Jump to content

Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread


John Crichton

Recommended Posts

Yea they did a really good job with OOTP covering all the important parts of the book and making a nice tight movie out of it. Too bad they never filmed the Quidditch stuff. Even if Yates never wanted it to be in his theatrical cut, someone at WB should have asked him to film it for a future DVD

GOF is the one film I REALLY wish they filmed more stuff... they just took the bare minimum of important story elements out of it and left SO much unfilmed, some stuff that would really have paid off in the later movies like especially Dobby's character development

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but my point is that the deleted scenes are only so much.... there are lots and lots from the books they COULD have filmed but simply didn't.... adding back in the deleted scenes from movies 3-6 would make them longer and include FEW more things from the book, but tons of stuff was dropped at the scripting level and never filmed

If I was in charge, I would have filmed 3 hour + versions of all the movies.... still released shorter theatrical cuts first, but release the longer cuts on home video later

You have to keep in mind that up until 2008, the three principals were under the age of 18. It's not like LOTR where each principal actor was of age and could work overtime to film hours and hours of deleted scenes. For the majority of the franchise, the Harry Potter kids were minors. This means that the filmmakers had to deal with UK unions and strict child labour laws that contended the kids had to take multiple, mandatory hour-long breaks in between filming, plus at least 3 hours of studying with a tutor each day and they had to be off the set by sundown. All four directors who worked on the series have complained about multiple occasions where JUST as they were starting to make progress on a scene with these inexperienced actors, they had to suddenly be pulled away and stop filming for one of the above reasons. Not to mention they were in a race against time, trying to make sure each film was written, shot, and completed in around 18 months (the Columbus films were produced even faster) so that they could move on to the next one and keep each kid at the appropriate age. These two Deathly Hallows films were really the first and only time where it was feasible to get Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson to work long hours for 18 months of principal photography alone to make a 5 hour adaptation.

I would agree, though, that the real problem isn't that principal photography didn't cover enough, but that not enough went into pre-production planning, which means absolutely everything in film production and many inherent storytelling flaws can usually be traced back there. There are a handful of things in the books that should have been included but weren't, and many things that WERE included, that were either poorly incorporated or simply should have been cut. I'm sure that part of the film series' flaws can be attributed to poor storytelling skills, but it's also important to remember that, by necessity, pre-production on each Potter film was going on simultaneously with post-production on the previous entry (this is the main reason Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell refused to return for another), and there's also the fact that Steve Kloves and all of the directors just didn't have the whole story. The secrecy around the outcome of the books was too well-protected by J.K. Rowling, and back-and-forth emails between her and Steve Kloves couldn't have been enough. Kloves needed knowledge of every little detail of the entire saga in order to plan out the series for film, and he just didn't have the time to pick apart each book in the series as it was coming out and compare any inaccuracies to the current screenplay he was working on, unlike Peter Jackson, who had not only all three LOTR books at his disposal, but a lifetime's knowledge of and passion for Tolkien's work, along with multiple indices, timelines, and references amassed over the past 50 years since those novels were published to prepare for the shoot. Even with "Half-Blood Prince", principal photography started only about a month after the release of the final book. I really think the biggest mistake the series made (given the current conditions) was not hiring TWO screenwriters to get the job done under the enormous constraints of time and pressure. This was not a job for just one writer (LOTR actually had three co-writers) and considering how fast Kloves had to crank out each screenplay and how little he knew about the series as a whole, it's no surprise to me that Kloves took a break in between films 4 and 6.

All things considered, it's kind of a wonder the series turned out as well as it did, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get all the sympathy for Order Of The Phoenix. I think it's by far the worst Potter film. A horribly lame movie with a horribly lame score.

And I'm a fan of Harry Potter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secrecy around the outcome of the books was too well-protected by J.K. Rowling, and back-and-forth emails between her and Steve Kloves couldn't have been enough.

I don't get her paranoia. It's not like Kloves was going to leak it all on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A completely random thought: I generally didn't like this movie at all, but one thing that was really good was the animated story of Deathly Hallows. Very well done. The animation is beautiful.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on Mugglecast said (and I agree) that the mirror as used in DH was a hint by the director that not everything that happens in the Potter universe is shown on screen. In this case, Harry obviously got the mirror from Sirius, but because its origin is not important to the plot, that isn't shown on screen. It's kind of an acknowledgment to fans that even though screen time is limited, we can assume that a lot of the events described in the books still occur off screen and may have an impact on what we see on screen.

To someone who hasn't read the books, it looks like Harry's so vain, he has to keep a broken mirror to look at himself all the time. You're almost wondering if Narcissus will become a plot point. There is no excuse why incomplete subplots are included just for the hell of it.

It's also not like the conclusion of the story is anything wildly surprising.

If anyone thinks the movies are inconsistent, here are two essays that tear the books apart like a Mr. Plinkett video and prove that Rowling never really had a "grand plan", or even if she did, she made a lot up as she went along anyway. It's a masterful deconstruction.

1. Post-Mortem

2. Loose Canon

I highly recommend these if you have a few hours. They're very long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one have the time to scrutinise Rowling's cash cow in such mindblowingly overcooked fashion?

By the way, was Chamber Of Secrets cut for DVD release? I just watched the Rifftrax version, and there are several scenes I didn't remember, including close-ups of the Basilisk, and the camera lingering over "Her skeleton will lie in the chamber forever".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks the movies are inconsistent, here are two essays that tear the books apart like a Mr. Plinkett video and prove that Rowling never really had a "grand plan", or even if she did, she made a lot up as she went along anyway. It's a masterful deconstruction.

1. Post-Mortem

2. Loose Canon

I highly recommend these if you have a few hours. They're very long.

Ranting over inconsistencies like whether Voldemort was in hiding for 10 years or 11 years is not what I'd call a masterful deconstruction. How the author can feel so personally offended, I don't know. It may have to do with the fact that he/she is writing for a Harry Potter fan fiction site. This person pooled all his/her expectations for the series and was devastated when they didn't pay off. Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one have the time to scrutinise Rowling's cash cow in such mindblowingly overcooked fashion?

By the way, was Chamber Of Secrets cut for DVD release? I just watched the Rifftrax version, and there are several scenes I didn't remember, including close-ups of the Basilisk, and the camera lingering over "Her skeleton will lie in the chamber forever".

Yes, those scenes were cut for the German (and Austrian) release to avoid an "over 12" rating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To someone who hasn't read the books, it looks like Harry's so vain, he has to keep a broken mirror to look at himself all the time. You're almost wondering if Narcissus will become a plot point. There is no excuse why incomplete subplots are included just for the hell of it.

