Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread

[Joe Brausam 214]

Regarding Deathly Hallows: what I still do not understand neither from the book and the movies, is the question if Harry wins his duel with Voldemort beacause of the Elder Wand, or because of the fact he 'owns' all of the three Relics.

The latter would be logical, because it would really make him the master of Death, the ultimate protection against Voldemort. And the fact that he has inherited the cloak and obtains the stone from Dumbledore shows that the story builds up to the point that Harry needs all three of them.

On the other hand, why does he drop the stone in the forest (both in book and movie)? And where is the cloak at the moment supreme? It is like Rowling on second thought decided that it would be only the wand that matters.

It was the wand in the end. Harry was the true owner of the Elder Wand, and when Voldemort commanded it to kill Harry it backfired on him.

[MSM 126]

Regarding Deathly Hallows: what I still do not understand neither from the book and the movies, is the question if Harry wins his duel with Voldemort beacause of the Elder Wand, or because of the fact he 'owns' all of the three Relics.

The latter would be logical, because it would really make him the master of Death, the ultimate protection against Voldemort. And the fact that he has inherited the cloak and obtains the stone from Dumbledore shows that the story builds up to the point that Harry needs all three of them.

On the other hand, why does he drop the stone in the forest (both in book and movie)? And where is the cloak at the moment supreme? It is like Rowling on second thought decided that it would be only the wand that matters.

It was the wand in the end. Harry was the true owner of the Elder Wand, and when Voldemort commanded it to kill Harry it backfired on him.

I undertstand, but then why the fuzz about the other relics? Why does harry have the cloak from the first movie, and why does he get the stone? Those subplots loose all of their sense if it is only about the wand.

The confusing / weird part is that hte label is run by MV Gerhard and Matt Verboys - so MV could be either one. Since the FSM message board account is just called "la la land records" and he always signs off with "MV", I originally thought it could be either one of them posting... but over the years its been made clear its always MV..., er, Michael V, that is

Can we get back on topic?

I think what is referred to as MV style (Media Ventures that is) is not purposefully meant to be a style. It just the most straightforward and fastest way to write an action cue, since in the essence it is just a melody with harmonisation with a strong focus on rhythmic drive. If he melody or the harmonisation is not especially authentic those cues tend to sound very similar.

The topic is "Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread." In sixteen words or less, but permitting the use of colors and large household objects, can you please explain how explaining the style of MV conforms to that topic?

Someone brought it up, stating that Desplat deliberately uses the MV style in his DH scores. Read the thread, please. I tried just to get away from 'MV Gerhard', whoever that may be.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I undertstand, but then why the fuzz about the other relics? Why does harry have the cloak from the first movie, and why does he get the stone? Those subplots loose all of their sense if it is only about the wand.

Yeah, the last 2 films are called The Deathly Hallows, but the film isn't really about them.

The whole things with these different wands is all a bit confusing anyway. Yet ANOTHER reason why Voldemort apparently can't kill Harry.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I undertstand, but then why the fuzz about the other relics? Why does harry have the cloak from the first movie, and why does he get the stone? Those subplots loose all of their sense if it is only about the wand.

Yeah, the last 2 films are called The Deathly Hallows, but the film isn't really about them.

The whole things with these different wands is all a bit confusing anyway. Yet ANOTHER reason why Voldemort apparently can't kill Harry.

Stefan, you're usually not so slow. Voldemort could not kill Harry as a child, because of old magic. Once reborn Voldemort couldn't defeat Harry's wand because of the twin cores, but that wasn't a reason he couldn't kill Harry. His curse should have killed Harry in the forrest except for the Horcrux, and in the final duel the elder wand's alliegence was to Harry and it would not kill it's master.

[paleo 63]

One thing the films failed to convey is that roughly at the end of DH1, in the book Harry had to choose whether to go after Voldemort with the horcruxes or with the arguably more appealing option, the mighty deathly hallows. Dumbledore wanted Harry to reach a certain maturity before he would make that choice, so he just left clues rather than spilling the beans (which he could easily have done). Harry decides to go after the horcruxes, and actually even lets go of the resurrection stone (as shown in the movie) in the end. It's a pity the film Harry never has this choice; it would have said more about his character (and given the film title more meaning).

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Is it correct that the wand didn't really kill Harry in the forest, only the horcrux, and that is why he lived?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Something like that, but the film does not really explain.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Is it correct that the wand didn't really kill Harry in the forest, only the horcrux, and that is why he lived?

yes and no, if Harry chose to die, he could have, but he chose to live. So in essence only the Horcrux was destroyed. As Dumbledore states in the film, Stefan did you miss this, Harry had a choice.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

@Stefan Yeah, I know, and my brother who read the book multiple times didn't seem to know either.

Is it correct that the wand didn't really kill Harry in the forest, only the horcrux, and that is why he lived?

yes and no, if Harry chose to die, he could have, but he chose to live. So in essence only the Horcrux was destroyed. As Dumbledore states in the film, Stefan did you miss this, Harry had a choice.

That makes sense, I guess. But why did Harry have the choice? Because the elder wand was his?

[paleo 63]

[stefan, you're usually not so slow. Voldemort could not kill Harry as a child, because of old magic. Once reborn Voldemort couldn't defeat Harry's wand because of the twin cores, but that wasn't a reason he couldn't kill Harry. His curse should have killed Harry in the forrest except for the Horcrux, and in the final duel the elder wand's alliegence was to Harry and it would not kill it's master.

Actually, wasn't the reason he could not kill Harry in the forest because of Harry's blood being used for Voldy's resurrection in book 4? Geez, it's hard to keep track of all this...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is it correct that the wand didn't really kill Harry in the forest, only the horcrux, and that is why he lived?

yes and no, if Harry chose to die, he could have, but he chose to live. So in essence only the Horcrux was destroyed. As Dumbledore states in the film, Stefan did you miss this, Harry had a choice.

I did not miss it, but the film never explain how exactly he was given a choice.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no, because of the Horcrux. It protected Harry from final death.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Is it correct that the wand didn't really kill Harry in the forest, only the horcrux, and that is why he lived?

yes and no, if Harry chose to die, he could have, but he chose to live. So in essence only the Horcrux was destroyed. As Dumbledore states in the film, Stefan did you miss this, Harry had a choice.

I did not miss it, but the film never explain how exactly he was given a choice.

you did miss it. He wasn't given a choice, he HAD a choice, big difference, as it was all happening inside Harry's head.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

According to the book, but the film never actually states that.

[Wojo 2,453]

Dumbledore was the Master of the Elder Wand, but instead of Snape killing him like their plan, Draco disarmed him. The Elder Wand does not need death to shift allegiance, simply defeat. Draco was unknowingly the Master, and Harry inherited it equally unknowingly when he disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor.

In the final battle, Harry could have stood before Voldemort with his hands in his pocket whistling a happy tune, and the moment that Voldemort fired Avada Kedavras at him, the spell would rebound onto Voldemort and kill him instead. The movie totally missed the point with snappy graphics and a jumping wand.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

you did miss it. He wasn't given a choice, he HAD a choice, big difference, as it was all happening inside Harry's head.

Sigh...bloody Potterfans.

How come he had a choice to die or not after Voldy used the killing curse on him? The film gives us no info about why he did not die.

Dumbledore was the Master of the Elder Wand, but instead of Snape killing him like their plan, Draco disarmed him. The Elder Wand does not need death to shift allegiance, simply defeat. Draco was unknowingly the Master, and Harry inherited it equally unknowingly when he disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor.

So OK, Draco becomes master of the wand after disarming Dumbledore. But he never takes possession of it. So when Harry disarms Draco and takes his wand, he's not taking the Elder Wand, but a completely different one. But the Elder Wand still reverts it's allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that neither he nor Draco actually ever used the Elder Wand?

What a load of twaddle. No wonder the latter movies are so hard to follow.

