Questions about the Harry Potter Movies

[RemusPotter]

They are not seen in the Battle of Hogwarts, and they're not mentioned at all. Do you think the food is cooked by them, or did Dumbledore contracted a magical catering company ?

[Dobby138]

Throughout DH1, Harry seems to know that his parents lived, died, and he was born, in Godric's Hollow. However, I don't recall this fact being mentioned in earlier films?

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

Throughout DH1, Harry seems to know that his parents lived, died, and he was born, in Godric's Hollow. However, I don't recall this fact being mentioned in earlier films?

It wasn't.

So what's the alternative?

Something like this:

Harry: "Godric's Hollow, where's that?"

Other person: "It's a village where you were born."

Harry: "What!? Wow! I never knew that. Tell me more."

Other person: "blah. .... blah.... blah ..." (for 4 minutes)

A chunk of unnecessary Explanation! was the last thing the audience needed at that point.

[PianoPlaya]

This isn't a particular question about something in the films, but I didn't really know where to post this, so I thought it fit best here. Anyways, after reading many posts, many fans don't like the movies or don't like how many things are missing the films and say they aren't faithful to the books. I feel like I am the only one who absolutely LOVES all of the films. Sure there are some small sub plots that are not explorered to the depths that they are in the books and there are some scenes missing. But overall, I find the movies (all of them) so be very faithful to the books. They capture the main plot lines and the main atmosphere. And not to mention the setting and characters are done perfectly. So im just wondering if anyone here feels the same as me?

[MoonlightSonata]

Originally Posted by PianoPlaya

This isn't a particular question about something in the films, but I didn't really know where to post this, so I thought it fit best here. Anyways, after reading many posts, many fans don't like the movies or don't like how many things are missing the films and say they aren't faithful to the books. I feel like I am the only one who absolutely LOVES all of the films. Sure there are some small sub plots that are not explorered to the depths that they are in the books and there are some scenes missing. But overall, I find the movies (all of them) so be very faithful to the books. They capture the main plot lines and the main atmosphere. And not to mention the setting and characters are done perfectly. So im just wondering if anyone here feels the same as me?

I feel exactly the same way. I think the films a great at capturing the overall themes and plotlines of the books, even though they can't fit every single scene in (which, in my opinion, is a little silly to complain about). Besides, the films aren't the main medium of conveying the story. If one wanted to know the true plots of Harry Potter, they should pick up the books. The films are great for showing the story visually, but somebody would be mistaken to think that all would be presented before them this way.

[Slartibartfast]

feel like I am the only one who absolutely LOVES all of the films.

You arent. I love all of the films. Even HBP and its the one i love the least. I love watching them. The casting is amazing and the sets beautiful. Without the movies, i wouldnt be here.

[ForbiddenSecret]

I was watching COS today, and had thought of a question right after Harry did his detention with Gildory. I'm pretty sure that in the book it says after the detention it was midnight or later, and in the movie it looks very dark outside, so why are there so many students in the corridors? Wouldn't they get in trouble?

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by ForbiddenSecret

I was watching COS today, and had thought of a question right after Harry did his detention with Gildory. I'm pretty sure that in the book it says after the detention it was midnight or later, and in the movie it looks very dark outside, so why are there so many students in the corridors? Wouldn't they get in trouble?

Harry's detention with Lockhart was at midnight in the book but in the film, they changed it so Mrs. Norris is attacked after Harry's detention. In the book, the attack happens on Halloween when the trio are coming out of the deathday party, that's when Harry hears the voice and follows it. The kids are just leaving the Halloween feast out of the great hall.

[ForbiddenSecret]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Harry's detention with Lockhart was at midnight in the book but in the film, they changed it so Mrs. Norris is attacked after Harry's detention. In the book, the attack happens on Halloween when the trio are coming out of the deathday party, that's when Harry hears the voice and follows it. The kids are just leaving the Halloween feast out of the great hall.

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me !

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by ForbiddenSecret

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me !

No problem. You were very perceptive to notice that! It might just be a film mistake.

[Boltz17]

So this just came to my head this morning and I don’t know the answer either. So in Deathly Hallows Part II we see Snape casting his Patronus spell, which leads Harry to the Sword of Gryffindor, and that scene occurred in Part I. However, when Snape cast the patronus, he was in the room with Dumbledore, who had already been dead by the time Harry found the Sword of Gryffindor in the lake. So I am confused about this part. I have heard Snape was talking to Dumbledore’s portrait, but Dumbledore looked completely alive talking to Snape. So how was Dumbledore there in his office, talking to Snape, if he was already dead?

[ILuvDarkMarks]

Originally Posted by Boltz17

So this just came to my head this morning and I don’t know the answer either. So in Deathly Hallows Part II we see Snape casting his Patronus spell, which leads Harry to the Sword of Gryffindor, and that scene occurred in Part I. However, when Snape cast the patronus, he was in the room with Dumbledore, who had already been dead by the time Harry found the Sword of Gryffindor in the lake. So I am confused about this part. I have heard Snape was talking to Dumbledore’s portrait, but Dumbledore looked completely alive talking to Snape. So how was Dumbledore there in his office, talking to Snape, if he was already dead?

