to show his mark and not use Harry as some interesting specimen for show. There is nothing achieved by this and its not in the books either...
I think it's because the blood could somehow react to the dark mark tattoo on death eaters, especially in the presence of Harry's blood since it now flows in Voldemort's veins. Whether or not it actually shown that, I forget.
I thought that was awful. The moviemakers though his wand ought to look more sinister, but it was an Ollivander wand - it would not look so goofy. And voldemort would appreciate the wand that chose him enough not to add all those goth accoutrements.
Not to disagree on how it looks, I personally was not impressed, but one would imagine that Ollivander would make wands for all sorts of wizards and witches, not just the good kind. I envision him to be a fair person to all sides considering he seems to be the only wand maker in Diagon Alley. This isn't to say he's money grubbing to provide wands to everyone to increase his bottom line, but considering that "the wand chooses the wizard", one could assume that the wand's final appearence/end product is chosen not by Ollivander's personal artistic choice, but one chosen by the core material itself or perhaps even destiny/magic. Basically say, he makes the wand, he doesn't create the style...even if it is something as uninspired as Voldemort's.

In regards to the wand, Ollivander---maker of fine wands---would not have made a wand with that specific appearance. He normally sells wands to children, not adults, though I imagine some adults would want a new wand were theirs to be old, ineffective, lost, broken...etc. Since I believe Voldemort's wand is the same one he's had since age 11, I have a hard time accepting the movie wands appearance.

Lucius Malfoy, in the movies, also has an altered wand, with a metal snake's head---his wand conceals within the cane he carries, much like an epée can be concealed within a hollow cane. Lucius's wand modification I had no problem with, it's something that the oh-so superior Malfoy would do, but Voldemort's was totally unnecessary.

I think it's because the blood could somehow react to the dark mark tattoo on death eaters, especially in the presence of Harry's blood since it now flows in Voldemort's veins. Whether or not it actually shown that, I forget.
. Well, all that 'show me your mark and I'll show your mine, seemed very innecessary to me. First, we the book readers don't find any sense in it, and even if we try to put an explanation, we will never figure it out, as it is not explained in the movie.
And for the non-reading audience, I think it made less sense. Probably it was just to show Bartys mark and Harrys wound on screen. Poorly done in my opinion.

I wonder why Newell had Albus go on about Priori Incantatem (reverse spell effect) in that last scene with Harry? What is anyone gonna get out of that? No-one will remember it for the next film (if it is ever to be explained that is).

I did not really understand the meaning of that scene. Albus tells Harry that nothing will bring the dead back. Is this a foreshadowing to the Horcrux topic?

After the third task when everyone is in Moody's office, Barty Crouch Jr. says: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" and shows his mark, why does Dumbledore show him Harry's cut?

Because Dumbledore wanted to see whether Harrys arm was indeed cut.
He wanted to know this so that he was sure whether Voldemort had indeed returned using Harry's blood, meaning that he could touch him now.

Basically, he was putting 2 and 2 together, seeing Harry's arm bleeding he figured it out, that his blood was used.

I wonder why Newell had Albus go on about Priori Incantatem (reverse spell effect) in that last scene with Harry? What is anyone gonna get out of that? No-one will remember it for the next film (if it is ever to be explained that is).

I did not really understand the meaning of that scene. Albus tells Harry that nothing will bring the dead back. Is this a foreshadowing to the Horcrux topic?
I don't think that the scriptwriters and moviemakers are foreshadowing anything. I am not even sure if they have read HBP before finishing GoF.
I guess it is just to prevent audience from thinking that Harrys parents are going to come back, or just to explain who these strange ghosts were.

Can anyone please tell me what Voldemort says when Harry runs behind the tombstone in the graveyard. I want it for a sig. Its something like "Dont you hide from me. I want to see the light sleam your eyes when you die."

Leave instead of sleam?

Voldemort: Don't you turn your back on me, Harry Potter! I want to see your face when I kill you! I want to see the light leave your eyes!
Harry: [facing Voldemort] Have it your way!
Voldemort, Harry: [both shouting together] Avada Kedavara!/Expelliarmus!

Voldemort: Don't you turn your back on me, Harry Potter! I want to see your face when I kill you! I want to see the light leave your eyes!
Harry: [facing Voldemort] Have it your way!
Voldemort, Harry: [both shouting together] Avada Kedavara!/Expelliarmus!
Which made me think - what if Harry had gotten his 'Expelliarmus' said first? There he is, with the Dark Lord thrown back on his backside, holding two wands, surrounded by Death Eaters, and not knowing any spells tougher than a stunner. "Oh ****, now what!?" :rotfl:

Voldemort: Don't you turn your back on me, Harry Potter! I want to see your face when I kill you! I want to see the light leave your eyes!
Harry: [facing Voldemort] Have it your way!
Voldemort, Harry: [both shouting together] Avada Kedavara!/Expelliarmus!

Im deaf. Thanks alot :tu:

Which made me think - what if Harry had gotten his 'Expelliarmus' said first? There he is, with the Dark Lord thrown back on his backside, holding two wands, surrounded by Death Eaters, and not knowing any spellers tougher than a stunner. "Oh ****, now what!?" :rotfl:
Hopefully he would have had time to get back to the cup in that instance! But I wonder if he would have left Cedric behind, since he wouldn't have the whole "Take my body back" line.

Hopefully he would have had time to get back to the cup in that instance! But I wonder if he would have left Cedric behind, since he wouldn't have the whole "Take my body back" line.

Good Job he didn't then.

Here is a question.

If the lake outside Hogwarts is indeed a Lake.

Firstly in POA how come we see it almost completey dried up like a River, when Hegwid flys over it?

and Second, How does the Durmstrang ship actually get into the lake, if its Landlocked?

and Second, How does the Durmstrang ship actually get into the lake, if its Landlocked?

Magic, silly! :lol:

Magic, silly! :lol:

So the ship flys? Why don't they just use a gigantic flying carriage pulled by horses......oh wait....thats been used!

I think when they both arrive, Dumbledore comments on how the wizarding schools are always trying to outdo one another... in the book, of course!

and Second, How does the Durmstrang ship actually get into the lake, if its Landlocked?
From memory, it bursts through the lake from below. Presumably it arrived in a similar fashion to the way it did in the book -- in a giant whirlpool-type-thing.

BurrowGhoul does have an excellent point about magic, though. ;)

That is actually a great question, for both movie and book! How does it get there? I wondered that myself, and as BurrowGhoul states clearly, it is obviosly "magic (silly)" :lol:! Good explanation, seriously!

