Harry Potter and the order of the Phoenix Movie SPOILERS SPOILERS- Page 5

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 5:35pm

Book 6 (Half Blood Prince) is actually shorter that Order was. By about 200 pages.

[Bal]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:39pm

ActualReality2, I felt that the scene in St. Mungo's really gave Neville a REASON to fight, one that we needed to see so we would know how destroyed he'd been by what happened. And Professor Lockhart, while he used to be a jerk, made me so sad.

VIETgrlTerifa, I don't believe I'm exaggerating. The fabulous world that JK Rowling created isn't consistent, and thus not believable. The kids learn a new spell in class, and then everyone and their mother is using it all the time, whereas they hadn't used it before. Little things like that disappoint me. And in Book One, Harry Potter was a children's book written for children. Now the books are children's books written for adults... It makes the ideas and themes in the books seem facile, and don't challenge the reader at all.

I understand that people don't WANT to be challenged, but that depresses me.

Um, yay Rupert Grint!

[Weez]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 6:45pm

When I want to be challenged, I'll go back to 'War And Peace', which I've been reading since I was nine and should have finished by the time I'm fifty-six, at my current rate of pages, and assorted other "grown-up" books that I read. When I want fun escapism, I can do (and have done XP) a LOT worse than the 'Harry Potter' series. ^_^

[istillbelieve24601]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 7:02pm

Did anyone notice how Luna used "Levicorpus" on one of the Death Eaters? Levicorpus was one of the Half Blood Prince's spells Harry learned in the sixth book. I was a little surprised they let something like that slide; don't they have people check for slip-ups like that?

I'm a bit embarassed to admit that I knew that off the top of my head.

[Weez]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 7:06pm

Well, Levicorpus was "in vogue" back in the day of the Marauders. Who's to say Luna didn't learn it elsewhere? At the very least, it's a nice little thumb-biter at Rowling's habit of not having ANONE use certain spells until after Harry has learned them.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 7:08pm

Harry Potter is more than fun escapism for many of it's fans. JKR created an immense world that seems shallow and childish on the surface level, but if one chooses to, they can delve deeper into it see many deeper meanings and interpret the characters and situations on different levels. Otherwise, the books wouldn't have as big of an adult fanbase as they do now. Many of them are academics who use Harry Potter as another way to express what they learned or are learning in their field.

If you actually read many essays written on things touched on in the books or attended the numerous conventions that house many lectures, you'd see how much research JKR went through to be able to touch a nerve with people with a variety of interests. Some of the more interesting lectures at Phoenix Risingg convention were ones like the globalization in Goblet of Fire or the way the fanbase reacts to Umbridge and how it represents female villains in past fairy tales. In many of those stories the female villains get defeated by exploiting thei what the authors felt were their weakness, which was their femininity...with Umbridge it's the way she chooses to present herself and how some fans felt that Umbridge was raped by the Centaurs. And so on and so on.

Your criticisms of the books seem a bit shallow to me and it's based on nitpicky details like the way the spells or situations (like say in book 2 with the Mandrakes) only seem important in context of the basic plot or plots of the particular book. Well, she's not the first one to do that and many great writers have done that before. Also, before the students learn the spells, or plants, or potion, etc., they don't really mean anything to them until they have to use it. Would you expect JKR to write every single spell that Harry overhears? Also, there are many things JKR introduced that the kids didn't officially learn in the class that they either used (The Polyjuice potion) or haven't (the Veritaserum.

Updated On: 7/13/07 at 07:08 PM

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 9:58pm

Just saw the movie. A lot of details have already been posted, so I'll be short. I thought the editing was weird and choppy but the acting was great. The ending scenes in the ministry were fantastic, and I was very sad at the end after Sirius' death. The movie could've been longer, and I think they should have taken the time to have Kreacher's betrayal in the movie instead of what they had. The ending made me feel like it was missing something, and I would've liked them to use the ending from the book, with Harry's "welcoming comity" at the train station.

I thought it was a good movie, maybe my favorite, but it still left a lot out from the book and was probably the least faithful adaption of the movies. But it was to be expected, considering the fifth book is the longest of the series.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 10:15pm

They originally wanted to cut Kreacher out entirely and JK told them they had to at least introduce him. Makes you wonder if he's gonna play a big part in the last book (aside from the fact that he's on the British cover... :P)

What is stereotypical about Harry Potter? I think your accusations are facile. Of course, it's a hero's quest story, but there are no original stories--what matters is the details. The incredible thing about Harry Potter is that what begins as a charming, self contained story grows into something so much more. The world she creates is rich, detailed, and full of history untapped. It's a parallel universe. The characters are nuanced and have complex human morality. They are fallible.

I can't believe you actually have a problem with the fact that the books mature and change organically as they continue. Of course they do. The main character is growing up.

I'll even go so far as to say that Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince is a novel of ideas--about wrong and right, good vs. evil, and the nature of storytelling. Especially in consideration of her intended audience. Harry Potter is an archetypal hero for a reason, and Rowling certainly has a point to make. I don't think she's the most brilliant prose stylist, but I think the story she has cobbled together is pretty brilliant. Especially the way it all goes together, and the way she reveals detail. She's a brilliant narrator. The rest of the literary world has not dismissed Harry Potter, but go ahead and dismiss it if you want.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 10:47pm

"
What is stereotypical about Harry Potter? I think your accusations are facile. Of course, it's a hero's quest story, but there are no original stories--what matters is the details. The incredible thing about Harry Potter is that what begins as a charming, self contained story grows into something so much more. The world she creates is rich, detailed, and full of history untapped. It's a parallel universe. The characters are nuanced and have complex human morality. They are fallible."

The characters themselves show this. In the fifth movie (and book), Sirius told Harry that the world isn't separated into Death Eaters and good people, and he was right. Looking at just Sirius' character, Rowling introduced him to us as an insane murderer that Harry thought was responsible for his parents' death. As the book progressed, Sirius became Harry's caring godfather who was not a murderer or responsible for his parent's death. In his case, like in that of many characters in the series, it wasn't black and white.

EDIT: Another thing about the movie--The way they did the storyline with Cho Chang was weird, and gave Harry no reason to stay angry at her as it did in the book.

Also, has the soundtrack to this movie come out yet?

Updated On: 7/13/07 at 10:47 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:35pm

That's so true. The character of Sirius is so well written. He's considered one of the story's big heroes, but he's an inadvertant and ineffective hero--he does nothing in the whole story (yet). He's moody and violent and has a lot of big words for Harry about how he should treat other people, yet he doesn't practice what he preaches.

I kind of liked how they did the Cho Chang thing in the movie. In the book it was sort of unbelievable. I mean, getting Dumbledore kicked out of Hogwarts would be enough to make me stop talking to my snitch of a friend :P

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:39pm

I don't know, in the movie they said Cho was given truth potion, which would make it weird for Harry to stay angry at her in movie six, unless they take her out completely (which they might).

Sirius is one of my favorite characters because there's so much to him. I would love to know more about his past. In the same way, I find Snape very interesting because no one knows whether he is good or evil, and the quote about nothing being black or white (or good people and death Eaters) is so true for him as well.

[RENTingFAME]

Posted: 7/13/07 at 11:56pm

"Did anyone notice how Luna used "Levicorpus" on one of the Death Eaters? Levicorpus was one of the Half Blood Prince's spells Harry learned in the sixth book. I was a little surprised they let something like that slide; don't they have people check for slip-ups like that?

I'm a bit embarassed to admit that I knew that off the top of my head."

They also use it when they're training in the DA - they use it on Nigel, the little boy. When I heard them say it, I turned to my friend that I saw the movie with and said "That's WRONG! That's from the HBP's potions book! WRONG!" So you're not the only one... and I noticed it even earlier. So welcome to the Harry Potter dork club.

"I don't know, in the movie they said Cho was given truth potion, which would make it weird for Harry to stay angry at her in movie six, unless they take her out completely (which they might). "

Yeah, the thing with Cho was weird... I understand that they didn't want to have to add the character of Marietta, but still, making it Cho and then the truth potion thing made the storyline very strange and quite askew from the book.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 12:01am

I can't help but feel that there is probably still so much about Snape we don't know.

Yeah, I noticed they used Levicorpus too and it pissed me off. I guess they won't be doing the bit where Harry accidentally lifts Ron out of bed.

Couldn't Harry and Cho just be embarrassed at one another? She's hardly in the sixth book anyway. She was never my favorite character.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 12:03am

I have a feeling they'll just cut Cho out. In the sixth book, she's not really necessary.

One of the reasons I can't wait until book seven is to finally find out where Snape's loyalty lies and what he's all about.

[RENTingFAME]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 12:14am

I'm just waiting for all hell to break loose... it's going to to so freaking amazing...

[shiksa_goddess]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 9:36am

I saw the movie Thursday night at 10:00, and I am still not sure where it lies on my favorites list. Our volume kept cutting out, which was maddening, but at least they saved the lengthy cut out for the credits.

My thoughts:

*Oh, Ron Weasley, you looked yummy. Not only that, I was thrilled that Ron has finally gotten a chance to prove himself (on screen) as a truly loyal best friend to Harry. He wasn't sputtering and complaining all the time. He was more like the Ron in the books.

*Ron/Hermione moments were ABOUND and as a huge shipper I was loving it.

*I don't know...I feel that the editing was kind of terrible. Not the effects, but the camera moves and what not, it felt kind of amateurish.

*Luna and Umbridge were both great. Both embodied their characters very well. Umbridge was hilarious and I loved when Harry uttered "I'm sorry professor, but I must not tell lies."

*I was dissapointed with "Snape's worst memory," I saw James, I saw Snape, and what I presume to be Sirius. Where were Lily, Peter, and Remus? I think this will definitely have been a part that will show up in deleted scenes.

*Snape popping up in Harry's memories was hilarious to me. Invading all these "precious moments" and saying something snarky was great.

*The fight at the ministry was visually amazing. Sure it wasn't exactly the same as the book, but these things have to be modified for the movie screen. The death eaters swooping around in their "cloud mobiles" was a bit confusing, but it worked well to create an element of fear. I do wish that some of the kids were taken out of the fight though, like in the book. Hermione with the mystery spell, Ron with the brains, Ginny with the broken ankle, etc. However it was very good.

*Bellatrix popping out and A/King Sirius? WHAT? I have always been under the impression that he was stunned and then fell in to the veil. I suppose they have to make it easier for the audience to realize that he is dead, since many people that read the books don't even realize.

*I was expecting a bit more of the fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort, but it was still pretty amazing. I liked seeing the scale of the spells they could create. It gave a sense of how truly terrifying Voldemort is. I thought the possession scene was great because it showed the inner struggle quite well. I loved seeing the flashbacks and I got a bit teary seeing them because of the thought that one of the trio may die in the final book.

*Everyone raves about Bellatrix, but I didn't love her. I didn't hate her either, but I never was under the impression that she was THAT eccentric, only slightly.

*Radcliffe's acting was so much better in this movie. He still has a little way to go, but I really felt Harry's emotions. Emma Watson was a little better in this film but still relies on her eyebrows too much. I think Grint is the strongest out of the three.

*The kissing scene was kind of skanky, I wasn't fond of it.

*Grawp was actually cute and I adored the scenes with him and Hermione, even though it was far from the way the book described it. It was endearing and sweet.

All in all a good movie, but confusing for people that have not read the books. My friend (who hasn't read the books) felt as if she had been left in the dark a little. She still really enjoyed the movie, but it is just a completely different experience never having read the books.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 10:32am

I may have missed this in all of the posts, but the one line all of my friends are talking about is the one that Luna delivers at the end of the film about things you lost coming back to you. The line is not in the book and we all think Rowling wanted in in there as a teaser for the last book. So what/who will come back to Harry? And how?

[Mamie]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 10:42am

I'm so glad you mentioned that. It was a GREAT line - and could be rich with meaning. Didn't she also say - things you lost coming back to you - but not the way you expect them? That's when she saw her shoes hanging from the arch. I really must go back and see it again. Harry has lost his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, who knows how many others. If this line isn't carried forward - at least by the last book/movie, I shall be seriously disappointed.

[singingwendy]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 12:02pm

Of course, you realize...if you follow that through.....that Harry may have the "lost come back to him" because he loses his battle with Voldemort and crosses to the other side of the veil.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 12:54pm

It could mean so many things. And I think that is a good theory because I really do think she is going to kill Harry. My theory is that he will lose the final battle, Vodermort will go back into hiding for whatever reason and Neville will take over for Harry. I also think Hermione or Ron will die. Maybe both. Which is what will be one of the reasons for the final battle. And he will get them back also. But that could be totally wrong!!

[singingwendy]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 1:13pm

I still predict Ginny is killed by Voldemort, and that's what pushes Harry over the edge to kill Voldemort. That or he dies saving Ginny's life. Both to would connect the idea of love being the thing that give Harry his difference from Voldemort.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 1:40pm

That's a feasible idea, but love does not have to mean romantic love. Harry could die saving anyone from Ginny to Hermione to Ron, and it would still be out love.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 1:47pm

I keep forgetting about Ginny. I am just re-reading the 6th book. I read it so fast that I think I really missed some things and don't remember a lot of it. But I think that something will happen to Ron or Hermione. And I think Neville will end up with a scar after defending Harry's death which will force Voldermort back into hiding.

[shiksa_goddess]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 3:29pm

Neville isn't going to have anything to do with killing Voldemort. JKR has said that much.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/14/07 at 3:36pm

Well that blows my theory! I didn't know she said that. I still feel he will play a big part in the ending of the series.