Announcement

**StarDreamer** · 20 November 2005, 09:10 PM

Spoiler:

**SlytherinGal** · 20 November 2005, 09:11 PM

it is kind of funny that we are all talking about what we wished we would have seen and everything and really haven't talked much about what we liked

**Erised** · 20 November 2005, 09:20 PM

too much stuff that I liked and I have to go to bed!

I liked everything except for the most obvious parts that everyone else didn't like.

p.s. Dumbledore is supposed to be the calmest person in this planet. He would never shake Harry like that! I don't think I like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore anymore. Or at least who ever told him be like that. This is not Dumbledore!!!

**SlytherinGal** · 20 November 2005, 09:40 PM

i agree...i don't like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore either...i wish they could have gotten Ian McKellen, but he was too busy playing Gandalf

G'nite Erised...i too am off to bed

**StarDreamer** · 21 November 2005, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Erised

too much stuff that I liked and I have to go to bed!

I liked everything except for the most obvious parts that everyone else didn't like.

p.s. Dumbledore is supposed to be the calmest person in this planet. He would never shake Harry like that! I don't think I like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore anymore. Or at least who ever told him be like that. This is not Dumbledore!!!

I totally agree!!!! That's what I thought too!

Originally posted by Potions_Mistress

i agree...i don't like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore either...i wish they could have gotten Ian McKellen, but he was too busy playing Gandalf

G'nite Erised...i too am off to bed

yea, I don't think I like him as Dumbledore, either... ok I know I don't, but that's okay. he's a good actor and all, but he doesn't play Dumbledore like the character is supposed to be.. does that make sense? hrm..

anyway, there were lots of good things about the movie! I liked how dark it was.. because that showed a closeness to the book and the serious issues in the story. I'm glad they didn't try to dumb it down or anything and are aiming for quality productions and not just trying to reach a target market with disregard to the quality of the films!
Also, I really liked Neville and Fred & George in this movie!

**iLemon** · 21 November 2005, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Potions_Mistress

OMG OMG OMG the movie was awsome!!! I went to it yesterday, and I almost went in to see it again

I am sooooooooooo going to have to see it again.

My only complaint was:

Spoiler:

I've already seen it again

Spoiler:

**SlytherinGal** · 21 November 2005, 06:21 AM

yea, i know, they left out a bunch of important people and scenes

Spoiler:

now, bring on the 5th movie and 7th book

**Nightingale** · 21 November 2005, 07:02 AM

hey did anyone notice this

Spoiler:

**Erised** · 21 November 2005, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Nightingale

hey did anyone notice this

Spoiler:

Warning! Possible Book 7 spoiler!!!!!!!!!!

Spoiler:

Hi! I just re-read the series again in preparation for GoF, and was struck by Ludo Bagman's behavior and other comments in the GoF book. Winky the house elf noted that Bagman was "Bad" according to Mr. Crouch, and he was brought in for a hearing for passing information to the dark side. Just being dim isn't enough of an excuse to miss the danger of Voldemort, Bagman is also a good actor. When Bertha goes missing, he takes no steps to find her and even discourages other people from questioning her absence.

Mr. Bagman seems to have a shaky sense of morality, and not mind bending rules to fit his needs - like the goblin gold mess - and he has been allowed to get away with things because he was a respected Quidditch player. He had no problem cheating fellow wizards as well as goblins out of gold. Bagman also had a vested interest in getting Harry to the cup, which served Voldemort's needs as well. Fred and George point out that Bagman had to "run for it" right after the third task, the point where the dark mark also made itself felt to the death eaters.

Also, when Voldemort walks the circle of death eaters at the end of GoF, he comes to a place where there are several holes. "One, too cowardly to return...One, who I believe has left me forever...". On my first read, I figured the first was Karkaroff and the second Snape. However, it could also be that in that particular spot, the one who is too cowardly is Bagman, and Karkaroff the one who has left forever.

I think I read somewhere in an interview that the primary characters for book 7 have already been introduced, although some of them haven't played key rolls before. Bagman could easily play a larger role in book 7. He hasn't been visible at the ministry, but he could have been keeping Voldemort company. He has the past connection to Voldemort, and also it appears only a few know or remember his dark past. His charisma could help win him entry into many wizarding homes, and through him sway people over to Voldemort's cause.

Now, to contradict myself, I also heard in an interview somewhere with JK Rowling that she discusses each screenplay with Steven Kloves and makes sure that important people/events don't get left out, so it may be that I am reading far too much into Mr. Bagman's spotted past.

Apologies if I have repeated a thread or comments, I am new to this site and found it rather daunting even with the search programs to try to find a similar comment.

This is from http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=77744

Which means that if they left Ludo Bagman out of movie 4, and all that *possible foreshadowing*, they are going to have a real job introducing him in movie 7.

Also, I think that all this leaving out "apparent not important stuff" from the movies, will pile up by movie 7. And all the *not important* stuff will become very important, and will slap the movie makers right in the face!

**SlytherinGal** · 21 November 2005, 10:18 AM

yea, i agree...i mean there was a lot of "possible foreshadowing" left out of movie 4 IMHO (in my honest opinion). i don't know how they are going to introduce Ludo now.

but i guess you gotta look at it this way...they can't possibly put EVERYTHING in the movies or the movies would be 2 days long

(not that we would mind of course)

**iLemon** · 21 November 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Potions_Mistress

yea, i agree...i mean there was a lot of "possible foreshadowing" left out of movie 4 IMHO (in my honest opinion). i don't know how they are going to introduce Ludo now.

but i guess you gotta look at it this way...they can't possibly put EVERYTHING in the movies or the movies would be 2 days long

(not that we would mind of course)

Count me in!!

Erised- great theory but

Spoiler:

I'm gunna have to read HBP again

**Nightingale** · 21 November 2005, 10:39 AM

do any of you lot think that Crookshanks is an animagus?

**iLemon** · 21 November 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Nightingale

do any of you lot think that Crookshanks is an animagus?

No, there's a book called something like 'Magical creatures' written by JK where it explains what Crookshanks is.

**SlytherinGal** · 21 November 2005, 10:54 AM

i dunno

why do ya say that

**StarDreamer** · 21 November 2005, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Erised

Also, I think that all this leaving out "apparent not important stuff" from the movies, will pile up by movie 7. And all the *not important* stuff will become very important, and will slap the movie makers right in the face!

That was my thinking too!

Originally posted by McKay's girl

Erised- great theory but

Spoiler:

That seems true too.. although writers often don't have a lot of control over the films themselves.. even screenwriters.. but of course, JK/HP is a different endeavor of its own, so hopefully she is supervising everything and making sure what needs to be left in, is left in

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.... at least all the films so far have been super cool

and so they should continue that way...

Announcement

Harry Potter Discussion and Appreciation Thread

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment