Wojo 2,453 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?They already have. Just as wizards and witches know very little about technology or its uses, they have even less knowledge of politics and finance. Regardless, they have placed their agents in command of all the world's largest companies, corporations, and churches, and watched as the world has fallen apart around them.I thought everyone knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hlao-roo 389 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?They already have. Just as wizards and witches know very little about technology or its uses, they have even less knowledge of politics and finance. Regardless, they have placed their agents in command of all the world's largest companies, corporations, and churches, and watched as the world has fallen apart around them.Cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I can't tell if that was a serious post or not. My memory of the details as explained in the books are fuzzy at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?I think it would be completely possible to take a five minute walk twice a day through a car infested city and not be curious enough to pursue how the cars are moving. That doesn't seem like a stretch at all to me. Going back to my last example, I see ants every day, but I coudln't explain how they work. Mr. Weasley would never risk integrating to that extent. Witches and wizards are too afraid of muggles to get too comfortable. And I'm sure he doesn't have a computer. Even the non-Death Eater ones insist on keeping the two worlds segregated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Brausam 215 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?All young Wizards are watched until they are 18 (or was it 17? either way it's the age that Harry was about to turn). When they moved him in the beginning he wasn't 18 yet. Once he was he could do anything free of being watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?Because Wikipedia (and the web for that matter) didn't exist yet; the stories take place in 1991-1998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?I think it would be completely possible to take a five minute walk twice a day through a car infested city and not be curious enough to pursue how the cars are moving. That doesn't seem like a stretch at all to me. Going back to my last example, I see ants every day, but I coudln't explain how they work. Mr. Weasley would never risk integrating to that extent. Witches and wizards are too afraid of muggles to get too comfortable. And I'm sure he doesn't have a computer. Even the non-Death Eater ones insist on keeping the two worlds segregated.Again, I'll admit my memory of the fine details are fuzzy, but I remember Mr. Weasley to be highly interested in Muggle stuff (perhaps in a conversation circa CoS?). Surely he could have hit up a library for encyclopedias and stuff? Were the magic ppl afraid of muggles? I thought muggles were considered to be inferior by some and I don't remember any group of magic ppl considering muggles to be superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Almost all wizards and witches, to some extent, believed in segregating the two worlds. They didn't all think that muggles were inferior, and most of them weren't really afraid of muggles, but they were afraid of mixing cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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?They already have. Just as wizards and witches know very little about technology or its uses, they have even less knowledge of politics and finance. Regardless, they have placed their agents in command of all the world's largest companies, corporations, and churches, and watched as the world has fallen apart around them.Cool!Oh, that explains Standard & Poor's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I can't tell if that was a serious post or not.I'm betting that it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 153 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Oh, that explains Standard & Poor's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Regarding the Mr. Weasley, I think you have to remember that especially at the beginning of the series, Rowling was writing in a whimisical style. Most of the characters are caracitures: Mr. Weasley is fascinated with but ignorant about Muggles. Hermione is an insufferable know-it-all (and literally knows everything, especially when the plot needs it). Snape is cruel and cold. Filch is obsessed with disciplining children and banishing Peeves. Hagrid is an animal nut. Etc, etc.You're right - it doesn't make sense if you really think about it but if you do you're sort of ruining it for yourself.It's kind of like saying, "Hey - why don't those other Imperial leaders believe in the force - they just saw Vader use it right there!" In fantasy, you have to be able to go to extremes sometimes, or else the tapestry becomes colorless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 These are childrens books, not high art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 These are childrens books, not high art.But children books can be high art.Heck, high art can use caricatures and stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The first 2 are children's books, and arguable the 3rd and the 4th (up to the graveyard scene anyway). From the graveyard scene in 4 to the end, I wouldn't want a child reading them. It's kind of like the first book is G, the second book is a hard G pushing PG, the third book is a hard PG/PG13, and the 4th from the graveyard scene to the end are PG13s bordering on Rs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 These are childrens books, not high art.They are certainly, however, high fantasy.You people throw around the term "children's book" like it's a bad thing. Is not The Hobbit a children's book? Complete with songs and talking animals.I cannot honestly believe that anyone would recommend to read the Harry Potter series without starting with Book One because it's too juvenile. Bless your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Seriously. You can read book 1 in one sitting, its not like its a huge waste of time. And books 3-7 are better if you've read 1-2 first.Anyone who enjoyed the movies would like the book, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hlao-roo 389 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The first 2 are children's books, and arguable the 3rd and the 4th (up to the graveyard scene anyway). From the graveyard scene in 4 to the end, I wouldn't want a child reading them. It's kind of like the first book is G, the second book is a hard G pushing PG, the third book is a hard PG/PG13, and the 4th from the graveyard scene to the end are PG13s bordering on RsShe had to end the series before it reached NC-17 proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taikomochi 1,136 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 It's kind of like the first book is G, the second book is a hard G pushing PG, the third book is a hard PG/PG13, and the 4th from the graveyard scene to the end are PG13s bordering on Rs No way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 You want to read to a small child the part where Peter Pettigrew cuts his own arm off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Kids love that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taikomochi 1,136 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 It's a bit disturbing, but none of it even touches stuff like Temple of Doom, you know, the original PG13 movie. I've seen PG13 films go a lot further than that. The Dark Knight goes way further than that. Peter Pettigrew's arm being cut off is R-rated? They didn't even show it. This is the stuff PG13 was invented for.That bit felt hokey anyways. He cut it off like cutting butter. It takes any disturbing qualities out, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The DH films left Pettigrew's fate totally unresolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Wow, that's weak sauce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The DH films left Pettigrew's fate totally unresolved.He gets knocked out in Malfoy Mansion, but i dunno if he's dead or not.Did he even have any lines in the last few movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,716 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 The DH films left Pettigrew's fate totally unresolved.He gets knocked out in Malfoy Mansion, but i dunno if he's dead or not.Did he even have any lines in the last few movies?They had such plenty of top British actors in these movies that they could not even afford to give all of them lines. Obviously everybody rushed in to be in these films and they hand to fend extra ones off with a stick during production.Oh and Pettigrew's silver hand that Voldemort gave him is supposed to strangle him for his betrayal of his master. I have not seen the movie so I don't know if that is the case in Deathly Hallows Part 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hmm...that would have improved the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Oh and Pettigrew's silver hand that Voldemort gave him is supposed to strangle him for his betrayal of his master. I have not seen the movie so I don't know if that is the case in Deathly Hallows Part 1.Nope. He gets knocked out and left for dead, without the moment to even set up a deleted scene, suggesting that it was intentionally written out of the script instead of just left on the cutting room floor.If it's not shown in the film, we can revert to the books in most cases for explanation, but this is obviously an exception. Since he's knocked out when Harry and friends escape, the opportunity for Pettigrew to betray his master is removed.In DH2, he is not mentioned, suggesting that his body was either left at Malfoy Manor on the floor or Voldemort just killed him out of anger, which is likely. He is only shown in flashback as the wrong secret keeper to trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 You want to read to a small child the part where Peter Pettigrew cuts his own arm off?I was 4 when I first watched Terminator 2 in its full glory. I turned out quite alright. Kids just need to be treated with respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I saw Jaws when I was 3, and I turned out alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Terminator 2 is a pretty bloodless film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yes, but it's still pretty intense.The Dark Knight also hardly has any blood at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I also saw RoboCop around that age, and many other R-rated action films way before I was 13. And Saving Private Ryan on release (I was 10). I turned out alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,379 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yes, but it's still pretty intense.The Dark Knight also hardly has any blood at all And that's PG13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I also saw RoboCop around that age, and many other R-rated action films way before I was 13. Same here. Stuff like Robocop, Die Hard, The Terminator, some Steven seagal films.good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Yes, but it's still pretty intense.The Dark Knight also hardly has any blood at allthe Dark Knight didn't have any scenes of skin removal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Just some guys face being burned off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 thats nothing compared to the apocalypse dream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Why does James' and Lily's house have to look different in DH2 compared to HP:SS? Is it so difficult just to get these production details straight? It annoys me.Sorcerer's Stone:Deathly Hallows 2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 LOL. you're annoyed about that?How about Hagrid's hut being in an entirely different location starting the third film? Or the Weasleys home? Of the Whopping Willow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 LOL. you're annoyed about that?How about Hagrid's hut being in an entirely different location starting the third film? Or the Weasleys home? Of the Whopping Willow?Yes, terrible! Also the Entrance Courtyard, the boat house, the Leaky Cauldron location and all of those things. But this one is probably the most blatant insult to the viewer. Together with Hermione's parents being totally different actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Actually, after POA, I found it amazing that they were able to keep a visual continuity as well as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Actually, after POA, I found it amazing that they were able to keep a visual continuity as well as they did.But have you noticed that the Entrance Courtyard after PoA is still the Entrance Hall (from the first movie) in the wide shots of Hogwarts? I think they just used the old miniature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Never noticed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Sorcerer's Stone:Goblet of Fire and later (design also used in Wizarding World):But I can live with it...it fits Rowling's description of an ever changing Hogwarts castle.Lily's and James' house however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 ...doesn't really matter, as only people who are hung up about such things really care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 But I can live with it...it fits Rowling's description of an ever changing Hogwarts castle.Lily's and James' house however...... is seen for all of two seconds and in no way figures significantly in most viewers' imaginations, unlike the central location of Hogwarts which is really a character in of itself. For what it's worth, I think the Deathly Hallows design is a lot more wizardly and fits the design aesthetic of Godric's Hollow. That house from Philosopher's Stone is indistinguishable from the Dursleys'. Very boring.I actually find that Deathly Hallows (and to an extent the other Yates films) shows a lot of admiration for the Columbus films. There's the flashback footage straight out of PS. The return of Dobby - exactly as he was - not recast/reimagined as he very easily could have been. The Chamber of Secrets, again right out of CoS down to every detail (probably) - and it's actually an added scene, not something from the book. The Sword of Gryffindor with the same look and appearing/disappearing effect. And the final scene, from start to finish, is a love letter to Philosopher's Stone. It's not just the Williams music, but the paper owl, the chocolate frog, the location, the tone... everything. I never thought that ten years and three directors later things would end just as they began. It's like Superman IV, except not awful.I have to add that one of the highlights of seeing the movie with a raucous live audience was McGonagall's line, something to the effect of, "I believe you have some experience in pyrotechnics, Mr. Finnigan." Applause. It was such a stupid moment in PS, but I loved the reference to it. Nostalgia overload! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 155 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Also, when they show Voldemort killing Lily in Sorcerer's Stone, he's wearing a hood and you can't see his face. When they show him killing her in DH, is Ralph Fiennes without a hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Also, when they show Voldemort killing Lily in Sorcerer's Stone, he's wearing a hood and you can't see his face. When they show him killing her in DH, is Ralph Fiennes without a hood.Really? I didn't notice that. Another reason to go back to the theater and saw Part 2 again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 when you saw him kill her his face was unseen under the clock, the other scene is a different flashback. When Voldemort killed Lily his body was still whole and he had a nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now