[Wojo 2,453]

After Voldemort "kills" Harry, he appears to be in a Limbo state in which he can speak to Dumbledore. Here, it is explained he cannot be killed by Voldemort whilst Voldemort lives. Since Voldemort used Harry's blood to recreate his body, Lily's protection over Harry binds the two and therefore tethers Harry to life.

Dumbledore then gives Harry a theory on why his wand acted of its own accord: as a result of their encounter in the Little Hangleton Graveyard three years previous (in GOF when Voldy returns), Harry's wand was imbued with some of the qualities of Voldemort's wand and regurgitated some of his own magic back at him.

He also discovers that the part of Voldemort's soul he had had inside himself has been separated by the attempted murder and is represented in his vision by a flayed naked child, whimpering in agony and abandoned under a bench, which is Voldemort.

The "choice" is whether he allows himself to die, or returns to fight Voldemort some more, no longer bound to him.

I believe the choice is just a metaphor, like "stepping into the light." There would be no logical reason for Harry to die in the forest, since Voldemort killed only the horcrux, and the spell that rebound onto Voldemort had no killing power. If he did die, it would be from just willing himself to die, which fortunately we didn't have to analyze.

[MSM 126]

you did miss it. He wasn't given a choice, he HAD a choice, big difference, as it was all happening inside Harry's head.

Sigh...bloody Potterfans.

How come he had a choice to die or not after Voldy used the killing curse on him? The film gives us no info about why he did not die.

Dumbledore was the Master of the Elder Wand, but instead of Snape killing him like their plan, Draco disarmed him. The Elder Wand does not need death to shift allegiance, simply defeat. Draco was unknowingly the Master, and Harry inherited it equally unknowingly when he disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor.

So OK, Draco becomes master of the wand after disarming Dumbledore. But he never takes possession of it. So when Harry disarms Draco and takes his wand, he's not taking the Elder Wand, but a completely different one. But the Elder Wand still reverts it's allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that neither he nor Draco actually ever used the Elder Wand?

What a load of twaddle. No wonder the latter movies are so hard to follow.

Yes this is correct but I thought by now everyone got this!? It's not THAT complicated is it

But I still do not understand the entire plot of the Hallows, just as Stefan also stated. It doesn't go anywhere. After he almost got all the Horcruxes, except Nagini, Harry could have chosen to use the relics? I think it would only make sense, that the Elder Wand is at its most powerful when the Master also owns the stone and cloak. Harry just doesn't do anything wiith this given.

[Wojo 2,453]

So OK, Draco becomes master of the wand after disarming Dumbledore. But he never takes possession of it. So when Harry disarms Draco and takes his wand, he's not taking the Elder Wand, but a completely different one. But the Elder Wand still reverts it's allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that neither he nor Draco actually ever used the Elder Wand?

Correct. Remember what Ollivander said? The wand chooses the wizard.

The Elder Wand has a running tab as to who its master is, and is obviously all-powerful enough to watch what's going on with its master.

It was in Dumbledore's hand, and fell to the tower when Draco disarmed him. Then it was buried. Draco became the Master-in-waiting without ever touching it. Then when he was disarmed, the Elder Wand noticed and said "I don't want to belong to you, you're inferior," and so locked on to the challenger who disarmed him: Harry Potter. It didn't matter that Harry never touched the wand until after Voldemort was dead: he was its Master.

And Harry Potter will remain the Master of the Elder Wand until he is disarmed in battle, at which point the Wand -- broken or buried -- will shift allegiance. When he dies, well...JKR doesn't say.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Imagine Luke going to Vader and The Emperor in ROTJ with all of this in his head?

It was in Dumbledore's hand, and fell to the tower when Draco disarmed him. Then it was buried. Draco became the Master-in-waiting without ever touching it. Then when he was disarmed, the Elder Wand noticed and said "I don't want to belong to you, you're inferior," and so locked on to the challenger who disarmed him: Harry Potter. It didn't matter that Harry never touched the wand until after Voldemort was dead: he was its Master.

The more I read this the more it just sounds like horse shit. Very bad plotting.