I should add that I believe the mirror will play a role in the next film (as it does in the second half of the book) and a sufficient explanation will be given at that point (but perhaps not a complete backstory, which would be unnecessary). I think the mirror is meant to be something of a mystery to non-readers for Part I. Though I think observant viewers would notice what appears to be Dumbledore's reflection in the mirror, not just Harry's.

If anyone thinks the movies are inconsistent, here are two essays that tear the books apart like a Mr. Plinkett video and prove that Rowling never really had a "grand plan", or even if she did, she made a lot up as she went along anyway. It's a masterful deconstruction.

1. Post-Mortem

2. Loose Canon

I highly recommend these if you have a few hours. They're very long.

I have read the books myself and I don't need an essayist to tell me that Rowling is inconsistent and disregards certain details. She is a very practical writer - she focuses on the important points.

However, it is equally clear that she is a brilliant serial writer. She may not have known exactly how she was going to execute her plan, but I see abundant evidence that she had a general plan from the beginning, and specific ideas came together as she wrote the series.

The fact that she may not have known how she was going to tie it all together is further evidence of her brilliance - she was able to pull details from the first three books that seemed insignificant at the time (the diary, the scar, the snitch, the deluminator) and turn them into vital plot points in retrospect. That's the kind of thing Dickens was good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks the movies are inconsistent, here are two essays that tear the books apart like a Mr. Plinkett video and prove that Rowling never really had a "grand plan", or even if she did, she made a lot up as she went along anyway. It's a masterful deconstruction.

1. Post-Mortem

2. Loose Canon

I highly recommend these if you have a few hours. They're very long.

i read those (very long) articles and previous ones (guessing what would happen in HP7) around the time the Half Blood Price came out. It's probably the reason I was so disappointed in Deathly Hallows. I realized the "thought process" behind the books wasn't as deep as I thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who demand "the grand plan" realized as written are fooling themselves. Art is an organic medium and writing things as they are for 15 years would have been extremely boring for anyone. Hence the improvisation. Besides, it always depends what you mean by "grand masterplan". It can be as simple as few lines, one scene, some motif and such. It doesn't have to be word-to-word reconstrction. These articles are pointless and the guy completely doesn't get what the creative process is all about. I wonder if he even realized his analysis as originally planned, paragraph-to-paragraph. ;)

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who demand "the grand people" realized as written are fooling themselves. Art is an organic medium and writing things as they are for 15 years would have been extremely boring for anyone. Hence the improvisation. Besides, it always depends what you mean by "grand masterplan". It can be as simple as few lines, one scene, some motif and such. It doesn't have to be word-to-word reconstrction. These articles are pointless and the guy completely doesn't get what the creative process is all about. I wonder if he even realized his analysis as originally planned, paragraph-to-paragraph. ;)

Karol

(Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that seemingly unimportant things in one book turn into major things a book or 2 or 5 later. I think Rowling had all of these planned from the beginning, which is one reason I'm fascinated by the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite point in the first essay is that Rowling never identifies where good ends and evil begins, and what constitutes "dark magic" and what is an "evil" character? We're instructed to believe this binary logic that there is only good and evil with no ambiguity. Truthfully, I don't mind some old fashioned good vs. evil stories, but what made the epilogue all the more frustrating was that after Voldemort's death, "all was well"? You'd think by her perspective that evil or corruption would never rise again in any form and Harry created a permanent utopia out of thin air, but she leaves the wizarding world in such a dire condition, that it... "magically" fixes itself afterward? That's writing aimed at a simpleton, not children. Why not just a paragraph or two about rebuilding the wizarding government? Perhaps get it out of the Middle Ages and give it some checks and balances and due process (those were addressed earlier in the series but there was no pay-off), or is that "too Muggle" for them? Or does Rowling's protagonist simply not care? I'd just like to know what happened (interviews don't count)!

I think the author is right that she was burnt out and didn't give a crap towards the end, and just let her hyperbole take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one have the time to scrutinise Rowling's cash cow in such mindblowingly overcooked fashion?

By the way, was Chamber Of Secrets cut for DVD release? I just watched the Rifftrax version, and there are several scenes I didn't remember, including close-ups of the Basilisk, and the camera lingering over "Her skeleton will lie in the chamber forever".

Yes, those scenes were cut for the German (and Austrian) release to avoid an "over 12" rating...

What a load of hypocrisy.

Almost as bad as mutilating the LOTR movies for TV purposes.

They even cut Harry stabbing the diary several times ... are there any other cuts from the German film versions that I'm not aware of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite point in the first essay is that Rowling never identifies where good ends and evil begins, and what constitutes "dark magic" and what is an "evil" character? We're instructed to believe this binary logic that there is only good and evil with no ambiguity. Truthfully, I don't mind some old fashioned good vs. evil stories, but what made the epilogue all the more frustrating was that after Voldemort's death, "all was well"? You'd think by her perspective that evil or corruption would never rise again in any form and Harry created a permanent utopia out of thin air, but she leaves the wizarding world in such a dire condition, that it... "magically" fixes itself afterward? That's writing aimed at a simpleton, not children. Why not just a paragraph or two about rebuilding the wizarding government? Perhaps get it out of the Middle Ages and give it some checks and balances and due process (those were addressed earlier in the series but there was no pay-off), or is that "too Muggle" for them? Or does Rowling's protagonist simply not care? I'd just like to know what happened (interviews don't count)!

I haven't read the essay, but I think this is just false. In fact, I think Rowling is saying the exact opposite - that there is no clear cut boundary between good and evil (or, at least, everybody has a little of both inside of them). Look at Dumbledore, the beacon of moral righteousness, who dabbled in dark arts and prejudice as a child and accidentally killed people as a result. Look at Snape, who was taking evil acts (helping Voldemort) to achieve righteous ends (destroying Voldemort) based on a selfish motive (his own love of Lily). Look at Wormtail, an evil servant whose hesitation to do an evil act is what leads to his own demise. Look at Malfoy, a servant of Voldemort who doesn't have the guts to kill Dumbledore or turn Harry into the Death Eaters. Look at Slughorn, who tries to help the Order, but is too afraid of damaging his own reputation to reveal crucial information about Voldemort's past. Look at Ron and, to a lesser extent, Harry, who both let their own emotions take control and act often on angry impulses. Look at Hagrid who loves creatures but who isn't willing to sacrifice his own selfish desire to be with them even if it means his human friends could get hurt or killed. Look at Mrs. Malfoy, who complies with Voldemort but only for the purpose of protecting her family. Look at James Potter, who is at least a politically moral wizard, who spent his years in school bullying weaklings. Look at...