Has anyone noticed that everyone's hair is long??!? Except for a few of the adults and some stragglers.

From memory, it bursts through the lake from below. Presumably it arrived in a similar fashion to the way it did in the book -- in a giant whirlpool-type-thing.

BurrowGhoul does have an excellent point about magic, though. ;)
I wish for the departure they had shown someone pulling a chain and the ship getting flushed :p

Do you mean the 'new' kid Nigel? He's in a lot of the scenes...his name is William Melling. I'm not sure, but I don't believe he's related to Harry Melling [Dudley Dursley]. Don't know why they added him, instead of letting the Creevey brothers be the Harry Potter worshippers.

Or did you mean Professor Flitwick? Very short, black hair, 'tache---conducted the orchestra at the ball? That's Warwick Davis---out of costume of the first two movies---Cuaron changed that in POA, and Newell kept the change in GoF. Warwick was happy not to wear all the prosthetics/make-up/hair that he'd had to wear for the first two movies.

Ya i meant er..Proffeser Flitwick...i didnt notice him in the 3rd movie but why did they change him? He's not at all like Flitwick was in 1 and 2, i mean why would flitwick suddenly decide to shave his whole beard off, cut his hair and dye it black? i am so confused as to why they would make such a dramatic change, how is anyone supposed to make the connection? I mean, i understand if Warwick didnt want all the makeup and costume and everything but thats just a part of being in the movie. IMO, Warwick's comfort could have been sacrificed for flow in the movies.

Ya i meant er..Proffeser Flitwick...i didnt notice him in the 3rd movie but why did they change him? He's not at all like Flitwick was in 1 and 2, i mean why would flitwick suddenly decide to shave his whole beard off, cut his hair and dye it black? i am so confused as to why they would make such a dramatic change, how is anyone supposed to make the connection? I mean, i understand if Warwick didnt want all the makeup and costume and everything but thats just a part of being in the movie. IMO, Warwick's comfort could have been sacrificed for flow in the movies.Alfonso Cuaron made the change, not Warwick Davis. Cuaron never gave the reason for that specific change.

Several scenes in Prisoner of Azkaban where Professor Flitwick {minus the costume of the first two movies} is prominent is the choir with frogs singing 'Double, Double, Toil and Trouble'---he conducted them, just as he conducted the Yule Ball; and reporting to Dumbledore in the Great Hall, after the Fat Lady's portrait had been attacked and the castle had been searched for Sirius Black.

Warwick Davis also played the Goblin Bank Teller at Gringott's, the one Hagrid gave Harry's key to.

Verne Troyer {Mini-Me} played Griphook, who escorted Harry and Hagrid to both vaults [Warwick Davis did the voice-over work for the speaking part].

Alfonso Cuaron made the change, not Warwick Davis. Cuaron never gave the reason for that specific change.

I believe it's an entirely different character. Besides, the original Professor Flitwick was far too gobliny. Even JKR was surprised by his appearance!

I believe it's an entirely different character. Besides, the original Professor Flitwick was far too gobliny. Even JKR was surprised by his appearance!I agree that the original Flitwick was far too gobliny, but Warwick Davis is credited for, and has appeared in all four Harry Potter movies. In the first two, and the fourth, he is credited as Professor {Filius} Flitwick. In the third film, he is simply credited as 'Wizard'. Here is a link to his fansite warwickdavis.co.uk (http://www.warwickdavis.co.uk/index.php?page=119&offset=10), with pictures of him in both the original Professor Flitwick costume, and as Professor Flitwick without the costume, which we first see as the 'Wizard' in Prisoner of Azkaban;
Other pictures on that page include him in costume as the bank teller, and other well known characters he has portrayed, i.e. Wicket, Willow, the Leprechaun, and Wald [friend of Anakin's] from Episode 1.

Also, here is one of the FAQs from his site, regarding the original costume:
How long did your make-up for 'Harry Potter' take?

The prosthetic make-up for 'Professor Flitwick' took two make-up artists about four hours to apply. It is made up of five 'silicone' face pieces, and five hair pieces. The 'Goblin Bank Teller' make-up also took about four hours. For this character [goblin teller] I also wore very large contact lenses and dentures.
--------
Four hours? Wow. Maybe this was a factor in dropping the costume?

--------
Four hours? Wow. Maybe this was a factor in dropping the costume?

I dont know, it definately played a part, but maybe Jo mentioned that Flitwick had been interpreted wrong in the first 2 films. Robbie Coltrane who plays Hagrid has said on numerous occasions how horrible it is to wear make-up and costume. The actors who are in heavy makeup have to come to work so much earlier because it takes so long to do. Its hot and uncomfortable and some people get a rash from the glue.

I agree that the original Flitwick was far too gobliny, but Warwick Davis is credited for, and has appeared in all four Harry Potter movies.
I'm not disputing that. Davis has appeared as Flitwick twice and as this new character twice.

I believe it's an entirely different character. Besides, the original Professor Flitwick was far too gobliny. Even JKR was surprised by his appearance! But I think she was surprised of his goblinish looks because she had imagined him with goblin ancestors. So I interpretated it as an positive surprising.

JKR envisions Flitwick as "a very small old man;" she was surprised that he looked so goblin-ish in the movies. He does have a "a dash of goblin ancestry http://www.madamscoop.org/themes/otherprofs.htm

Anyway, in the books, Flitwick has white hair, is short and old. I personally prefer the first Flitwick.

But I think she was surprised of his goblinish looks because she had imagined him with goblin ancestors. So I interpretated it as an positive surprising.

Her exact words were "taken aback", which doesn't sound positive to me:

I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I’ve never actually asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my imagination simply looks like a very small old man.

Anyway, in the books, Flitwick has white hair, is short and old. I personally prefer the first Flitwick.

And I prefer the second.

But it certainly isn't worth arguing over. :)

Her exact words were "taken aback", which doesn't sound positive to me:

I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I’ve never actually asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my imagination simply looks like a very small old man.
Thanks for the exact quote. :) I had only seen the madame scoops reference.
And I prefer the second.

But it certainly isn't worth arguing over. :) Very right. It is a taste question I believe :)

Her exact words were "taken aback", which doesn't sound positive to me:

I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I’ve never actually asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my imagination simply looks like a very small old man.



And I prefer the second.

But it certainly isn't worth arguing over. :)

Isn't the second Flitwick played by the same guy who played the first Flitwick, just with less (I assume) cosmetic enhancement? And isn't he also the same guy who played the Goblin in SS to whom Hagrid spoke about Harry's first withdrawal from Gringott's and the package he was retrieving for Dumbledore?

EDIT...well duh! I feel rather stupid now that I've read farther back and noticed where someone had already acknowledged the fact that it was all the same actor. Please overlook my mental carelessness today. I didn't sleep well last night and it's catching up with me this afternoon.

Isn't the second Flitwick played by the same guy who played the first Flitwick, just with less (I assume) cosmetic enhancement? And isn't he also the same guy who played the Goblin in SS to whom Hagrid spoke about Harry's first withdrawal from Gringott's and the package he was retrieving for Dumbledore?

The actor you're thinking about, the one who plays the goblin Griphook who opened the vaults and so on, is Verne Troyer who plays mini-me in the Austin Powers films.

Isn't the second Flitwick played by the same guy who played the first Flitwick, just with less (I assume) cosmetic enhancement? And isn't he also the same guy who played the Goblin in SS to whom Hagrid spoke about Harry's first withdrawal from Gringott's and the package he was retrieving for Dumbledore?

It's the same actor :) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001116/ He has participated in quite some movies.

I never understood why they decided to put a choir in Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. It doesn't really fit in with the whole magical world, otherwise JK Rowling would have written it in, don't you think? I did find it interesting though when I put the subtitles for the song on the screen, and found that the words were mostly taken from the play Macbeth. The song appears at the start of the play, when the witches first tell the prophecy.

What I don't understand is that appears in the third movie there are different followers (not Crab and Goyle but a third boy) with Malfoy in the Buckbeak scene. And I thought they stuck with the same actors for them. Im a bite confused someone explain please! ???? :gryff:

What I don't understand is that appears in the third movie there are different followers (not Crab and Goyle but a third boy) with Malfoy in the Buckbeak scene. And I thought they stuck with the same actors for them. Im a bite confused someone explain please! ???? :gryff:I believe this was answered earlier, I will see if I can find the quote.They had to replace Josh Herdman [Gregory Goyle] in some of the scenes as he was taking his A levels; they integrated the other boy---but Josh was in most of POA.

WB wouldn't halt the film for him, like they are gonna do for Daniel and Emma this summer---makes sense, he's a minor character in comparison to those two.I checked, the other boy is named Bronson Webb, and he is credited in the film as 'Slytherin Boy'.

I believe it has been speculated that he was supposed to represent Theodore Nott, another Slytherin, who is spoken of in the books.

It doesn't really fit in with the whole magical world, otherwise JK Rowling would have written it in, don't you think?
JKR didn't write in the uniforms either. It's called artistic licence. ;)

I like that JKR can "let it go" and actually not mind when the directors use their own artistic vision to create her books on screen. It's just the readers who are driven crazy when something differs slightly from our own personal view. And count me as one of them! ;)

I never understood why they decided to put a choir in Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. It doesn't really fit in with the whole magical world, otherwise JK Rowling would have written it in, don't you think?

Dumbledore says in PS (book, not film) “Ah, music, a magic beyond all we do here” so it does fit in in a way. According to Dumbledore, anyway.

What I don't understand is that appears in the third movie there are different followers (not Crab and Goyle but a third boy) with Malfoy in the Buckbeak scene. And I thought they stuck with the same actors for them. Im a bite confused someone explain please! ???? :gryff:


I noticed this too. Crabbe is there, but your right, its another boy with him.

The only reason I can come up with is that maybe the Actor who plays Goyle (Josh Herdman) maybe was very ill for a while? As he appears in some scenes!

Since I'm from Norway, I have sometimes trouble distinguishing between the various, British accents.

So I'm wondering - what dialect/accent does Mad-Eye Moody use? Is this how the actor speaks, or have they somehow chosen to let Moody speak that way?

To me, it sounds like almost everyone of the professors at Hogwarts speaks with a Scottish or Irish accent. (Perhaps except for Snape).

And while I'm at it - does the trio speak any British dialect in particular? I also find it interesting that several of the actors speak more Standard English/Received Pronunciation than what they do in "real life". (Gary Oldman is a good example of this).


And one last question - where did McGonagall 's glasses go...?

Since I'm from Norway, I have sometimes trouble distinguishing between the various, British accents.

So I'm wondering - what dialect/accent does Mad-Eye Moody use? Is this how the actor speaks, or have they somehow chosen to let Moody speak that way?

To me, it sounds like almost everyone of the professors at Hogwarts speaks with a Scottish or Irish accent. (Perhaps except for Snape).

And while I'm at it - does the trio speak any British dialect in particular? I also find it interesting that several of the actors speak more Standard English/Received Pronunciation than what they do in "real life". (Gary Oldman is a good example of this).


And one last question - where did McGonagall 's glasses go...?Brendan Gleeson aka Mad-Eye, is Irish, so Moody has an Irish accent in the movie. In the book? It just describes Moody's voice as a low, gravelly growl.

Michael Gambon, Dumbledore, also puts a bit of Irish into the accent he uses for the Headmaster.

Since I'm from Norway, I have sometimes trouble distinguishing between the various, British accents.

So I'm wondering - what dialect/accent does Mad-Eye Moody use? Is this how the actor speaks, or have they somehow chosen to let Moody speak that way?

To me, it sounds like almost everyone of the professors at Hogwarts speaks with a Scottish or Irish accent. (Perhaps except for Snape).

And while I'm at it - does the trio speak any British dialect in particular? I also find it interesting that several of the actors speak more Standard English/Received Pronunciation than what they do in "real life". (Gary Oldman is a good example of this).


And one last question - where did McGonagall 's glasses go...?


Well, because all the actors are British (which I think is great) naturally you will get a wide range of accents.

As it has been pointed out, Gleeson is Irish, and some of this comes through in Moody. Also, I think his voice is slightly put on, as Gleeson is described as having quite a high pitched voice!

Gambon, Is Scottish, so Naturally some of this will come across in Dumbledore. Same with Maggie Smith (Minerva).

I think that the prominance of Scottish accents is quite a good thing, as Hogwarts is set in Scotland, so you would think that some of the local accent will rub off!

What about the young trio, though? Especially Daniel Radcliffe speaks very "Oxfordish". And like I said - Gary Oldman speaks quite differently in the HP-movies than what he does in real life, although I can't really distinguish any accent in Sirius Black's character.

Is it just me fantazising, or does Rubert Grint/Ron speak a bit more like the "common folk" (i.e. he says "meself" at least twice in the movies, something I've never heard Dan or Emma say), to let it come across that he comes from a rather poor family? Maybe Dan/Harry's rather correct way of speaking come from his upbringing? Or maybe that's just the way Dan speaks?

What about the young trio, though? Especially Daniel Radcliffe speaks very "Oxfordish". And like I said - Gary Oldman speaks quite differently in the HP-movies than what he does in real life, although I can't really distinguish any accent in Sirius Black's character.

Is it just me fantazising, or does Rubert Grint/Ron speak a bit more like the "common folk" (i.e. he says "meself" at least twice in the movies, something I've never heard Dan or Emma say), to let it come across that he comes from a rather poor family? Maybe Dan/Harry's rather correct way of speaking come from his upbringing? Or maybe that's just the way Dan speaks?I know that Daniel is from London, born and raised, and that accents and dialects in general have been discussed on the Dan Radcliffe as Harry Potter thread. Daniel is well educated, but so too are the others.
radcliffe's is a southern accent. A northern could be geordie (newcastle ), mancunian (manchester - sean bean), liverpudlian (liverpool - the beatles lol) or more of a scottich-like accent (katie leung).
He is growing up in a fairly upmarket area so a strong regional accent wouldn't be prevalent.

On the other hand, you could use this argument: Mr and Mrs Dursley consider themselves better than others, their speech may have reflected that, and as that is who Harry would have heard most and would be trying to keep sweet then his speech would be also be better.Northern means north of the country. Roughly from Yorkshire or Lancashire.
Wow, well done Cyrus I'd forgotten about Sean Bean.
Most people think of the Liverpool accent as a Scouse.
I did find a link: Dialects.
If you click on No. 56 that'll give you an idea of a Yorkshire accent, No 49 is a Surrey accent. The link for accents/dialects that Bunny provided can be found here: Dialects (http://www.ku.edu/~idea/europe/england/england.htm)

As I am not aware of what part of England Emma and Rupert grew up in, I cannot comment on their accents. Perhaps someone from England could give a hand with that?

Gambon, Is Scottish, so Naturally some of this will come across in Dumbledore. Same with Maggie Smith (Minerva).
Gambon is Irish and Maggie Smith is English.

This may be unknown or unknown to the public, but was Richard Harris' and Micheal Gambon's beard real? It looks so real, especially Richard's.

This may be unknown or unknown to the public, but was Richard Harris' and Micheal Gambon's beard real? It looks so real, especially Richard's.No, they both wore fakes.

Dickie Harris did an interview, I believe on the first dvd...very little facial hair. I think his hair and beard were the most realistic.

But I like Michael Gambon's too. It's kind of funky!

Yeah, :lol:, definetely funky. It looked like it was real; I wonder how they did that? Glue :rotfl:?

The only reason I can come up with is that maybe the Actor who plays Goyle (Josh Herdman) maybe was very ill for a while? As he appears in some scenes!


I'm sure I read somewhere that he was writing exams and they couldn't hold up filmimg for him.

O.k. here's a stupid question, the two girls who play the Patil twins have different names, does that mean they're not related? FREAKY, 'coz they really look a lot alike...

I'm sure I read somewhere that he was writing exams and they couldn't hold up filmimg for him.

O.k. here's a stupid question, the two girls who play the Patil twins have different names, does that mean they're not related? FREAKY, 'coz they really look a lot alike...

They do not look at alike. Its just because they are both Asian. ;)

Well, imo they look alike, when you see them walking passed Harry in the Great Hall and in the common room, and believe me, it's not just beacuse they're both Asian.

One has a very round face, one has a very sharp, pointed face. They don't look anything alike.

One has a very round face, one has a very sharp, pointed face. They don't look anything alike.I have to agree, they were not alike, but then not all siblings are so that isn't a problem.

Wow, thanks ProfLupin. You've gone back quite a way to find that link. :tu:

I recently watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban again, and I remember reading somewhere something about a "Room of Doom" ... and then while I was watching, I saw a circle room labeled "Room of Doom" while Harry was looking for Peter Pettigrew... I've read the books and I don't remember this at all! What is in that room!

here's a link to a screenshot from the movie.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6716/roomofdoom1wz.png

Edit: Mistakes! *thanks 62442al_Man... silly me.

I don't think it had anything to do with the Room of Requirement because the Mauraders didn't know about it. The director's might've just put it in there for amusement more or less.

:welcome: to the Forums!

They probably didn't expect people to get that close, but they underestimated the CoSers of the world!!

Plus, there are many rooms in Hogwarts that not even Dumbledore knows about;)

And don't you mean Prisoner of Azkaban? That is when the Maurader's and the Map were introduced.

Also, on a side note, JKR was asked by the director to make the Marauders map for PoA... maybe its a room we'll hear about again in HP7 :clap:

I dont know...maybe its the place where Hogwarts ghosts meet for the halloween party? Maybe its just for fun...

In the following thread there has been discussion if the Room of Doom on the Marauders Map in the PoA movie is foreshadowing future events. Maybe that gives you some more information :)

Foreshadowing in the PoA Film (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=46770&highlight=foreshadowing)

Edit: thread got merged, but I still think the above mentioned thread is helpful.

I recently watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban again, and I remember reading somewhere something about a "Room of Doom" ... and then while I was watching, I saw a circle room labeled "Room of Doom" while Harry was looking for Peter Pettigrew... I've read the books and I don't remember this at all! What is in that room!

here's a link to a screenshot from the movie.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6716/roomofdoom1wz.png

Edit: Mistakes! *thanks 62442al_Man... silly me.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is the name the usual mischief-makers use for Filch's office, where he keeps the manacles and instruments of pain well-oiled for when a headmaster more to his liking takes office.

Has anybody else wondered why there are school kids at the zoo in PS/SS. Surely if it was a school day then the Dursleys would have just dumped Harry there instead of taking him to the zoo with them.
I haven't read the book in a while but I think that it was a weekend the day they went to the zoo in it.

Has anybody else wondered why there are school kids at the zoo in PS/SS. Surely if it was a school day then the Dursleys would have just dumped Harry there instead of taking him to the zoo with them.
I haven't read the book in a while but I think that it was a weekend the day they went to the zoo in it.There is an alternative reason, although I think it being the weekend the most likely, and there was what is called an in-house training day for the teachers.
There is no school for the children on that day.
I think that there are one or two of them a term, if I'm not mistaken.

Has anybody else wondered why there are school kids at the zoo in PS/SS. Surely if it was a school day then the Dursleys would have just dumped Harry there instead of taking him to the zoo with them.
I haven't read the book in a while but I think that it was a weekend the day they went to the zoo in it.
There is an alternative reason, although I think it being the weekend the most likely, and there was what is called an in-house training day for the teachers.
There is no school for the children on that day.
I think that there are one or two of them a term, if I'm not mistaken.In the book, Dudley's birthday is during summer break, on a Saturday, and his birthday occurs roughly a month before Harry's.
A week before Harry's birthday the 'Letters from No One' start to arrive.
With the very first letter the Dursleys decide to move Harry out of the cupboard.
Harry is moved into Dudley's second bedroom, with Dudley's 'month-old' video camera broken on the shelf.
Dudley got that camera for his birthday that year.
That puts his birthday about June 23.
I do wonder about the school children in the movie, but perhaps they were a year-round school or a prepatory school on an excursion. I am not sure if England supports year-round education, but I know this is an option in America, as I am in one.

In the book, Dudley's birthday is during summer break, on a Saturday, and his birthday occurs roughly a month before Harry's.
A week before Harry's birthday the 'Letters from No One' start to arrive.
With the very first letter the Dursleys decide to move Harry out of the cupboard.
Harry is moved into Dudley's second bedroom, with Dudley's 'month-old' video camera broken on the shelf.
Dudley got that camera for his birthday that year.
That puts his birthday about June 23.
I do wonder about the school children in the movie, but perhaps they were a year-round school or a prepatory school on an excursion. I am not sure if England supports year-round education, but I know this is an option in America, as I am in one.

In the book doesn't it say that by the time Harry got out of his cupboard the summer holidays had begun? Which means that Dudley's birthday was during the school term. In England most schools break up about 1/2 way through July, which still makes your date for Dudley's birthday correct. An explannation for the school children being at the zoo on a Saturday could be that they were on a trip, and had to wear their uniform. Though it's unusual for school trips in England to be at the weekend, they do sometimes have them...

Dudley's birthday is in late June, before schools have broken up.

If a school visited the zoo on a weekday, the kids might just wear their uniforms, though more likely not. A weekend school trip would not be very likely anyway.

What is the deal with Dumbledore shaking Harry after Harry was chosen for the Triwizard Tournament? Dumbledore is a legilemens and certainly that's what he practiced in the book to assure himself Hary did not know about it. It's not discussed, but we saw that 'I can see through you' look from Dumbledore at least twice before in the movies, so a careful penetrating look would have been understood by even the movie-only folks. I also have trouble believing that was merely Michael Gambon's intepretation of that scene - it was just too out of character to pass it off.

I also have trouble believing that was merely Michael Gambon's intepretation of that scene - it was just too out of character to pass it off.

It seemed to work fine for most audiences. Legilimency doesn't come up, complete with An Explanation, until OotP. GoF had enough to do without introducing elements from the next film.

It's not discussed, but we saw that 'I can see through you' look from Dumbledore at least twice before in the movies, so a careful penetrating look would have been understood by even the movie-only folks.[/QUOTE]

The movies never have stated that Dumbledore has a "I can see through you" look. It just looked like a penetrating stare that any school master might have if he/she is trying to "guilt" a student into some admission.

Moreover, given that people did not remember what Polyjuice Potion was, they probably would not have remembered Legilimancy if it had been mentioned.


So, for the audience to recognize Legilimancy, it would have needed to have been introduced earlier in GoF. Also, it would have needed to have been established that Dumbledore was a legilimens. After all, the gun that is fired should be shown on the mantle and the audience should be told what the "gun" is if they do not already know.


Finally, this would have necessitated some other way of showing how shaken and upset Dumbledore was that Harry got entered into the tournament.

As Queen_Beruth notes, GoF had enough to do without finding room for those three things. Given that the distressed Gandalf did not bother audiences (although it mortified many Tolkien fans), I cannot see that the main audiences cared.


This is a little off-topic, but Dumbledore's legilimancy skills must not be too widely known: otherwise, people would not have questioned his conclusion that Harry was innocent. It also is interesting that Snape was still convinced that Harry had cheated his way into the tournament despite being a skilled legilimens himself.


I also have trouble believing that was merely Michael Gambon's intepretation of that scene - it was just too out of character to pass it off.

It is almost never is just an actor's interpretation. Actors are directed by directors. Newell was trying to convey a particular aspect of Dumbledore's emotional state. Movies must show, after all, so Newell was trying to show something.

I have a random question about the GoF movie...

After Harry competes in the Second Task, Crouch Sr. pulls him aside to talk to him. Then Imposter Moody comes over to talk to them. Moody (Crouch JR.) says "Bartimus! Not trying to lure Potter into one of the ministry's summer internships are we? Last boy who went into the department of ministries (or does he say mysteries?) never came out!"

For the life of me, I can't figure out what Crouch Jr. is talking about.
Of course, the whole Polyjuice thing can get quite confusing.
I really need to re-read GoF again. Thanks for any help!

I do agree- clothes were different. But I like how they portrayed Voldemort. At least they didnt skip big parts like they did in the PoA movie.

I have a random question about the GoF movie...

After Harry competes in the Second Task, Crouch Sr. pulls him aside to talk to him. Then Imposter Moody comes over to talk to them. Moody (Crouch JR.) says "Bartimus! Not trying to lure Potter into one of the ministry's summer internships are we? Last boy who went into the department of ministries (or does he say mysteries?) never came out!"

For the life of me, I can't figure out what Crouch Jr. is talking about.
Of course, the whole Polyjuice thing can get quite confusing.
I really need to re-read GoF again. Thanks for any help!

It's not in the book.

The prevailing theory is that he was referring to himself. His father got him an internship in the Department of Mysteries, and that's probably where he became a Death Eater, and was never the same again. BC Sr. caught the reference, especially when it was combined with the flicking tongue.

I've always thought of that as a hint towards OOTP more than anything else, after all, Harry and co go there and end up getting lost (technically, you could say...)

I don't know where else to post this...Has it been confirmed whether or not Gary Oldman is going to be Sirius in OOTP?

I don't know where else to post this...Has it been confirmed whether or not Gary Oldman is going to be Sirius in OOTP?
Yes, he is returning. His agent confirmed it.

Yes, he is returning. His agent confirmed it.


Thank You!!!!:clap: That makes my day. :D

I have two questions:

1. In POA what is up with the toads the choir used?

I have two questions:

1. In POA what is up with the toads the choir used?

Well. Thats 1 question, but never mind.

They are just an added little thing. Visual (and in this case Audio) aids.
Nothing more, Nothing less.