[Wojo 2,453]

But I still do not understand the entire plot of the Hallows, just as Stefan also stated. It doesn't go anywhere. After he alomst got all the Horcruxes, except Nagini, Harry could have chosen to use the relics? I think it would only make sense, that the Elder Wand is at its most powreful when the Master also owns the stone and cloak. Harry just doesn't do anything wiith this given.

The point of the CGI cartoon in DH1 was to show that Death will ultimately outwit whoever owns the Hallows individually.

That being said, only The Elder Wand is a weapon. The cloak is a passive defense and the stone allows communication with the dead.

You can't put all three together into a magical configuration and unlock a Deathly Hallows Megazord or summon Captain Planet with their combined powers.

The cloak can be plucked from someone's head or blown off in the wind. The dead can only be talked to; they cannot touch the user of the stone or interact with the user's enemies. Voldemort wasn't interested in those relics because he was tired of hiding, and was only interested in making dead, not talking to them.

Do you really think that Harry was going to cover himself with the cloak and waltz up to Voldemort and try to snatch The Elder Wand out of his hand, with a transparent army ghosts to spectate? Wow...

[crocodile 8,017]

So OK, Draco becomes master of the wand after disarming Dumbledore. But he never takes possession of it. So when Harry disarms Draco and takes his wand, he's not taking the Elder Wand, but a completely different one. But the Elder Wand still reverts it's allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that neither he nor Draco actually ever used the Elder Wand?

Correct. Remember what Ollivander said? The wand chooses the wizard.

The Elder Wand has a running tab as to who its master is, and is obviously all-powerful enough to watch what's going on with its master.

It was in Dumbledore's hand, and fell to the tower when Draco disarmed him. Then it was buried. Draco became the Master-in-waiting without ever touching it. Then when he was disarmed, the Elder Wand noticed and said "I don't want to belong to you, you're inferior," and so locked on to the challenger who disarmed him: Harry Potter. It didn't matter that Harry never touched the wand until after Voldemort was dead: he was its Master.

And Harry Potter will remain the Master of the Elder Wand until he is disarmed in battle, at which point the Wand -- broken or buried -- will shift allegiance. When he dies, well...JKR doesn't say.

I was wondering the other day why Malfoy was its master if he didn't kill Dumbledore. But you're right, he disarmed him first. Forgot about that.

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

Here's another plot hole that DH2 seems to establish.

When our trio escape from Gringotts and jump into the lake with the Cup of Hufflepuff, we see flash-sideways to Voldemort's rage as he discovers that his horcruxes are being systematically destroyed, because a dragon busting out of Gringotts as people remember a fake Bellatrix is a big deal, and Voldy has spies everywhere.

When Nagini is decapitated, Voldemort reacts because he watches.

But.

When the cup is finally stabbed in the Chamber of Secrets, does Voldemort instantly react as if he can feel it?

When the diadem is stabbed outside the Room of Requirement, does Voldemort instantly react as if he can feel it?

I remember that he does.

If that's the case...why would the movie show that Voldemort can feel physically weaker after each horcrux is destroyed, instead of just really anxious like in the book, but not have him feel something after killing the horcrux inside Harry?

I think the filmmakers painted themselves into a corner that we're supposed to ignore.

[crocodile 8,017]

He faints at that point, doesn't he?

Karol

[Jeff 10]

Imagine Luke going to Vader and The Emperor in ROTJ with all of this in his head?

It was in Dumbledore's hand, and fell to the tower when Draco disarmed him. Then it was buried. Draco became the Master-in-waiting without ever touching it. Then when he was disarmed, the Elder Wand noticed and said "I don't want to belong to you, you're inferior," and so locked on to the challenger who disarmed him: Harry Potter. It didn't matter that Harry never touched the wand until after Voldemort was dead: he was its Master.

The more I read this the more it just sounds like horse shit. Very bad plotting.

I think it's brilliant plotting. It's the type of thing that you could figure out just before it happens - Rowling gives us all the clues to figure out the mystery, then just as Voldemort summons Snape, you realize why he's doing it. Then later, you realize just before Voldemort does that he killed the wrong man. Agatha Christie stuff going on there.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

If that's the case...why would the movie show that Voldemort can feel physically weaker after each horcrux is destroyed, instead of just really anxious like in the book, but not have him feel something after killing the horcrux inside Harry?