As for the "all was well," I dont' think the logistics of rebuilding is really relevant to the themes of the book. The book is about Harry Potter, his journey to defeat Voldemort, and the outcome on Harry of that defeat. The ministry is just a part of that journey. And I don't think the line is meant to exclude the possibility of any strife in Harry's life. In context with the rest of the passage, it's talking about how his scar hasn't hurt him for a long time. The line is saying all is well scarwise, meaning Harry is free to live out the rest of his life as a normal wizard. He no longer carries a burden that makes his life more difficult than the average guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the books myself and I don't need an essayist to tell me that Rowling is inconsistent and disregards certain details. She is a very practical writer - she focuses on the important points.

Yeah. I remember watching a Biography special on J.K. Rowling a few years back (not the "A Year in the Life of...." one). She had already written the epilogue for "Deathly Hallows" before she even wrote the last two novels -- she did it as an incentive to build up to the end. Of course, she rewrote it some once she completed the final book, not only to accommodate two additional character deaths but that it didn't end with 'scar.' J.K. Rowling doesn't strike me as an overly detailed oriented writer (if so, she would've gotten a headache from getting every detail right), but she got enough big details right.

J.K.R. isn't the first author, and won't be the last, to have inconsistencies and such. I can list several other serialized works (like the Animorphs series), which is even worse off, consistency-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at...

Voldemort! Who was implied to have made the choice to be evil in COS because the theme of that book was that "it's not our abilities that make us who we are, it is our choices" which sends a nice message, but this is contradicted in HBP that he was born evil and is the "evilest wizard ever!" Wow, you're born with it, you're stuck with it, you're like a Goa'uld and inherently bad whether you like it or not; to the least popular house for you! I almost expected him to be born of a jackal after this big piece of retcon.

As for the "all was well," I dont' think the logistics of rebuilding is really relevant to the themes of the book. The book is about Harry Potter, his journey to defeat Voldemort, and the outcome on Harry of that defeat. The ministry is just a part of that journey. And I don't think the line is meant to exclude the possibility of any strife in Harry's life. In context with the rest of the passage, it's talking about how his scar hasn't hurt him for a long time. The line is saying all is well scarwise, meaning Harry is free to live out the rest of his life as a normal wizard. He no longer carries a burden that makes his life more difficult than the average guy.

It does exclude the strife because it acts like nothing happened during those 19 years, and "all was well" is such a vague statement, a crooked legislator would be proud, it can mean just about anything, and a curious reader would like to know what happened to the world that Harry inhabits during those years. It's important in the grand scheme of things because nothing has changed as no-one's learned anything. Are some of its primary themes not about tolerance and acceptance? The prejudices that wizards have toward muggles still exists without even being addressed, and as far as we know, that antiquated house sorting crap still goes on that does nothing but segregate innocent children; good kids go to Gryffindor, evil kids go to Slytherin, smart kids go to Ravenclaw, and dumb kids go to Hufflepuff. I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but throw us a bone and complete the plot thread! Instead, it ends up being a bloated B-grade story about Harry defeating the bad guy, marrying Bree Hodge, and they all lived happily ever after. Grand.

J.K.R. isn't the first author, and won't be the last, to have inconsistencies and such. I can list several other serialized works (like the Animorphs series), which is even worse off, consistency-wise.

The difference here is that people claim Harry Potter as a work of great literature, which it is not. The first five were relatively strong and entertaining books, but the last two were about as bad as the Star Wars prequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the size of the universe she created (and how detailed she was in setting most of it up) it's not surprising she'd have trouble keeping track of it all. She admitted herself that while writing the last few books she used the HP Lexicon website as a reference point on a few occasions, and even had to go and buy her own books when she couldn't remember a detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "all was well," I dont' think the logistics of rebuilding is really relevant to the themes of the book. The book is about Harry Potter, his journey to defeat Voldemort, and the outcome on Harry of that defeat. The ministry is just a part of that journey. And I don't think the line is meant to exclude the possibility of any strife in Harry's life. In context with the rest of the passage, it's talking about how his scar hasn't hurt him for a long time. The line is saying all is well scarwise, meaning Harry is free to live out the rest of his life as a normal wizard. He no longer carries a burden that makes his life more difficult than the average guy.

This.

The difference here is that people claim Harry Potter as a work of great literature, which it is not. The first five were relatively strong and entertaining books, but the last two were about as bad as the Star Wars prequels.

I certainly wouldn't claim that Rowling is a Victor Hugo/Mark Twain/Leo Tolstoy -caliber writer. But for all the reasons we've discussed, her books are both entertaining and enlightening. She brings up a lot of timely issues that we have to consider for ourselves and decide how we should resolve them in our world. We shouldn't expect her to spell out how to solve race and equality issues.

A problem I have with the articles is that the author seems to be missing the point - that Rowling is one of the most successful writers in history. Rather than looking for what she did wrong to make $8 billion (or however much the franchise is worth), maybe we should look at the books from the perspective of "hey - a lot of people like these books. What makes them so popular?" If Rowling didn't follow the mold of what makes a "good" book, then maybe our definition of "good" is wrong.

I'm not saying Rowling's books don't have mistakes or that we should perpetuate her errors in future literature. I'm simply saying that this commentator is taking his pessismistic view to the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at...

Voldemort! Who was implied to have made the choice to be evil in COS because the theme of that book was that "it's not our abilities that make us who we are, it is our choices" which sends a nice message, but this is contradicted in HBP that he was born evil and is the "evilest wizard ever!" Wow, you're born with it, you're stuck with it, you're like a Goa'uld and inherently bad whether you like it or not; to the least popular house for you! I almost expected him to be born of a jackal after this big piece of retcon.

No, HBP merely shows Voldemort making bad decisions as an early child. Rowling is never saying that he can't become good, but that he won't. Perhaps a character describes Voldemort as being born evil and being the "evilest wizard ever," but not all characters are always in harmony with the theme of the book. Often times, they're opposed to it (ie Malfoy saying: "You filthy little mudblood!"). And I don't think Voldemort being described as "the evilest wizard" is even proof of such a rigid binary. There can still be relative levels of evilness even if everybody has a little good inside them. I think we could agree that Dumbledore is less evil than Wormtail, but both of have their share of good and evil. And finally, I think it's a little unfair of you to ignore the countless examples I gave of people in the Potter world being both good and evil.

As for the "all was well," I dont' think the logistics of rebuilding is really relevant to the themes of the book. The book is about Harry Potter, his journey to defeat Voldemort, and the outcome on Harry of that defeat. The ministry is just a part of that journey. And I don't think the line is meant to exclude the possibility of any strife in Harry's life. In context with the rest of the passage, it's talking about how his scar hasn't hurt him for a long time. The line is saying all is well scarwise, meaning Harry is free to live out the rest of his life as a normal wizard. He no longer carries a burden that makes his life more difficult than the average guy.