I was wondering if anyone had an idea as to why Dumbledore is shown in the last two movies using wandless magic? When I first saw this in Prisoner of Azkaban (Dumbledore lowering Harry from his fall onto the Quidditch field) I thought it was a simple mistake, but on my second viewing of Goblet of Fire, I see that Dumbledore is performing more wandless magic (the lowering of the flames at the Goblet of Fire ceremony for one). Is this just another mistake or is this supposed to suggest to us - as if we needed it - that Dumbledore is powerful enough not to need a wand....which does not conform to the rules that Rowling has set up for magic. :huh:

I was wondering if anyone had an idea as to why Dumbledore is shown in the last two movies using wandless magic? When I first saw this in Prisoner of Azkaban (Dumbledore lowering Harry from his fall onto the Quidditch field) I thought it was a simple mistake, but on my second viewing of Goblet of Fire, I see that Dumbledore is performing more wandless magic (the lowering of the flames at the Goblet of Fire ceremony for one). Is this just another mistake or is this supposed to suggest to us - as if we needed it - that Dumbledore is powerful enough not to need a wand....which does not conform to the rules that Rowling has set up for magic. :huh:


Well I think the part where he saved Harry in the 3rd one was a mistake, but J.K. Rowling has said that accomplished wizards can do wandless magic for somethings.

The wandless magic in the movies is a bit annoying actually but I think the wandless magic by Dumbledore is just simple 'artistic license'.

There is precedence in the books for wandless magic. Those who are not of age do it. Tom Riddle had quite a developed usage of wandless magic prior to learning he was a wizard. Remus, Harry, Snape, as well as Dumbledore have all performed small feats of wandless magic within the books as well. Remus made fire appear in his hands. Harry said Lumos and though he was not holding his wand, the wand lit. Snape snapped his fingers and conjured ropes that bound Remus. Dumbledore's wandless magic escapes me at the moment....

Jo Rowling said "You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge), but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand."

[B]EDIT: Oh, I have just remembered: animagus, animorphmagus, apparition...

These are all forms of controlled wandless magic.

Is it me, or does anybody else find the style of Harry's hair a dissapointment.

I mean, its always described as being very messy and wild. But only rarely is it messy as JKR would describe it. It also makes Harry (dan look every young in my opinion)

But in PS it wasn't-http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/556/potterphilosophers016hz.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=potterphilosophers016hz.jpg)
Flat Hair

In COS it was a bit better-
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4554/harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.jpg)

In POA it get better
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5936/437cc.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=437cc.jpg)

And in GOF, it was pretty much spot on most of the time-
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6251/gofpromo0145qh.th.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gofpromo0145qh.jpg)

Just a thing that bugs me a little.

Is it me, or does anybody else find the style of Harry's hair a dissapointment.

I mean, its always described as being very messy and wild. But only rarely is it messy as JKR would describe it. It also makes Harry (dan look every young in my opinion)

But in PS it wasn't-http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/556/potterphilosophers016hz.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=potterphilosophers016hz.jpg)
Flat Hair

In COS it was a bit better-
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4554/harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.jpg)

In POA it get better
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5936/437cc.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=437cc.jpg)

And in GOF, it was pretty much spot on most of the time-
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6251/gofpromo0145qh.th.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gofpromo0145qh.jpg)

Just a thing that bugs me a little.
I think in film 3 and 4, it looked exactly how I imagined it, 3 most though.

Is it me, or does anybody else find the style of Harry's hair a dissapointment.

I mean, its always described as being very messy and wild. But only rarely is it messy as JKR would describe it. It also makes Harry (dan look every young in my opinion)

But in PS it wasn't-http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/556/potterphilosophers016hz.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=potterphilosophers016hz.jpg)
Flat Hair

In COS it was a bit better-
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4554/harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=harrypotterandthechamberofsecr1.jpg)

In POA it get better
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5936/437cc.th.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=437cc.jpg)

And in GOF, it was pretty much spot on most of the time-
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6251/gofpromo0145qh.th.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gofpromo0145qh.jpg)

Just a thing that bugs me a little.

At least in film 4 Hagrid actually makes a reference to Harry's hair (dragon scene when Harry asks Hagrid if he's combed his hair and Hagrid said he had and it wouldn't hurt if Harry did too once in a while)

I loved the first 2 movies, mainly because I thought that the main characters were really spot on. Yes, I noticed the annoying little details, but the movies were done splendidly close to the books (though I was a bit upset the didn't put the Weasley twins going "make way for the heir, seriously dark wizard coming thru", etc, would have put a bit more humour to it. PoA was a bit of shock and horror at first (didn't realise it was a different director or Dumbledore at first) but actually enjoyed the movie.

However, GoF really got on my nerves. The characters didn't seem to come out properly, the plot was a bit all over the place and I think that is the most important part to a movie. The characters portrail and the plot or else it's just...?

By the extra scenes in Goblet Of Fire we see Karkarov telling Snape that the Dark Mark is getting clearer and that soon Voldemort would be back. Snape sais: " I have nothing to be scared of, but can you say the same?" Does that mean that Snape doesn't have to be scared because he never betrayed Voldemort but Karkarov should be because he did betray the Dark Lord ?

By the extra scenes in Goblet Of Fire we see Karkarov telling Snape that the Dark Mark is getting clearer and that soon Voldemort would be back. Snape sais: " I have nothing to be scared of, but can you say the same?" Does that mean that Snape doesn't have to be scared because he never betrayed Voldemort but Karkarov should be because he did betray the Dark Lord ?

Probably. Karkaroff testified against a lot of Death Eaters in order to get out of Azkaban, so they probably aren't too fond of him. And Snape, even if he IS on Dumbledore's side, is certainly not going to let Karkaroff know that, because he would certainly spill that information to Voldemort if it thought it would help him.

So I've been seeing a lot of "They cut out so much important stuff from OOTP movie!"

What on Earth are people referring to when they say this? Judging from I heard, they're keeping everything o_0

I didn't know that the girl with Ernie in GOF was Hannah.....it wasn't the same actress...and the one who plays hannah has been in all the three previous movies....

But yes....Ernie is quite tall now, isnt he?

Hey! I didn't know that they where Ernie and Hannah. I am going to have to go back and look at the DVD. Can someone tell me where they come out in movie two and three. I would really like to look for them. Thanks

That's probably people just saying that they're annoyed that their favourate parts are/hhave been cut from the movies.

I dont think they come in the third movie...but in the second one when the trio are in the studie hall you see them, and in the deleted secens they talk about how harrys a parcelmoulth.

So I've been seeing a lot of "They cut out so much important stuff from OOTP movie!"

What on Earth are people referring to when they say this? Judging from I heard, they're keeping everything o_0Important is very relative to each person. One person may think items are important, while another may not.

It's basically 'whatever scenes/parts we want to see on screen are considered important' - well, at least to me. :)

It would be wonderful to see the complete book, page for page in screen. However, this is not doable. Therefore things may be cut. Many people think SPEW is important, or a certain line spoken by one character, or a missing Peeves or something.

It's hard to tell what they cut, as like you said, I keep hearing things being filmed that I am surprised are in the movies. Grawp for example. Even Percy appearing and being "obnoxious". We'll have to see.

You may get better results asking in this thread.

Questions about HP movies. (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=86173&page=6)

It would be wonderful to see the complete book, page for page in screen.

Obviously I am not answering for you, but making a general point.

On the rare occasions that a book has been very literally translated to screen (usually in the form of a TV mini-series), the result is mediocre. The TV version of Rebecca is just one exampe; not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Hitchcock's compressed, dramatic 2 hour film.

Even highly praised TV series like Brideshead Revisited and The Jewel in the Crown are terribly slow and sluggish. They are like filmed plays, with the actors reciting lines from the book, but with no use of space, wretched pacing, no flair in shot composition or editing, nothing, in short, that makes cinema cinematic.

It's hard to tell what they cut, as like you said, I keep hearing things being filmed that I am surprised are in the movies. Grawp for example. Even Percy appearing and being "obnoxious". We'll have to see.
I could imagine the letter from Percy being done by way of Percy pulling Ron aside and giving him a warning, which both serves to show the split among the Weasleys and establishes the plotting of the Ministry against Harry via Umbridge. Ron reading a longish letter would be really boring and lame. I suppose that could be done with Ron throwing the letter down in disgust and then Harry picking it up and ranting over excerpts, but either way, you want dialogue and movement, not just something the audience has to read (if they wanted to read, they'd have read the book instead).

Obviously I am not answering for you, but making a general point.

On the rare occasions that a book has been very literally translated to screen (usually in the form of a TV mini-series), the result is mediocre. The TV version of Rebecca is just one exampe; not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Hitchcock's compressed, dramatic 2 hour film.

Even highly praised TV series like Brideshead Revisited and The Jewel in the Crown are terribly slow and sluggish. They are like filmed plays, with the actors reciting lines from the book, but with no use of space, wretched pacing, no flair in shot composition or editing, nothing, in short, that makes cinema cinematic.The most thing to remember about turning a book like Harry Potter (page to page) into a movie is time and money.

There is no feasible way to put the books on film as they are. Not only would the movie be 24 hours long (or more), the financial cost to make the film are prohibitive. Which is why we see a portion of the books. Whether it's focus on a central theme or small "filler" scenes being cut, the end result will typically be different from the book.

And of course, once again, as mentioned many times by many people, sometimes certain text does not translate well into the screen. The "AngryDumbledore" for example. I have no problem with AngryDumbledore. Why? Because I know that the audience is never going to understand why Harry's name being pulled from the goblet is a BAD thing. If Dumbledore reacted calmly, it would undermine the seriousness and tension of the situation and also fail to show that Harry is not supposed to be a champion. But that's just me ;)

I could imagine the letter from Percy being done by way of Percy pulling Ron aside and giving him a warning, which both serves to show the split among the Weasleys and establishes the plotting of the Ministry against Harry via Umbridge. Ron reading a longish letter would be really boring and lame. I suppose that could be done with Ron throwing the letter down in disgust and then Harry picking it up and ranting over excerpts, but either way, you want dialogue and movement, not just something the audience has to read (if they wanted to read, they'd have read the book instead).Well, you could have Ron storm in angry, telling Harry why he is angry (with a weeping Mrs. Weasley somewhere around).

I have no problem with Percy being in the film, I'm just surprised he is, considering past cuts. But again, the book is less action, more dialogue (compared to GoF) and there is a new scriptwriter. Apparently Mrs Figg is also in the film. That's good, bodes well for the opening Dementor scene. But again, I am surprised that certain things seems to be in the film.

When Cedric Disarmed Krum in the maze, Krum wasn't Disarmed. His wand stayed in his hand. How could that be?

The producers changed the effect of the Disarming spell so that it threw back the attacker and generally knocks them out.

When Cedric Disarmed Krum in the maze, Krum wasn't Disarmed. His wand stayed in his hand. How could that be?I noticed this in all Harry Potter movies, actually. I don't think it is a mistake, though.

Expelliarmus cast calmly (your emotion is calm or mellow) pops the wand out of the person's hand nicely (Lupin casting the spell on Harry in the Shrieking Shack).

If the spell is cast in anger/fear/by inexperienced people, it throws them back violently. It may be a deliberate action that the movie producers decided on.

If the spell is cast in anger/fear/by inexperienced people, it throws them back violently. It may be a deliberate action that the movie producers decided on.
It appears to be taken from the books and displayed in the movies...Snape did 'Expelliarmus' to Lockhart, which instead of disarming him threw him into the air and slammed him into a wall. The trio did the same to Snape in POA in the book, however in the movie it was Harry vs Snape.

It appears to be taken from the books and displayed in the movies...Snape did 'Expelliarmus' to Lockhart, which instead of disarming him threw him into the air and slammed him into a wall. The trio did the same to Snape in POA in the book, however in the movie it was Harry vs Snape.
Good spot, I didn't pick this up. Yeah, but I guess the effect of any spell depends on its user. For example, Voldemort could use the Avada Kedavra Curse and it would work perfectly, but if Harry tried it wouldn't kill anyone.

what i always don't get is that scene with Karkaroff sneaking to the GoF...what is that about?

Red Herring. They want to draw the audience in to suspecting Karkaroff had placed Harry's name in the cup.

which is fine unless you've read the book...in which case it was very annoying! The thing about the film that annoyed me was there is no way you could really understand it without reading the book, and watching it with someone who hadnt, i was constantly asked questions about different things. Particularly the beginning, the portkey scene..far too much cut out. well i think anyways.

which is fine unless you've read the book...in which case it was very annoying! The thing about the film that annoyed me was there is no way you could really understand it without reading the book, and watching it with someone who hadnt, i was constantly asked questions about different things. Particularly the beginning, the portkey scene..far too much cut out. well i think anyways.
Actually I saw the film with both my parents, neither of whom have read the books and they had little to no difficulty understanding it. My mum remarked that it was the first film she'd been able to understand. And any way, they did it a lot better than that mess film ending PoA.

which is fine unless you've read the book...in which case it was very annoying! The thing about the film that annoyed me was there is no way you could really understand it without reading the book.....

Yet tens of millions of people seem to have managed it.

I have a question. What was up with the whole Philosophers/Sorceror's stone ordeal in the movie? Did the British version call it the Philosophers stone? And if so, did they do a voice over or something for the countries where its called the sorceror's stone?

I have a question. What was up with the whole Philosophers/Sorceror's stone ordeal in the movie? Did the British version call it the Philosophers stone? And if so, did they do a voice over or something for the countries where its called the sorceror's stone?