I think the filmmakers painted themselves into a corner that we're supposed to ignore.

He fainted. Then Bellatrix tried to help him up, and he yelled,"I don't need your help!" I made me laugh out loud.

[Wojo 2,453]

He faints at that point, doesn't he?

Karol

That might be the reason after all, and not simply the spell rebounding.

I would have rather Harry explain his confident theory to Voldemort -- about Draco being the master before Harry, and calling Voldemort by his real name -- before they fought some more, instead of that dive they take off the cliff together. Two minutes of unnecessary SFX.

[MSM 126]

But I still do not understand the entire plot of the Hallows, just as Stefan also stated. It doesn't go anywhere. After he alomst got all the Horcruxes, except Nagini, Harry could have chosen to use the relics? I think it would only make sense, that the Elder Wand is at its most powreful when the Master also owns the stone and cloak. Harry just doesn't do anything wiith this given.

The point of the CGI cartoon in DH1 was to show that Death will ultimately outwit whoever owns the Hallows individually.

That being said, only The Elder Wand is a weapon. The cloak is a passive defense and the stone allows communication with the dead.

You can't put all three together into a magical configuration and unlock a Deathly Hallows Megazord or summon Captain Planet with their combined powers.

The cloak can be plucked from someone's head or blown off in the wind. The dead can only be talked to; they cannot touch the user of the stone or interact with the user's enemies. Voldemort wasn't interested in those relics because he was tired of hiding, and was only interested in making dead, not talking to them.

Do you really think that Harry was going to cover himself with the cloak and waltz up to Voldemort and try to snatch The Elder Wand out of his hand, with a transparent army ghosts to spectate? Wow...

No of course not. But it is stated several times that the posessor of all three relics is master of Death, in other words invincible. One would expect Harry at least to keep those objects with him, not drop one of them in the woods and have another lost somewhere else.

[Wojo 2,453]

It is the legend that states the possessor of all three hallows is the master of Death, but it's clear from this wording that the legend places more value on the items than they deserve.

JKR attempts to give Harry Potter the wisdom and selflessness of the great epic heroes, who know that no mere mortal can ever truly cheat death, and usually end up dying themselves before reaching their goal.

Harry's desire was to defeat Voldemort and prevent him from becoming invincible. He did not seek that status for himself.

Harry deduces, based on the information learned from Ollivander and Lovegood, and what he has seen, that Voldemort is not the master of the Elder Wand. That is enough to give him the fortitude to face Voldemort, knowing he has to find a way to kill the horcrux inside him but has a slim chance of survival.

Were Harry to keep the Elder Wand, people would bicker over it for years to come, and another dark wizard may rise up to challenge him. It's actually safer in pieces than buried with Dumbledore, where it could be plundered again.

He uses the resurrection stone for its purpose, but realizes it has no greater virtue, and discards it so that nobody else can find it and abuse it. Was he being selfish? Perhaps, but he knew that people could go crazy by obsessing over talking to ghosts. Imagine if the Weasley brothers had the stone: they would charge people for seances. Grindelwald wanted to use the stone for an army of inferi, but this is not its use.

Harry does keep the invisibility cloak in his family, and probably passes it down to his children.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Imagine Luke going to Vader and The Emperor in ROTJ with all of this in his head?

It was in Dumbledore's hand, and fell to the tower when Draco disarmed him. Then it was buried. Draco became the Master-in-waiting without ever touching it. Then when he was disarmed, the Elder Wand noticed and said "I don't want to belong to you, you're inferior," and so locked on to the challenger who disarmed him: Harry Potter. It didn't matter that Harry never touched the wand until after Voldemort was dead: he was its Master.

The more I read this the more it just sounds like horse shit. Very bad plotting.

It's brilliant plotting. I find the plotting through the seven books intricate and facinating. I cannot remember any real plot holes though there may be a few. This house of cards is well built.

The persons who controls all three deathly hallows is master of death, doesn't mean he's invincibile it means he is not controlled by death. Harry keeps the cloak because it's his. It has been in his family since the beginning. The cloak is not breachable. It cannot protect one from death, but it can protect those who are loved.

Voldemort wanted the wand because of it's power. Dumbledore wanted the stone for his ability to free himself from family bonds and later to make amends for his transgression. No one really wanted to possess the cloak because it was the least exceptional of the hallows. Dumbledore, Grindlewald and Voldemort all had the ability to hide themselves without the cloak. Harry being the most ordinary of all the major characters in the book was the most deserving of all to have the 3 Hallows for selfless reasons.

[fommes 153]

The persons who controls all three deathly hallows is master of death

Wojo explained everything well enough - but just wanted to chime in here to say that it's clear from the Tale of the Three Brothers that in the end only the cloak is the true master of death; what Harry does is in fact a symbol of maturity, namely having grown wise enough to discard the other two hallows. (The elder wand, of course, is significant as it can't be used against its owner - for the rest it is very much beatable as long as it's in an indirect way.)

I agree it's not bad plotting at all; as I said before, it's the plotting that's the highlight of the books (certainly not the characterization or the writing itself). And ironically it's this that the movies totally, completely neglect. Steef, you should really read the books, you're obviously somewhat interested (judging from your continuing discussion and reviews), and you'll see that the mythology is worth it. Just start with the third book - while being inferior to the film, it's useful as an introductory book and contains some mythology you'll need. The first two are really too much children's books, and the films make them obsolete (just read the ending Dumbledore-Harry conversations).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I really don't feel like having to wade though thousands and thousands of pages just ti increase my understanding of the movies.

Isn't that why we have Wikipedia?

[fommes 153]

I really don't feel like having to wade though thousands and thousands of pages just ti increase my understanding of the movies.

No, no! Don't read them as a manual: read them for the books' sake. As books. Like the movies should have been - separate entities.

I'm rereading them myself for the first time, and I can assure you, they look quite bulky but they're the fastest reads ever.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm not interested...

[fommes 153]

Good enough reason!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

your loss.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Probably...

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

Plus, if I were Voldemort, I probably would have started taking over the Muggle world first. Since your magical goons can teleport at will, whats to stop them from teleporting all over the place assassinating heads of state, staging coups and using the world's military to blast Harry to kingdom come?

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Plus, if I were Voldemort, I probably would have started taking over the Muggle world first. Since your magical goons can teleport at will, whats to stop them from teleporting all over the place assassinating heads of state, staging coups and using the world's military to blast Harry to kingdom come?

But if he attempted that before infiltrating the Ministry he'd be met with much more opposition from Aurors, the Order etc. By completely reordering the foundations of the wizarding world he's facilitated his own rise to power. Also considering his intense hatred for Muggles, I doubt he'd be interested in using their inferior technology....

[indy4 155]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

He doesn't comprehend how they work, mostly. Things that can't just be observed, like what makes a car move or a light turn on.

[gkgyver 1,645]

In the final battle, Harry could have stood before Voldemort with his hands in his pocket whistling a happy tune, and the moment that Voldemort fired Avada Kedavras at him, the spell would rebound onto Voldemort and kill him instead. The movie totally missed the point with snappy graphics and a jumping wand.

That's the point I was trying to make, like 10 pages ago.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

If Voldemort did take over the world, how would the Muggle world react to it? Would they even be aware of it (I recall at the beginning of the film HBP, people were hurt but I don't think they could actually see the Death Eaters)? Anyone else think it would it have been a bit like General Zod taking over the world in Superman II? I dunno, it's really something Rowling never explored.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

He doesn't comprehend how they work, mostly. Things that can't just be observed, like what makes a car move or a light turn on.

its called, general knowledge.

anyway, was it ever explained why in Deathly Hallows the trio of heroes could teleport anywhere they want to convieniently after the whole...opening action sequence involving moving Harry where they couldn't do the teleporting thing because something was being watched?