It does exclude the strife because it acts like nothing happened during those 19 years, and "all was well" is such a vague statement, a crooked legislator would be proud, it can mean just about anything,

As you said, the term is vague. That means you can't assume that Rowling means "the entire wizarding world was rebuilt in perfect harmony, and there was never any distress." Remember, given the context of the passage, we can assume Rowling is talking about Harry's level of strife relative to that of the average wizard. His scar is essentially meaningless now - he is finally free to live a normal life. That's not a life without strife, but one with considerably less than he is used to. That's another argument you didn't respond to.

and a curious reader would like to know what happened to the world that Harry inhabits during those years. It's important in the grand scheme of things because nothing has changed as no-one's learned anything. Are some of its primary themes not about tolerance and acceptance? The prejudices that wizards have toward muggles still exists without even being addressed, and as far as we know, that antiquated house sorting crap still goes on that does nothing but segregate innocent children; good kids go to Gryffindor, evil kids go to Slytherin, smart kids go to Ravenclaw, and dumb kids go to Hufflepuff. I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but throw us a bone and complete the plot thread! Instead, it ends up being a bloated B-grade story about Harry defeating the bad guy, marrying Bree Hodge, and they all lived happily ever after. Grand.

First, I'd point out that the point of a book is to send a message to the reader, not necessarily the characters in the book. So if nobody's learned anything (and I don't think that's true, but even if), it doesn't really matter.

The prejudice towards Muggles was largely caused by two factors: the Imperius Curse and fear of Voldemort/the protection people believe he can bring them. Remember, when Voldemort's curse backfired in Godric's Hollow, few followers tried to continue to support his ideals. Both factors are metaphors for how easy it is to succumb to tyrants' ideology when they are in power. Once Voldemort looses power, both those things go away, illustrating the point that power in itself is often the only reason people follow an ideal.

The Sorting Hat is not a tool of segregation based on qualities out of the characters' control. Remember, it wanted to place Harry in Slytherin - the only reason Harry was placed in Gryfindor was because he consciously strove to be, representing how while humans have traits that may lend themselves to certain tendencies, in the end humans have control over their own destiny. Harry had all the tools to be in Slytherin, it was his actions that brought him to Gryfindor. Harry even tells his son in the Epilogue that if he really doesn't want to be in Slytherin, the Sorting Hat will take that into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at...

Voldemort! Who was implied to have made the choice to be evil in COS because the theme of that book was that "it's not our abilities that make us who we are, it is our choices" which sends a nice message, but this is contradicted in HBP that he was born evil and is the "evilest wizard ever!" Wow, you're born with it, you're stuck with it, you're like a Goa'uld and inherently bad whether you like it or not; to the least popular house for you! I almost expected him to be born of a jackal after this big piece of retcon.

No, HBP merely shows Voldemort making bad decisions as an early child. Rowling is never saying that he can't become good, but that he won't. Perhaps a character describes Voldemort as being born evil and being the "evilest wizard ever," but not all characters are always in harmony with the theme of the book. Often times, they're opposed to it (ie Malfoy saying: "You filthy little mudblood!"). And I don't think Voldemort being described as "the evilest wizard" is even proof of such a rigid binary. There can still be relative levels of evilness even if everybody has a little good inside them. I think we could agree that Dumbledore is less evil than Wormtail, but both of have their share of good and evil. And finally, I think it's a little unfair of you to ignore the countless examples I gave of people in the Potter world being both good and evil.

And don't forget the redemption of Draco Malfoy the last couple of books. For all the horrible things he is, he's not a killer, and once he makes that choice he slowly starts to question everything else, to the point where in the epilogue he and Harry have at least come to some sort of mutual understanding.

Personally I don't see the big deal about whether Rowling had the whole thing planned out or not. It doesn't matter if you lay out some grand master plan or just fly by the seat of your pants, all that matters is if it works in the end. And I say it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference here is that people claim Harry Potter as a work of great literature, which it is not. The first five were relatively strong and entertaining books, but the last two were about as bad as the Star Wars prequels.

You missed the point of my post, bud. I was pointing out that if some fans insist on pointing out inconsistencies with the Harry Potter series, then every other serialized book series are fair game. It's difficult for an author to remember all the details, and inconsistencies are inevitable one way or another. Even if the authors had the series bible with them, had all the books, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference here is that people claim Harry Potter as a work of great literature, which it is not. The first five were relatively strong and entertaining books, but the last two were about as bad as the Star Wars prequels.

I don't know anyone who claims the Potter books are great literature. They are indeed entertaining books...including the last two, or at least DH. (OOTP and HBP were not my favorites at all.) To call them as bad as the Star Wars prequels is simply ridiculous - and I enjoyed the prequels, for what they were, mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see the big deal about whether Rowling had the whole thing planned out or not. It doesn't matter if you lay out some grand master plan or just fly by the seat of your pants, all that matters is if it works in the end. And I say it works.

I agree with the master plan and seat of the pants storytelling. I like how in the Star Wars Trilogy, Vader is a totally different character in the first movie and probably not intended to be Luke's father. And either way, it doesn't matter since it's totally irrelevant to the original movie. I also like the romantic triangle, Princess Leia clearly never originally intended to be Luke's sister. But I also like the father/son thing in the sequels and the resolution in Jedi with Luke and Leia being siblings and Leia getting with Han. I'm okay that this was all made up over the course of several years. I'm just not okay with Lucas lying about it nowadays. ;)

This is obviously about Star Wars, but it applies to Harry Potter and other franchises as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of my favorite TV shows ever are Farscape and Battlestar Galactica (Ronald D. Moore version). Both were highly serialized, but took very different paths. The brains behind Farscape sat down toward the middle of the development of the second season and created a road map for the entire series over a 5 year run, and actually stuck to it (in the end the 5th year had to be truncated down to a 4 hour miniseries, but that's another story). On the other hand, it's very clear that Moore and co. at Galactica were making it all up as they went along season by season, and even within seasons. Moore is one of the most open and honest producers I've ever seen. In the end they both turned out brilliantly, in my opinion at least. I know those last couple of years of Galactica cause a lot of division, and the Farscape mini was not universally acclaimed by the fan base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, HBP merely shows Voldemort making bad decisions as an early child. Rowling is never saying that he can't become good, but that he won't. Perhaps a character describes Voldemort as being born evil and being the "evilest wizard ever," but not all characters are always in harmony with the theme of the book. Often times, they're opposed to it (ie Malfoy saying: "You filthy little mudblood!"). And I don't think Voldemort being described as "the evilest wizard" is even proof of such a rigid binary. There can still be relative levels of evilness even if everybody has a little good inside them. I think we could agree that Dumbledore is less evil than Wormtail, but both of have their share of good and evil. And finally, I think it's a little unfair of you to ignore the countless examples I gave of people in the Potter world being both good and evil.

He's still a creepy brat when Dumbledore meets him (no alarms sounded there?), and even his bizarro parentage points that he's going to turn out evil no matter what. This really takes me out of it.

As you said, the term is vague. That means you can't assume that Rowling means "the entire wizarding world was rebuilt in perfect harmony, and there was never any distress." Remember, given the context of the passage, we can assume Rowling is talking about Harry's level of strife relative to that of the average wizard. His scar is essentially meaningless now - he is finally free to live a normal life. That's not a life without strife, but one with considerably less than he is used to. That's another argument you didn't respond to.

Yes, it's vague and explains nothing. None of the social issues that Harry, or even Ron and Hermione were fighting for were addressed or tied up in the seventh novel. What am I supposed to count on for this information, her interviews? Fan fiction? Again, it feels incomplete.

First, I'd point out that the point of a book is to send a message to the reader, not necessarily the characters in the book. So if nobody's learned anything (and I don't think that's true, but even if), it doesn't really matter.

The prejudice towards Muggles was largely caused by two factors: the Imperius Curse and fear of Voldemort/the protection people believe he can bring them. Remember, when Voldemort's curse backfired in Godric's Hollow, few followers tried to continue to support his ideals. Both factors are metaphors for how easy it is to succumb to tyrants' ideology when they are in power. Once Voldemort looses power, both those things go away, illustrating the point that power in itself is often the only reason people follow an ideal.

That prejudice was going on well before Voldemort was around, and Rowling makes no attempt to acknowledge any progress on the part of the wizarding world's superiority complex, instead her overconfidence in her own writing leaves the reader to make a lot of assumptions in what happened. In response to your last point there, just because the Soviet Union fell doesn't mean that sadistic authoritarian types don't still stubbornly follow socialism to acquire power (this goes for many ideologies, but I just picked on socialists for sake of argument).

The Sorting Hat is not a tool of segregation based on qualities out of the characters' control. Remember, it wanted to place Harry in Slytherin - the only reason Harry was placed in Gryfindor was because he consciously strove to be, representing how while humans have traits that may lend themselves to certain tendencies, in the end humans have control over their own destiny. Harry had all the tools to be in Slytherin, it was his actions that brought him to Gryfindor. Harry even tells his son in the Epilogue that if he really doesn't want to be in Slytherin, the Sorting Hat will take that into account.

Yes, that's what it's there for, to separate the kids into groups based on their abilities and personality types, regardless if Harry challenged it, that's the point of the damn hat and at the end it still perpetually performs the same function of peer tribalism. It's not like they tell the kids that if they have an issue with the house that they think they might be put in, they can tell the hat and it'll take it into consideration; or they might have and that's another one of those offpage pieces of information that we're not privy to. As I said, just being in Slytherin dooms you to evildom for life, and even if you're not evil in the true sense of the word, it's really just a dump house for those perceived to be "unpleasant" by an infallible hat. This just leads to more student suspicion and picking on easy targets with the age-old "It's gotta be him who did it, he's a Slytherin!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, HBP merely shows Voldemort making bad decisions as an early child. Rowling is never saying that he can't become good, but that he won't. Perhaps a character describes Voldemort as being born evil and being the "evilest wizard ever," but not all characters are always in harmony with the theme of the book. Often times, they're opposed to it (ie Malfoy saying: "You filthy little mudblood!"). And I don't think Voldemort being described as "the evilest wizard" is even proof of such a rigid binary. There can still be relative levels of evilness even if everybody has a little good inside them. I think we could agree that Dumbledore is less evil than Wormtail, but both of have their share of good and evil. And finally, I think it's a little unfair of you to ignore the countless examples I gave of people in the Potter world being both good and evil.

He's still a creepy brat when Dumbledore meets him (no alarms sounded there?), and even his bizarro parentage points that he's going to turn out evil no matter what. This really takes me out of it.

Still, those are decisions he made as a young child that cause him to be evil, not some inherent trait that he was born with. As for why Dumbledore didn't take the hint, he saw a bit of himself in Dumbeldore - here was a kid who got into some bad things as a youngster, but who has a chance for redemption, just like Dumbledore. And again, what one character says has no relevance on the theme of the book. The parentage may have decided that Riddle was uncontrollably evil, but that doesn't mean that's what the books are saying.

As you said, the term is vague. That means you can't assume that Rowling means "the entire wizarding world was rebuilt in perfect harmony, and there was never any distress." Remember, given the context of the passage, we can assume Rowling is talking about Harry's level of strife relative to that of the average wizard. His scar is essentially meaningless now - he is finally free to live a normal life. That's not a life without strife, but one with considerably less than he is used to. That's another argument you didn't respond to.

Yes, it's vague and explains nothing. None of the social issues that Harry, or even Ron and Hermione were fighting for were addressed or tied up in the seventh novel. What am I supposed to count on for this information, her interviews? Fan fiction? Again, it feels incomplete.

Well that's because it's unrelated to those issues! Remember, in context the last line is talking about Harry's ability to live a normal life, not the wizarding world's ability to recooperate from Voldemort. I understand your criticism, but it shouldn't be aimed at the last line, as it's never trying to wrap things up as nicely as you'd like. That said, I still disagree with your criticism, for reasons below.

First, I'd point out that the point of a book is to send a message to the reader, not necessarily the characters in the book. So if nobody's learned anything (and I don't think that's true, but even if), it doesn't really matter.

The prejudice towards Muggles was largely caused by two factors: the Imperius Curse and fear of Voldemort/the protection people believe he can bring them. Remember, when Voldemort's curse backfired in Godric's Hollow, few followers tried to continue to support his ideals. Both factors are metaphors for how easy it is to succumb to tyrants' ideology when they are in power. Once Voldemort looses power, both those things go away, illustrating the point that power in itself is often the only reason people follow an ideal.

That prejudice was going on well before Voldemort was around, and Rowling makes no attempt to acknowledge any progress on the part of the wizarding world's superiority complex, instead her overconfidence in her own writing leaves the reader to make a lot of assumptions in what happened. In response to your last point there, just because the Soviet Union fell doesn't mean that sadistic authoritarian types don't still stubbornly follow socialism to acquire power (this goes for many ideologies, but I just picked on socialists for sake of argument).

Would you be happier if Rowling ended the book saying prejudice vanished and every single person was tolerant towards Muggles? That seems way to unrealistic and idealistic to me. Sure, this sentiment existed before Voldemort, but it was never powerful enough to have a significant effect on the world. There was never a Ministry that openly opposed Muggles like there was in DH. And again, so much of this was purely motivated by Voldemort's existence that once he's gone, we can assume peace, just as there was peace after his curse backfired on him when he tried to kill Baby Harry. I don't think the socialism is really an fair comparison, because in moderation, socialism is a generally accepted part of most governments, including the United States'. I'm not trying to support or criticize it, but I will say that it's more practical than killing all Muggleborns, etc. I think the better example is Nazism, as it deals with prejudice like HP and the "good guys" of the world were more opposed to its ideals than those of communism. After the Nazis fell, the Neo-Nazis haven't really be able to produce any significant world effects. This is because so many of Hitler's pawns were acting out of fear and a desire for protection - the Imperius Curse of the time - rather than the actual ideals Hitler was propogating. Now I know there was a lot of ideological support also, but not enough to get the bigoted ball rolling again after 1945.

The Sorting Hat is not a tool of segregation based on qualities out of the characters' control. Remember, it wanted to place Harry in Slytherin - the only reason Harry was placed in Gryfindor was because he consciously strove to be, representing how while humans have traits that may lend themselves to certain tendencies, in the end humans have control over their own destiny. Harry had all the tools to be in Slytherin, it was his actions that brought him to Gryfindor. Harry even tells his son in the Epilogue that if he really doesn't want to be in Slytherin, the Sorting Hat will take that into account.

Yes, that's what it's there for, to separate the kids into groups based on their abilities and personality types, regardless if Harry challenged it, that's the point of the damn hat and at the end it still perpetually performs the same function of peer tribalism. It's not like they tell the kids that if they have an issue with the house that they think they might be put in, they can tell the hat and it'll take it into consideration; or they might have and that's another one of those offpage pieces of information that we're not privy to. As I said, just being in Slytherin dooms you to evildom for life, and even if you're not evil in the true sense of the word, it's really just a dump house for those perceived to be "unpleasant" by an infallible hat. This just leads to more student suspicion and picking on easy targets with the age-old "It's gotta be him who did it, he's a Slytherin!"

I think you're confusing one who does what their natural tendencies might push them to do with somebody who doesn't have control over those tendencies. I'm not claiming that The Sorting Hat is saying (symbolically) that people decide who they will be, and it's completely without correlation to environment or biology. I'm claiming that TSH is saying it is a combination of decision and environment/biology that determines who you are. Someone like Crabbe could have gotten out of being in Slytherin if he took the proper action, just as Harry got out of Slytherin by doing so. It wouldn't have been asy easy for Crabbe to get into Gryfindor as, say, someone like Ron, just based on their environment and biology, but it would have been doable. THat's what the Sorting Hat is saying. And true, the kids aren't in on the fact that the Hat takes preference into consideration, but it doesn't matter. The Hat reads minds, Harry made it painfully clear to the Hat that he didn't want to be in Slytherin but the Hat still would have been able to feel how deeply he wanted to be in Gryfindor. Harry tells his son that the Hat will take preference into consideration - he never says you have to consciously tell the Hat your preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the Nazis fell, the Neo-Nazis haven't really be able to produce any significant world effects. This is because so many of Hitler's pawns were acting out of fear and a desire for protection - the Imperius Curse of the time - rather than the actual ideals Hitler was propogating. Now I know there was a lot of ideological support also, but not enough to get the bigoted ball rolling again after 1945.

No, not on so large a scale as Hitler's camps. But the twentieth century was full of "bigoted balls" in other regions. Hitler was the most infamous and influential genocidic dictator in recent memory, but he was neither the first nor will he be the last.

Voldemort is certainly not the first dark wizard in Rowling's world. Indeed, Voldemort visited another powerful dark wizard while searching for the Elder Wand (his name escapes me). Hopefully he will be the last, but we will never know since Rowling's saga is solely about Harry Potter's personal war with Voldemort. The epilogue demonstrates that Harry is on amicable terms with Draco Malfoy, a former Death Eater and Slytherin student, and the fact that Harry's children fear this "evil" house shows that it will take longer than a generation for such thoughts to vanish. They very well may never.

By the way, why does Harry Potter still wear glasses? Aren't there any spells that can rid him of them?

It's much like asking, why is Jean-Luc Picard so bald in the 24th century? Aren't there any good pills he can take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, those are decisions he made as a young child that cause him to be evil, not some inherent trait that he was born with. As for why Dumbledore didn't take the hint, he saw a bit of himself in Dumbeldore - here was a kid who got into some bad things as a youngster, but who has a chance for redemption, just like Dumbledore. And again, what one character says has no relevance on the theme of the book. The parentage may have decided that Riddle was uncontrollably evil, but that doesn't mean that's what the books are saying.

If Rowling wanted to exclusively portray Riddle's choices as the cause of his evil, then she wouldn't have gone to the effort to reveal that his parentage was depraved and immoral. If we're going to be making assumptions about everything else because Rowling likes leaving gaps, then it's not much of a stretch to say that she contradicted herself with the choices stuff and chose to symbolically portray Voldemort as inherently malevolent simply based upon the circumstances of his conception, and then made those bad choices as a child because he's wired to be that way. A spawn of an evil act, if you will. It contradicts Dumbledore's supposed wisdom in COS, but knowing how Rowling progresses the story, it seems he wasn't always reliable.

Well that's because it's unrelated to those issues! Remember, in context the last line is talking about Harry's ability to live a normal life, not the wizarding world's ability to recooperate from Voldemort. I understand your criticism, but it shouldn't be aimed at the last line, as it's never trying to wrap things up as nicely as you'd like. That said, I still disagree with your criticism, for reasons below.

A lack of due process and a highly corrupt ministry that leaves itself open to a coup d'état aren't related to the issues? Were we reading the same series?

Would you be happier if Rowling ended the book saying prejudice vanished and every single person was tolerant towards Muggles? That seems way to unrealistic and idealistic to me. Sure, this sentiment existed before Voldemort, but it was never powerful enough to have a significant effect on the world. There was never a Ministry that openly opposed Muggles like there was in DH. And again, so much of this was purely motivated by Voldemort's existence that once he's gone, we can assume peace, just as there was peace after his curse backfired on him when he tried to kill Baby Harry. I don't think the socialism is really an fair comparison, because in moderation, socialism is a generally accepted part of most governments, including the United States'. I'm not trying to support or criticize it, but I will say that it's more practical than killing all Muggleborns, etc. I think the better example is Nazism, as it deals with prejudice like HP and the "good guys" of the world were more opposed to its ideals than those of communism. After the Nazis fell, the Neo-Nazis haven't really be able to produce any significant world effects. This is because so many of Hitler's pawns were acting out of fear and a desire for protection - the Imperius Curse of the time - rather than the actual ideals Hitler was propogating. Now I know there was a lot of ideological support also, but not enough to get the bigoted ball rolling again after 1945.

The first part that you say is the other extreme, but it would have made more sense if we were shown that wizards were taking the first steps towards reconciliation and rebuilding the wizarding world so that it's not such a closed community. I would simply have liked to have seen these things addressed. There's a good fanfic writer who wrote a few stories about Hermione, with all of her muggle knowledge, actually introducing 18th century philosophical ideas from the American Founders like separation of powers and individual rights to the Ministry because she believed that their archaic system of government was what led them to be so open to attack by extremist ideologies and authoritarianism. Sure, just because Voldemort was killed doesn't automatically mean his ideology disappears, but where there's power, there will be those who seek it, and we're shown no effort by the wizarding world to change what led to their near-destruction in the first place. This is where Rowling leaves me to make some big leaps in assumption because she seems to love gaps in her narrative, and I can't stand it when an author leaves empty spaces for readers to fill. At least in Stargate SG-1, after the power vacuum left by the Goa'uld, we see the Free Jaffa Nation emerge, and how they struggled with democracy and how their beliefs are challenged and exploited by the Ori who seduce them with even greater power, and there was also the corrupt Lucian Alliance that was made up of human gangsters who commandeered a significant portion of the remaining Goa'uld fleet. Bad guys beget bad guys, and Rowling's ending shows a naive assumption that once one villain disappears, no-one dares to follow in his footsteps.

Also, I picked socialism because Nazism stems from it anyway, and lunatic socialists these days are very stealthy in their command and control agenda.

I think you're confusing one who does what their natural tendencies might push them to do with somebody who doesn't have control over those tendencies. I'm not claiming that The Sorting Hat is saying (symbolically) that people decide who they will be, and it's completely without correlation to environment or biology. I'm claiming that TSH is saying it is a combination of decision and environment/biology that determines who you are. Someone like Crabbe could have gotten out of being in Slytherin if he took the proper action, just as Harry got out of Slytherin by doing so. It wouldn't have been asy easy for Crabbe to get into Gryfindor as, say, someone like Ron, just based on their environment and biology, but it would have been doable. THat's what the Sorting Hat is saying. And true, the kids aren't in on the fact that the Hat takes preference into consideration, but it doesn't matter. The Hat reads minds, Harry made it painfully clear to the Hat that he didn't want to be in Slytherin but the Hat still would have been able to feel how deeply he wanted to be in Gryfindor. Harry tells his son that the Hat will take preference into consideration - he never says you have to consciously tell the Hat your preference.

Like I said, the tribalism is still perpetuated at the end of the series. No-one ever stops to think that house sorting might have been part of the problem in the first place. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the hat retire, instead having a more egalitarian learning environment where students are awarded points individually based on their individual merits. It wouldn't hurt to experiment a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, those are decisions he made as a young child that cause him to be evil, not some inherent trait that he was born with. As for why Dumbledore didn't take the hint, he saw a bit of himself in Dumbeldore - here was a kid who got into some bad things as a youngster, but who has a chance for redemption, just like Dumbledore. And again, what one character says has no relevance on the theme of the book. The parentage may have decided that Riddle was uncontrollably evil, but that doesn't mean that's what the books are saying.

If Rowling wanted to exclusively portray Riddle's choices as the cause of his evil, then she wouldn't have gone to the effort to reveal that his parentage was depraved and immoral. If we're going to be making assumptions about everything else because Rowling likes leaving gaps, then it's not much of a stretch to say that she contradicted herself with the choices stuff and chose to symbolically portray Voldemort as inherently malevolent simply based upon the circumstances of his conception, and then made those bad choices as a child because he's wired to be that way. A spawn of an evil act, if you will. It contradicts Dumbledore's supposed wisdom in COS, but knowing how Rowling progresses the story, it seems he wasn't always reliable.

Harry Potter is a complex story with a lot of themes - I don't think Rowling needs to portray each and every one of those themes of human nature in every single character. Not only would that make for a really long book series, but it would be redundant and boring. You seem to be saying that if she doesn't explicitly show why Riddle was evil as a result of his action over his circumstance, then she's contradicting a theme portrayed in many of her other characters. But really, she's just not using Voldemort to convey that specific message, because she can use other characters to do so.

Well that's because it's unrelated to those issues! Remember, in context the last line is talking about Harry's ability to live a normal life, not the wizarding world's ability to recooperate from Voldemort. I understand your criticism, but it shouldn't be aimed at the last line, as it's never trying to wrap things up as nicely as you'd like. That said, I still disagree with your criticism, for reasons below.

A lack of due process and a highly corrupt ministry that leaves itself open to a coup d'état aren't related to the issues? Were we reading the same series?

You're not reading what I wrote. I'm saying that the last line is soley referring to Harry's ability to live a normal life - that is, he no longer carries a heavier burden than the average wizard as a result of that night in Godric's Hollow. Rather than negating that the wizarding world has problems, "all was well" is simply not addressing them.

Would you be happier if Rowling ended the book saying prejudice vanished and every single person was tolerant towards Muggles? That seems way to unrealistic and idealistic to me. Sure, this sentiment existed before Voldemort, but it was never powerful enough to have a significant effect on the world. There was never a Ministry that openly opposed Muggles like there was in DH. And again, so much of this was purely motivated by Voldemort's existence that once he's gone, we can assume peace, just as there was peace after his curse backfired on him when he tried to kill Baby Harry. I don't think the socialism is really an fair comparison, because in moderation, socialism is a generally accepted part of most governments, including the United States'. I'm not trying to support or criticize it, but I will say that it's more practical than killing all Muggleborns, etc. I think the better example is Nazism, as it deals with prejudice like HP and the "good guys" of the world were more opposed to its ideals than those of communism. After the Nazis fell, the Neo-Nazis haven't really be able to produce any significant world effects. This is because so many of Hitler's pawns were acting out of fear and a desire for protection - the Imperius Curse of the time - rather than the actual ideals Hitler was propogating. Now I know there was a lot of ideological support also, but not enough to get the bigoted ball rolling again after 1945.