Well, I think that since Warner Brothers is based in one of the "Sorcerer's Stone" countries, they just filmed two versions for those few scenes. One with the actors saying "Sorcerer" and one with them saying "Philosopher." Otherwise, sad to say, even though it's a British book, they'd most likely have been the voice-over recipients.

Yet tens of millions of people seem to have managed it.

Amen. The films were very well put together, so they could stand on their own without having to delve into JKR's text. They did, however, give a strong pull toward reading the books because they were so good... I guess it's the mentality that if you like the movie, you will probably like the book and vice versa.

Yet tens of millions of people seem to have managed it.

I know that many of them did just fine without reading the books but I know a lot of people who watched the movies and didn´t understand the whole plot, the reason for people´s actions and so on. That is especially in the last two films though, Philosopher´s Stone and Chamber of Secrets were good to understand even if you hadn´t read the books.

I have a question. What was up with the whole Philosophers/Sorceror's stone ordeal in the movie? Did the British version call it the Philosophers stone? And if so, did they do a voice over or something for the countries where its called the sorceror's stone?Yes, the British title was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...just as the book title was.

In America, JK had previously given permission for the book title to be altered to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone...so WB kept that title for the title of the movie.

The HP actors shot the scenes, simply changing the word---Sorcerer's/Philosopher's.

Yes, the British title was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...just as the book title was.

In America, JK had previously given permission for the book title to be altered to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone...so WB kept that title for the title of the movie.

The HP actors shot the scenes, simply changing the word---Sorcerer's/Philosopher's.

Are you sure that the movie in the UK said Philosopher's stone? My guess would just be since WB is United States based, the movie around the world would have just said Sorcerer's Stone.

Are you sure that the movie in the UK said Philosopher's stone? .

It did indeed.

That is especially in the last two films though, Philosopher´s Stone and Chamber of Secrets were good to understand even if you hadn´t read the books.

General audiences found the opposite to be true. The first two movies had so much extraneous stuff that many people got confused about what the stories and plots were supposed to be.

Audiences (and critics) liked the last two movies. They were much more like the Lord of the Rings adaptations, in that they focused on the critical elements, discarded potentially distracting side stories, and also kept a brisk pace.


In America, JK had previously given permission for the book title to be altered to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone...so WB kept that title for the title of the movie.

It was not JKR's decision, but a decision by the publishers. Ultimately, they have control over the title and everything else that is printed, after all. At any rate, it was thought that Americans are too poorly educated to recognize the word "philosopher" and that they certainly would not know of the Philosopher's Stone. They probably were correct, but they seemed to be ignorant of the fact that many Americans are very superstitious about magic and that Sorceror would antagonize many people!


As for what WB would do, they would have wanted to keep the titles used in the countries in order to maximized name recognition.

It did indeed.

Is it possible to get a hold of the UK copy of the DVD. I would love to see the contrasts, even if it were minimal.

Is it possible to get a hold of the UK copy of the DVD. I would love to see the contrasts, even if it were minimal.

You can order one from AmazonUK or any number of sites. HOWEVER.... different regions have a different encryption code on the DVDs. Your DVD player will not be able to play it. You can watch it on a computer, but most computers allow you to change the region code only 3 times. (I think that International copyright law dictates this.) So, you might be a little leery of doing that.

Similarly, UK tapes are on a different format (PAL) than are ours. So, you cannot go that route, either!


My advice is just rent it the next time you are in the UK and watch it on a local computer. That is what I did!

My advice is just rent it the next time you are in the UK and watch it on a local computer. That is what I did!

Wish it was that easy :lol:. Wimsey, were there parts that seemed much different? Like you could blatently tell it was different.

i have a question about GoF...

when harry comes out of the pensieve and Dumbledore is like " ive searched and searched for a small detail... and everytime i get close to an answer, it slips away"

something like that.... so what is he talking about in this scene??

i have a question about GoF...

when harry comes out of the pensieve and Dumbledore is like " ive searched and searched for a small detail... and everytime i get close to an answer, it slips away"

something like that.... so what is he talking about in this scene??

Basically, at least i'm preety sure, Dumbledore was trying to find out who was behind all the actions that had taken place, i.e. Harry in the Triwizard, The Dark Mark, and in the book, Bertha Jorkins dissapperance.

in poa ,when prof. trelawney , she also saysthat "innocent blood will be split" but no-one split blood. what's she playing at?

in poa ,when prof. trelawney , she also saysthat "innocent blood will be split" but no-one split blood. what's she playing at?


Ron did gash his leg! :D

in poa ,when prof. trelawney , she also saysthat "innocent blood will be split" but no-one split blood. what's she playing at?

I think what they meant by that was that more innocent lives will be taken away when Voldemort returns with his servant. But I must agree with Queen_Beruth. He did gash his leg. :)

Wish it was that easy :lol:. Wimsey, were there parts that seemed much different? Like you could blatently tell it was different.

Yes. "Sorceror" sounds like "Philosopher" with an English accent, even though it sounded like "sorceror" in California.....



On the issue of proportions of the audience that have read a book......

According to Sony's exit polls, about half of the people who saw The Da Vinci Code on the opening weekend had read the book. In the states, that would scale to 5.5 of about 11M people. This is noteworthy because DVC has sold about 40M copies worldwide, which is comparable to the numbers sold by the HP books (and probably more than PSS had sold in 2001), and it (like Harry Potter) has been the subject of great notoriety. The comparison also is good because DVC's opening weekend is very much like a Harry Potter weekend: huge, even after adjusting for inflation.

Now, the thing to keep in mind is that the opening weekend represents the people who are rushing out to see it. This will obviously include a disproportionate number of people who read the book: after all, what better advertising is there for a movie than having read the story and liked it?

The other side of this coin is that although fans of the books will continue to see the movie, they will represent a rapidly dropping proportion of the audience. The people who see it after this weekend obviously are (for the most part) just not in as big of a rush.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Sony asked only if people had read the books. The "fans" of a book (i.e., people like us) represent only a fraction of the people who read the books. Certainly all of us here know many more people who read Harry Potter but who do not really pay attention to it: they do not remember the locket from OotP, they did not go from RAB -> Regulus ?A? Black, etc. We almost certainly are a minority of the book readers.

So, even supposing that it is a large minority, this suggests that people like us are only a quarter of even the opening audience.

Question: Which real life band posed as the Weird Sisters in GoF?

Thanks.


(Sorry if this has been asked already!)

To answer that, lots. Can't remember the names of the people, but they weren't all from the same band.