I thought of it as two separate scenes. Snape casting his Patronus in Dumbledore's office was just his way of showing Dumbledore (and the audience) that he still loves Lily, but also served as a way of showing the audience that it was he who had planted the sword. Yet actually casting the Patronus in the forest was at a completely separate time. Hope that helps!

[Dobby138]

Why is Fleur's sister in the Great Hall when the Triwizard Tournament was announced?

[xoxhpxox]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

Why is Fleur's sister in the Great Hall when the Triwizard Tournament was announced?

She just came to watch/support her sister should she be chosen to comepte

Originally Posted by lumoshemuttered

Lily gave him a bowl with a lily petal in it that she transformed into a fish. The day she died, the fish vanished. Side note, in the films, we see that Slughorn's Patronus is a fish.

this was never in the book (am i right?) and it came as quite a surprise to me.

[Dobby138]

I am almost certain of this, but I may be wrong - When Harry and Hermione went back in time using the Time Turner, Harry casts the Patronus that, the first time he had witnessed these events (when he was beside the lake with Sirius while the Dementors were attacking) he thought his Dad had cast. So, the "first time", Harry was lying beside the lake drifting out of consciousness, and saw the Stag just before he became unconscious. But, I don't recall seeing the Stag "second time" around, when Harry actually cast it? This is based on what I saw in the film, of course.

[BurrowGhoul]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

I am almost certain of this, but I may be wrong - When Harry and Hermione went back in time using the Time Turner, Harry casts the Patronus that, the first time he had witnessed these events (when he was beside the lake with Sirius while the Dementors were attacking) he thought his Dad had cast. So, the "first time", Harry was lying beside the lake drifting out of consciousness, and saw the Stag just before he became unconscious. But, I don't recall seeing the Stag "second time" around, when Harry actually cast it? This is based on what I saw in the film, of course.

Why "of course?"
When Harry cast the stag Patronus in the book, he was reaching his hand out to touch it as it cantered back to him. Almost-unconscious Harry thought it was his father welcoming it back.

[Dobby138]

Originally Posted by BurrowGhoul

Why "of course?"
When Harry cast the stag Patronus in the book, he was reaching his hand out to touch it as it cantered back to him. Almost-unconscious Harry thought it was his father welcoming it back.

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood, although, what you said will help me explain: in the film, when Harry cast the Patronus, there was no stag? Although, when Harry witnessed the events the first time, I believe there was a stag, and he saw himself (who he believed to be his father at the time) touching the stag, like you mentioned. But the "second time" there was no stag that he touched?

[BurrowGhoul]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood, although, what you said will help me explain: in the film, when Harry cast the Patronus, there was no stag? Although, when Harry witnessed the events the first time, I believe there was a stag, and he saw himself (who he believed to be his father at the time) touching the stag, like you mentioned. But the "second time" there was no stag that he touched?

No, it's my fault, I thought I was in the "Little Questions" thread, not "Questions about the Harry Potter Movies." Please ignore my response.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood, although, what you said will help me explain: in the film, when Harry cast the Patronus, there was no stag? Although, when Harry witnessed the events the first time, I believe there was a stag, and he saw himself (who he believed to be his father at the time) touching the stag, like you mentioned. But the "second time" there was no stag that he touched?

In the PoA film, Harry and Sirius are attacked by dementors and as Harry struggles to remain conscious he sees a white stag form across the lake. This stag stays for a couple of seconds and then is consumed by the white light of the Patronus that actually drives away the dementors (which has no form).

In the Time-Turner sequence, we see the time traveling Harry wait for his father to appear, but nothing happens. He then jumps out on the rock, yells "Expecto Patronum!", and the indistinct Patronus (i.e. no stag) forms to drive away the dementors.

The only inconsistency is that in the earlier version of the scene Harry sees a stag before the Patronus is formed. In the Time-Turner sequence, we do not see that stag - the Patronus that Harry casts is that which consumes the stag in the earlier scene. This leads me to the conclusion that the early Harry (i.e. the one struggling for consciousness) imagines the stag, or else that the camera angle we see of the Time-Turner Harry does not show a stag (which is less likely, in my opinion).

(For comparison of the two scenes you can visit these two videos: The Dementor's Kiss and Time-Turner sequence.)

[Dobby138]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

In the PoA film, Harry and Sirius are attacked by dementors and as Harry struggles to remain conscious he sees a white stag form across the lake. This stag stays for a couple of seconds and then is consumed by the white light of the Patronus that actually drives away the dementors (which has no form).

In the Time-Turner sequence, we see the time traveling Harry wait for his father to appear, but nothing happens. He then jumps out on the rock, yells "Expecto Patronum!", and the indistinct Patronus (i.e. no stag) forms to drive away the dementors.

The only inconsistency is that in the earlier version of the scene Harry sees a stag before the Patronus is formed. In the Time-Turner sequence, we do not see that stag - the Patronus that Harry casts is that which consumes the stag in the earlier scene. This leads me to the conclusion that the early Harry (i.e. the one struggling for consciousness) imagines the stag, or else that the camera angle we see of the Time-Turner Harry does not show a stag (which is less likely, in my opinion).

(For comparison of the two scenes you can visit these two videos: The Dementor's Kiss and Time-Turner sequence.)

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Thanks for your answer and for sharing those videos!