The first part that you say is the other extreme, but it would have made more sense if we were shown that wizards were taking the first steps towards reconciliation and rebuilding the wizarding world so that it's not such a closed community. I would simply have liked to have seen these things addressed. There's a good fanfic writer who wrote a few stories about Hermione, with all of her muggle knowledge, actually introducing 18th century philosophical ideas from the American Founders like separation of powers and individual rights to the Ministry because she believed that their archaic system of government was what led them to be so open to attack by extremist ideologies and authoritarianism. Sure, just because Voldemort was killed doesn't automatically mean his ideology disappears, but where there's power, there will be those who seek it, and we're shown no effort by the wizarding world to change what led to their near-destruction in the first place. This is where Rowling leaves me to make some big leaps in assumption because she seems to love gaps in her narrative, and I can't stand it when an author leaves empty spaces for readers to fill. At least in Stargate SG-1, after the power vacuum left by the Goa'uld, we see the Free Jaffa Nation emerge, and how they struggled with democracy and how their beliefs are challenged and exploited by the Ori who seduce them with even greater power, and there was also the corrupt Lucian Alliance that was made up of human gangsters who commandeered a significant portion of the remaining Goa'uld fleet. Bad guys beget bad guys, and Rowling's ending shows a naive assumption that once one villain disappears, no-one dares to follow in his footsteps.

I don't think the ending suggests that nothing is being done to prevent another disaster, it's just not relevant to the messages the book is saying. I understand that you may be interested in knowing what becomes of the wizarding world, but Rowling's already said what she wants to say, so there's no point in tacking that on to a book that is finished.

Also, I picked socialism because Nazism stems from it anyway, and lunatic socialists these days are very stealthy in their command and control agenda.

Well, I disagree with you there, but that's another argument for another message board. ;)

I think you're confusing one who does what their natural tendencies might push them to do with somebody who doesn't have control over those tendencies. I'm not claiming that The Sorting Hat is saying (symbolically) that people decide who they will be, and it's completely without correlation to environment or biology. I'm claiming that TSH is saying it is a combination of decision and environment/biology that determines who you are. Someone like Crabbe could have gotten out of being in Slytherin if he took the proper action, just as Harry got out of Slytherin by doing so. It wouldn't have been asy easy for Crabbe to get into Gryfindor as, say, someone like Ron, just based on their environment and biology, but it would have been doable. THat's what the Sorting Hat is saying. And true, the kids aren't in on the fact that the Hat takes preference into consideration, but it doesn't matter. The Hat reads minds, Harry made it painfully clear to the Hat that he didn't want to be in Slytherin but the Hat still would have been able to feel how deeply he wanted to be in Gryfindor. Harry tells his son that the Hat will take preference into consideration - he never says you have to consciously tell the Hat your preference.

Like I said, the tribalism is still perpetuated at the end of the series. No-one ever stops to think that house sorting might have been part of the problem in the first place. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the hat retire, instead having a more egalitarian learning environment where students are awarded points individually based on their individual merits. It wouldn't hurt to experiment a little.

The Hat is a symbol of the opposite of what you suggest - my argument that you quoted is substantively completely unresponded to. Because the Hat takes both personal preference - the metaphorical equivalent of choice and individual decision - and biological/environmental effects into consideration, it is a metaphor for paths in life, which are created based on both individual choice and biological/environmental tendencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, those are decisions he made as a young child that cause him to be evil, not some inherent trait that he was born with. As for why Dumbledore didn't take the hint, he saw a bit of himself in Dumbeldore - here was a kid who got into some bad things as a youngster, but who has a chance for redemption, just like Dumbledore. And again, what one character says has no relevance on the theme of the book. The parentage may have decided that Riddle was uncontrollably evil, but that doesn't mean that's what the books are saying.

If Rowling wanted to exclusively portray Riddle's choices as the cause of his evil, then she wouldn't have gone to the effort to reveal that his parentage was depraved and immoral. If we're going to be making assumptions about everything else because Rowling likes leaving gaps, then it's not much of a stretch to say that she contradicted herself with the choices stuff and chose to symbolically portray Voldemort as inherently malevolent simply based upon the circumstances of his conception, and then made those bad choices as a child because he's wired to be that way. A spawn of an evil act, if you will. It contradicts Dumbledore's supposed wisdom in COS, but knowing how Rowling progresses the story, it seems he wasn't always reliable.

I don't think the backstory of Voldemort's parents was as much a symbol of Voldemort's evil as it was a parallel between Voldemort's parents and Harry's. It was to show a difference between a consensual marriage and a deep love between Lily and James Potter, and the twisted, fake love manufactured by a love potion between Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope Gaunt. She's always drawing parallels between the two, and I think with the memory flashbacks, she wanted to start by showing Voldemort's parents and allowing us to compare with Harry's. I don't think she was trying to comment on the effects these types of love actually had on Harry and Voldemort because if she was, she would have had Harry and Voldemort raised by their parents to demonstrate the differences. But instead, she orphaned them both at an age when neither of them would have been able to remember their parents or to have been affected by their relationships, and so she did, in fact, leave it up to them as individuals. Harry and Voldemort were both left completely neglected and unloved until the time they were 11, at which point they both went to Hogwarts and finally felt comfortable. They experienced very similar situations, yet they ultimately turned out completely different because of their choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They experienced very similar situations, yet they ultimately turned out completely different because of their choices.

Which is one of the central themes and motifs in the novels. It is touched upon very briefly with the mirror bits during the possession scene in OotP (which, funny enough, was not in the books and is one of the reason I like OotP so much: it uses cinematic solutions to translate material from book to screen) and Harry's response to Voldemort when Voldy tells him they're "the same," but other than that it appears to have pretty much been left by the wayside in the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Tom Riddle was the better pupil at school, was more charismatic, and was far more popular during his time at Hogwarts. He was also vain, ambitious, and hateful, which led to his corruption and descent into evil.

Harry Potter had to live with the fame and awe that came with being "the boy who lived." He was not the brightest of pupils and often seemed like he was trying to get by on his popularity, that his special circumstances would allow him to do as he pleased in school and get away with it, based on who he was. He also showed signs of impatience, vanity, and ambition. It's only the fact that his parents were killed so violently, and he loved them in spite of never knowing them, that kept him on the path of goodness to stay true and avenge them, rather than slip into darkness himself. That and he had a wonderful support group of friends who had his back.

If Harry Potter's parents had not been killed by Voldemort but he were still raised by the Dursleys, it's fair to say that he could have grown up to be a dark, Muggle-hating wizard as well. That may be the parallel Rowling tried to draw between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why exactly was the actress playing Tonks replaced?

Given that Yates directed OotP, and most likely had a saying in the casting, that doesn't look logical to me.

Maybe after OotP, he read how the story actually unfolds and realised his Tonks was too young to be convincing as Lupin's boytoy.

How involved he must be with these films!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, you're telling me the 20-something looking girl in OotP is the same person who played that raggedly-old-looking hag in the Seven Potters scene?

Did she just age at an enormous rate or is that a centimeter of make-up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must have done something with makeup. I know in the books she's described as pretty haggard in HBP but I don't remember if that carries on to DH as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.