If Voldemort did take over the world, how would the Muggle world react to it? Would they even be aware of it (I recall at the beginning of the film HBP, people were hurt but I don't think they could actually see the Death Eaters)? Anyone else think it would it have been a bit like General Zod taking over the world in Superman II? I dunno, it's really something Rowling never explored.

I don't know why, but i remember especially whlie reading the books my mind keeps trying to figure out how this magical world meshes with the real world...its a premise that doesnt seem to stand up to any sort of mild scrutiny as JKR wrote it. Yea, General Zod would be a good comparison as to what I was thinking.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's to illustrate how backward even the nicest wizards/witches are. They've become so dependent on magic and caged away in their own little world, they'd be useless without it.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

it would be easier to accept if the magic ppl lived in some...cut-off hippie commune or something. But to commute everday to London? then there's that hogwarts train. sure, it might run on magic but it does seem like all the mechanical components are there. in fact, it produces steam which surely means its burning some kind of fuel so its not like the magical society are completely retarded when it comes to engineering.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Yeah, Hogwarts is a thousand years old, so how did students commute from London to Hogwarts before trains were invented?

[indy4 155]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

He doesn't comprehend how they work, mostly. Things that can't just be observed, like what makes a car move or a light turn on.

its called, general knowledge.

Why would a wizard/witch have general knowledge on something that they never used and will never have to?

Yeah, Hogwarts is a thousand years old, so how did students commute from London to Hogwarts before trains were invented?

Probably floo powder or portkeys. I don't know why you guys are expecting to find a plot hole here when there are tons of different means of transporting large amounts of people clearly described in the books.

I would guess the train is partially meant to allow students opportunities to get to know each other, see some scenery, and just have an enjoyable trip to Hogwarts. That's not so strange - lots of schools in the real world sacrifice efficiency for enjoyment (to a certain extent).

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

He doesn't comprehend how they work, mostly. Things that can't just be observed, like what makes a car move or a light turn on.

its called, general knowledge.

Why would a wizard/witch have general knowledge on something that they never used and will never have to?

erm, thats why its called general knowledge.

[indy4 155]

I find books 1 and 2 enjoyable. Book 3 was pretty good, and I loved Book 4 (probably my favorite book). After that, JKR lost the plot a bit and things got realllly really bloated.

Anyway, one thing that I could never get my head around was the whole secret magical society who have managed to keep rather quaint customs in the midst of the industralized Muggle world. How are we supposed to believe that entire pockets of people could live their entire lives totally ignorant of Muggle customs and erm...items? For example, I've never gotten Mr. Weasley's fascination and if I remember correctly, incomprehension of Muggle appliances and stuff when he works in the middle of bloody London!

He doesn't comprehend how they work, mostly. Things that can't just be observed, like what makes a car move or a light turn on.

its called, general knowledge.

Why would a wizard/witch have general knowledge on something that they never used and will never have to?

erm, thats why its called general knowledge.

Yeah, but we only have general knowledge over stuff that we use very frequently. Wizards and witches are used to thousands of years of keeping out of the muggle's way, not investing time in learning about them.

I bet you couldn't tell me, off the top of your head, how the digestive system of an ant works. You know how the human digestive system works because of general knowledge, because it's relevant to your life, even if the knowledge itself isn't going to be used in any way. But a car is completely irrelevant in the life of a wizard or witch, thus they wouldn't have any reason to know how it works.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

wrong. we also tend to have general knowledge in things we encounter frequently and of things that interest us.

in this case, cars are something magic ppl encounter in everyday life. (at least the ones living/working in London and other urban areas). You would expect them to have an inkling of how it works. basic human inquisitiveness will see to it. if there were people flying about on brooms in my everyday commute I would probably have an idea, or at least find out about how those brooms fly. You don't even have to actively search out knowledge such as this. besides, Mr. Weasley is portrayed as fascinated with Muggle technology, which gives him even more reason to be fluent and knowledgeable in such things. Surely he could have just popped into the normal non-magic library/bookstore or pulled up Wikipedia?