jamesie 1 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Leaky Cauldron has several different new HP game covers. Idk if Amazon has the same or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 No visiting Sirius in Hogsmeade in the GoF movie:Gary Oldman has 'tiny part' in GOFThe actor who plays Sirius Black recently said the following in an interview with IGN: "I'll disappoint you because I'm just a tiny, tiny little part in the next one. I'm just embers in the fire. But if I do Harry Potter five, I'm featured in five. And, oh, they'll have to pay me big bucks for that. (He laughs)"This confirms a report we received months ago saying that Sirius would only appear in his CGI form, and we interpreted that as meaning his head would appear in the Gryffindor Common Room fireplace.Not a surprise, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 But that is gonna be weird... If Mrs. Weasly and Snape and McGonnagal don't know about Sirius (like at the end of the book) then how is the whole Order of the Phoenix thing gonna work out? Maybe Dumbledore will introduce all of the Order to Sirius over the summer, which is not documented in the book. :roll: OOOOHHHH and I noticed something... At the end of GoF, Harry sees the "horseless carraiges" coming to pick them up to go home or w/e... And in OotP, Harry can see the horses because he's "seen death"... Well, he really saw death at the end of GoF... So he should have been able to see the Thestrals... But he didn't at the end of GoF... And I'm confusing myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Rowling already answered that. There are two reasons:1) the events had not sunk in yet. Harry had to get over the initial shock of the events, before he could see the Thestrals (sp?)2) it would be too confusing and would take too much time to deal with this at the end of the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I suppose that means no Buckbeak in GoF either...not that I was really expecting it.Ray Barnsbury - who doesn't mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Buckbeak isn't in GoF, is he? I know he's in #5 for like 2 seconds in the beginning when Harry gets to Sirius' cribTim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 He's in the cave with Sirius when the trio visits him outside of Hogsmeade.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Wow, I definitely need to re-read.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Rowling already answered that. There are two reasons:1) the events had not sunk in yet. Harry had to get over the initial shock of the events, before he could see the Thestrals (sp?)2) it would be too confusing and would take too much time to deal with this at the end of the book.Reason #1 is a bunch of crap. Always go for the practical explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 At least she acknowledges the practical explanations for things like this, and admits it when she goofs. Very unlike Lucas and his steaming pile of SW cop-outs.Ray Barnsbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Rowling already answered that. There are two reasons:1) the events had not sunk in yet. Harry had to get over the initial shock of the events, before he could see the Thestrals (sp?)2) it would be too confusing and would take too much time to deal with this at the end of the book.Reason #1 is a bunch of crap. Always go for the practical explanation.I think she's also said that that's how it could be explained, and that that explanation was probably more of an afterthought. The second reason is the real reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 I read today that Liz Hurley will be playing Belatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, saw it over at Dark Horizons, so I question its validity, but according to the blurb, she says she's playing all her scenes with Jason Isaacs, and Ralph Fiennes, which would be correct. If true, I can't wait to see her death scene in Half Blood Prince or #7, and I hope its at the hands of Neville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I've heard of this before, but I thought it was just a rumor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 This has been almost a certain for a long time. But I am glad to hear that she's for sure gonna be in it... She's sexy. That will make the movie worthwhile. For sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 And the Leaky Cauldron has a new GoF picture. (it's a little dinky picture of the goblet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 That Hurley as Lestrange rumor's been around for a while (somewhere back in this thread probably if you're crazy enough to go searching for it) but I don't know if it was ever debunked. Or commented on officially really. The rumor that Ralph Finnes was going to play Voldemort was around for a long time before it was confirmed, so there is precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Well, Liz Hurley is NOT gonna be Bellatrix. WB said "nope" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Yeah, it was debunked about ten pages ago I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 they debunked the Finnes thing too, until they announced him. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Brausam 214 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Now, I actually just watched chamber of secrets for the first time the other day and i have a question...during the quidditch game is music tracked in from the chase through coruscant sequence in attack of the clones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 No, but it sounds very similar. Williams obviously pulled out some recent notes since he had so much going on when this score is written. The motif for Lucious Malfoy is also the same as the Seperatist Theme from Episode II, just a couple of notes altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I don't remember Fiennes being debunked. I remember Rown Atkinson being debunked, however. As if that would ever have happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 That might've been fun if they'd cast Tony Robinson as Wormtail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 That might've been fun if they'd cast Tony Robinson as Wormtail. LOL And of course Hugh Laurie as Lucious Malfoy and Stephen Fry as Fudge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damo 0 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Ralph Fiennes interview on Lord Voldemort: see here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPFAN_2 0 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Do you guys consider the Harry Potter books to be books for kids? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 That might've been fun if they'd cast Tony Robinson as Wormtail. My Lord, I have a cunning plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I consider HP books to be for whoever enjoys them. Cause I know tons of adults who like the books as well as so many people my age. So yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,683 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Do you guys consider the Harry Potter books to be books for kids? Just curious. Definitely not.When OOtP came out, my dad kept borrowing it between me reading it and finished it before me LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Do you guys consider the Harry Potter books to be books for kids? Just curious."For kids"? Certainly. Just as film scores are music "for films".Marian - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Just as film scores are music "for films".Marian - Well aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SturgisPodmore 0 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 No, kids and adults alike enjoy the books. Rowling isn't afraid to kill characters or use profanity . . . the books find their own audience.~Sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Just as film scores are music "for films".Well aren't they?That's what I said. They are for films. Yet we listen to them on CD. So what they're *for* isn't necessarily the only or most important thing about them.Marian - who might add that The Hobbit is also for children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 That's what I said. They are for films. Yet we listen to them on CD. So what they're *for* isn't necessarily the only or most important thing about them.But how a score works in a film IS the most important thing about it?After all these years you still don't understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 HP started out as kids books (though there is plenty for adults to enjoy too) and has evolved and grown up as the main characters have. The last 2-3 books have made it an incredibly complex work with so many different intertwining layers of plot and character, and still, as Greg might say, a cracking good read.John- hoping Book 6 will continue this trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Composer_Fan 2 Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 I grew up with Harry Potter. I started the first book when I was 11 (which was Harry's age in the book as well) So now, here I am, still reading HP as I enter college lol. But the story and characters are still relavant to me and it's never a dull, trivial read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Yes. They're kids books. But they work on an adult, adolescent and child level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I disagree that they're kid's books. Possibly aimed more to young adults, 12 and over, but a 7 year old is not going to understand half the stuff that happens in "Goblet of Fire". Like that stuff with the pensieve and the trials, all the different characters, etc. There are just way too many levels, and too many adult themes happens to get real enjoyment out of someone that young. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 Yes. They're kids books. But they work on an adult, adolescent and child level.NO, they are not kids books, they are now young adult books, I seriously doubt that Half-Blood Prince will be acceptable reading for a 7 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Well you know that they're going to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SturgisPodmore 0 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 . . . and weep.~Sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Their parents are going to buy it, thinking "it's a kids book, my kids will love it". Not their fault they're given that label. Nor mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 It's amazing that someone that young would even be able to read a 900 page book anyway. Order of the Phoenix is so tightly bound it's not funny. I just finished re-reading Goblet, and am about to start Order again for the first time since 2003, and the exposition is so convoluted, that even though there are no sexual situations or abrasive language, it still isn't targeted to kids, as I've said in my previous post. This is mainly due, in my opinion, to the setting of the story. Witches, wizards, magic...etc. This isn't exactly a huge draw for a 25 year old. However, what sets is apart from many other books, is that it's largely accessable to everyone.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesie 1 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Well, OotP is, so far, the most "unreadable" of the series so far for younger kids simply because it's hard to follow... There will be 50-100 pages of NOTHING it seems like. You'll forget about what the whole point of those pages were... Or something like that. Anyway, I think HP books are acceptable for all ages, really... The kids who read them know what to expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I'm 28 and found "Odor of the Pee-nix" to be unreadable. Really struggled with that book and really have no desire to finish the series now.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I'm 28 and found "Odor of the Pee-nix" to be unreadable. Really struggled with that book and really have no desire to finish the series now.NeilReally? I thought it was the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Well, HBP is going to be shorter. And also, re-reading GOF at the moment, I noticed one of the reasons for it's size is that it uses a bigger print than the first three (I have the Bloomsbury editions).Marian - nearing the finale of GOF and looking forward to OOTP. The Ghost and the Darkness (Jerry Goldsmith) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I really think OotP needed some serious editing. There was a lot in there that didn't need to be there, and because it was J.K. Rowling they let it go. Still, from the sounds of it, H-BP will be shorter and hopefully more focused, and I think both the editors/publishers and Rowling have learned from OotP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPFAN_2 0 Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I really think OotP needed some serious editing. There was a lot in there that didn't need to be there, and because it was J.K. Rowling they let it go. Still, from the sounds of it, H-BP will be shorter and hopefully more focused.OOTP needed no editing at all. What's there should stay there.and I think both the editors/publishers and Rowling have learned from OotPLearned from it. What is that supposed to mean? Ootp wasn't a mess up, a stumble or anything to learn from. It's the way it is because it has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I agree (or should I say "Amen! Brother HPFAN2!" ), I had no problem with the length or flow of OotP. It didn't feel like overload to me, just yet more detail and depth. Really well done. I can't think of any major sequence that happens in the book that needs cutting, it all has a purpose in one way or another.John- who really enjoyed the DA in OotP and hopes it will be back, with Dumbledore's backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts