Hp&hbp Spoilers

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Mircalla on women in the Potterverse:



I was having a discussion (again) about Tonks. We all know that I feel like Tonks was a fairly weak character in HBP. People have said they thought it showed great strength of character that she wanted to be with Lupin in spite of the fact that he’s a werewolf. I agree. And it showed great strength of character for Fleur, who before this looked a bit silly, to stand by Bill. It takes great strength of character for Molly to be there for her husband and children, who are all in the Order, and for whose safety she worries all the time. And it took enormous strength of character for Lily to die for her child.

But…are we seeing a pattern here?

Why is it that so many of the women’s “finest moments” all seem to revolve around “hearth and home”? Isn’t this perpetuating a stereotype? It does seem that the wizarding world is rather old-fashioned – women certainly work, but it seems like only those who are unmarried have careers outside the home (given, we haven’t seen that many married women, so I’m extrapolating from a very small amount of data here. And for all we know the female professors and staff at Hogwarts could have husbands and/or children, although that doesn’t seem likely – McGonagall, for one, spends her free time at Hogwarts). Fleur’s job doesn’t seem very serious – it’s part-time, “until the wedding,” so that she can “eemprove her Eenglish.” And just from very minor hints dropped here and there – Fleur’s happy that Bill likes rare steaks, so obviously there’s no doubt who’s going to be doing the cooking.

There isn’t anything in the world wrong with stay-at-home wives and mothers, and I certainly would hope that any parent would sacrifice anything for their children. And it isn’t just women; Sirius, certainly, was willing to risk his life for Harry. But it would make me feel a little bit better about the Potterverse in general if we saw more strong women whose major strengths did not *only* cover the domestic sphere. Again, of course, McGonagall is a strong woman. And there are strong women that we’ve seen “in the background,” so to speak, such as Amelia Bones. But get this. (It’s another one of those “little hints.”) Amelia Bones is Susan Bones’ aunt. Seems to me like that means that Amelia isn’t married (if she were Susan’s mother’s sister, she’d have a different last name; if she were Susan’s father’s sister and her name is *still* Bones, that means she isn’t married.) Madame Maxine, certainly a strong character, also unmarried. There’s really only one married woman who seems very strong and she’s…well…Bellatrix. In other words…she’s EVIL.

Okay, you might say I’m stretching things here, but the overall picture certainly seems to indicate that wizarding women, even more so than modern-day Muggle women, generally have to choose to either be wives and mothers, or to have careers. And damn it, that pisses me off.

‘Cause if *I* were going to create a whole new world, I think I’d try to remedy that. I’m just saying.

There was a good article in Salon about this:

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/fea...tml?sid=566202

(sorry, it's premium, I think you can get a day pass)

[andViolins]

I don't know if this movie has been discussed on the main board, but I did go see Goblet of Fire last Friday. It was a good movie. I liked it, however I think that the third one was better. I'm not sure why yet. I'm still thinking about it. I liked the humor in this one. Thought that it worked. Did not like the mosh pit dance scene at the Christmas Ball. Just didn't think that Franz Ferdinand worked in a Harry Potter movie. But, I will give them credit for trying something different. In this movie I thought Hermione came off as a bit too weepy. And there wasn't enough Snape! A Harry Potter movie can always use more Snape.

I took my 7-yr old son. Some told me it was too scary for a kid his age, while others said no problem. He seems to be struggling with the 2nd task - why the people were in the water, what would have happened if they were not rescued, why would the do that to people, etc., etc. I'm still not sure if I made the right move, but he wanted to see it so bad I thought he was going to explode.

aV

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by andViolins
I don't know if this movie has been discussed on the main board, but I did go see Goblet of Fire last Friday. It was a good movie. I liked it, however I think that the third one was better. I'm not sure why yet. I'm still thinking about it. I liked the humor in this one. Thought that it worked. Did not like the mosh pit dance scene at the Christmas Ball. Just didn't think that Franz Ferdinand worked in a Harry Potter movie. But, I will give them credit for trying something different. In this movie I thought Hermione came off as a bit too weepy. And there wasn't enough Snape! A Harry Potter movie can always use more Snape.

I took my 7-yr old son. Some told me it was too scary for a kid his age, while others said no problem. He seems to be struggling with the 2nd task - why the people were in the water, what would have happened if they were not rescued, why would the do that to people, etc., etc. I'm still not sure if I made the right move, but he wanted to see it so bad I thought he was going to explode.

aV

I thought this movie was not as well directed as the first three, but the underlying material is stronger. There's a scene at the beginning (in the train compartment) that's so badly directed it's almost physically painful. But it gets better quickly.

The second task is very weird. I'm glad I don't have to explain it to a kid, because it does seem unnecessarily callous. It's not like the people in the water asked to be there.

Definitely needed more Snape, and more Sirius. Moody was great, though.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by baltassoc
The second task is very weird. I'm glad I don't have to explain it to a kid, because it does seem unnecessarily callous. It's not like the people in the water asked to be there.

I guess it has been too long since I read the fourth book, because I did not remember it being so bad. So what would have happened to Fleur's sister if Harry had not rescued her?

I also liked the third movie better.

etnote that I did not think that the fourth book or movie was bad - I meant that the second task was bad.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by andViolins
I don't know if this movie has been discussed on the main board, but I did go see Goblet of Fire last Friday. It was a good movie. I liked it, however I think that the third one was better. I'm not sure why yet. I'm still thinking about it. I liked the humor in this one. Thought that it worked. Did not like the mosh pit dance scene at the Christmas Ball. Just didn't think that Franz Ferdinand worked in a Harry Potter movie. But, I will give them credit for trying something different. In this movie I thought Hermione came off as a bit too weepy. And there wasn't enough Snape! A Harry Potter movie can always use more Snape.

I took my 7-yr old son. Some told me it was too scary for a kid his age, while others said no problem. He seems to be struggling with the 2nd task - why the people were in the water, what would have happened if they were not rescued, why would the do that to people, etc., etc. I'm still not sure if I made the right move, but he wanted to see it so bad I thought he was going to explode.

aV

I saw it yesterday with my two girls. I liked it, but I didn't think it was nearly as good as the third, perhaps because this is the first time I read the book before the movie came out. I realize that there was a huge challenge in not making the movie overly long, while still retaining the important aspects of the story, but I think that a lot of the conflicts/relationships/etc. that were key to the story were left out. I think the thing that bothered me the most was this was the first time that I felt rather than seeing a "story," I was seeing a series of "scenes."

Gripes -

Quidditch World Cup - They go to the trouble of creating an elaborate set, and then don't show any of the Quidditch Match (Yes, I know that's not much in the way of a complaint, but it seems to me that if you're going to go to the trouble, you should show the match.

Where were the house-elves? And not enough explanation on the "Barty Crouch Jr." story.

Not only was Snape woefully underused, but basically all of the adults were, save for Moody. Rita Skeeter is a much more important character than portrayed. Isn't it the fourth book where Hermoine discovers Rita is an unregistered animagus, and isn't this the reason that she is able to basically blackmail her into getting Harry's story out in the fifth book? It seemed to me that this is a pretty large part of the fifth book, the fact that no one, save for Dumbledore's loyalists, Ron, Neville and Hermoine really believe that Voldemort is back?

Ron -- other than the "scowling," they did not really develop the conflict between Harry and Ron well enough -- nor did they really capture how much most of Harry's fellow Gryffindors shunned him after his name popped out of the goblet. Same with the Ron/Hermoine thing.

Fleur becomes a pretty important character (relatively speaking) in the later books. We know no more about her at the end of the movie than we do at the beginning.

Hated the third challenge. WTF? Oooh. Scary hedges that tripped people. Yeah, like that's way worse than the dragons and the merpeople. Where were the dragons and the blast-ended skrewts?

One huge continuity problem, npi. When Hagrid takes Harry to see the dragons, and Hagrid is talking with Madam Maxime, and within seconds, Harry throws off his invisibility cloak and starts talking to Hagrid. Where did Madam Maxime go? Seems to me it would be damn near impossible to make an eight foot woman just vanish.

Likes --

I was entertained. It did not seem like an almost three hour movie.

Liked the humor, although I would hate to see Filch become strictly a clown from here on out.

Excellent effects.

Voldemort was fucking cool.

I missed seeing the Dursleys.

BTW, I didn't think there was anything particularly scary for kids, but it depends on the kid, I think. I took my 8 y/o daughter, and she wasn't troubled by it. I decided against taking my 6 y/o son, though, figuring he wasn't old enough yet, and I think that was a good call. I was concerned that certain things (like the chopping off of the hand, for instance) would be a larger gross-out factor than they turned out to be, but I thought these were handled well.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I guess it has been too long since I read the fourth book, because I did not remember it being so bad. So what would have happened to Fleur's sister if Harry had not rescued her?

I also liked the third movie better.

IIRC from the book, if Harry had not rescued Fleur's sister, she would have died. Again, not the easiest thing to try and explain to a 7-yr. old. Yet, he was strangely unmoved by the death of Cedric.

aV

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by andViolins
IIRC from the book, if Harry had not rescued Fleur's sister, she would have died. Again, not the easiest thing to try and explain to a 7-yr. old. Yet, he was strangely unmoved by the death of Cedric.

aV

Actually, I don't think that is right. Harry merely thought that Fleur's sister would die. I seem to recall an explanation in the book that Dumbledore would not have allowed that to happen. And if memory serves, certain onlookers initially mocked Harry for believing that if people were left behind, they would die, until they took Harry's "selflessness and bravery" into account when scoring the task.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Actually, I don't think that is right. Harry merely thought that Fleur's sister would die. I seem to recall an explanation in the book that Dumbledore would not have allowed that to happen. And if memory serves, certain onlookers initially mocked Harry for believing that if people were left behind, they would die, until they took Harry's "selflessness and bravery" into account when scoring the task.

Well, that would be better, as that is what I told my son - Dumbledore wouldn't let them die.

Although another negative point for the movie (as pointed out by my son) was how easily Harry was able to save Fleur's sister, even though the mer-people were so hostile only seconds before about him trying to save Hermione. I don't think the timing was that close in the book.

aV

[dtb]

Originally posted by andViolins
I don't know if this movie has been discussed on the main board, but I did go see Goblet of Fire last Friday. It was a good movie. I liked it, however I think that the third one was better. I'm not sure why yet. I'm still thinking about it. I liked the humor in this one. Thought that it worked. Did not like the mosh pit dance scene at the Christmas Ball. Just didn't think that Franz Ferdinand worked in a Harry Potter movie. But, I will give them credit for trying something different. In this movie I thought Hermione came off as a bit too weepy. And there wasn't enough Snape! A Harry Potter movie can always use more Snape.

I took my 7-yr old son. Some told me it was too scary for a kid his age, while others said no problem. He seems to be struggling with the 2nd task - why the people were in the water, what would have happened if they were not rescued, why would the do that to people, etc., etc. I'm still not sure if I made the right move, but he wanted to see it so bad I thought he was going to explode.

aV

I didn't STP, but I loved this movie. I thought the adaptation was first-rate and the humor really worked well. The graveyard aftermath was realistic and even made me tear up the second time I saw it.

In the book, the implication w/r/t the second task is that the "treasure" would not have been harmed; and that Dumbledore (who had placed the treasures under the sleeping spell or whatever) would never have allowed them to be but in harm's way. (And Hermione says that Harry should have thought of that.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by andViolins
Well, that would be better, as that is what I told my son - Dumbledore wouldn't let them die.

Even the victims tied up underwater said they knew they weren't in any danger. It was only Harry who didn't know that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by spookyfish


Where were the house-elves? And not enough explanation on the "Barty Crouch Jr." story.

Not only was Snape woefully underused, but basically all of the adults were, save for Moody. Rita Skeeter is a much more important character than portrayed. Isn't it the fourth book where Hermoine discovers Rita is an unregistered animagus, and isn't this the reason that she is able to basically blackmail her into getting Harry's story out in the fifth book? It seemed to me that this is a pretty large part of the fifth book, the fact that no one, save for Dumbledore's loyalists, Ron, Neville and Hermoine really believe that Voldemort is back?

Fleur becomes a pretty important character (relatively speaking) in the later books. We know no more about her at the end of the movie than we do at the beginning.

You can assume all of those details are cut out of movie #5. No house elves being main charecters, no wedding. General public belief Harry is lying? That could start movie 5.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Hated the third challenge. WTF? Oooh. Scary hedges that tripped people. Yeah, like that's way worse than the dragons and the merpeople. Where were the dragons and the blast-ended skrewts?

2. They could have made it much better.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
2. They could have made it much better.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!









I don't read the books, but have seen the movies. Can someone here articulate why it was necessary for Crouch Jr. to tamper with the Goblet and put Harry in the tournament at all, if all they needed him for was the potion at the end? Couldn't they have just kidnapped him and took him at any time? I realize this would not have been as dramatic, but what the hell was the tournament for anyway, and why was it necessary. Just make Harry's doorknob a portal and zap him in, if it's that easy. Sheesh. I also have to say I find Harry to be wholly unremarkable. He doesn't seem to be all that smart, brave or special, as people just seem to help him out in every freaking movie. Give me Hermione anyday. Maybe wait until she's 19 though.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
SPOILER ALERT!!!!









I don't read the books, but have seen the movies. Can someone here articulate why it was necessary for Crouch Jr. to tamper with the Goblet and put Harry in the tournament at all, if all they needed him for was the potion at the end? Couldn't they have just kidnapped him and took him at any time? I realize this would not have been as dramatic, but what the hell was the tournament for anyway, and why was it necessary. Just make Harry's doorknob a portal and zap him in, if it's that easy. Sheesh. I also have to say I find Harry to be wholly unremarkable. He doesn't seem to be all that smart, brave or special, as people just seem to help him out in every freaking movie. Give me Hermione anyday. Maybe wait until she's 19 though.

A similar question is asked and answered (well, speculated on?) here:

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=77826

Bottom line is that making the cup the portkey meant that Harry would touch it, alone, in the maze, and be transported to the graveyard. He wouldn't have any help from people like Dumbledore. If it was his doornob, how could Crouch, Jr. make sure that Harry would be the one to touch it and not someone else? Others speculate that Voldemort has a flair for the dramatic and wanted to steal Harry away right in the middle of this huge wizard tournament.

aV

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by andViolins
A similar question is asked and answered (well, speculated on?) here:

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=77826

Bottom line is that making the cup the portkey meant that Harry would touch it, alone, in the maze, and be transported to the graveyard. He wouldn't have any help from people like Dumbledore. If it was his doornob, how could Crouch, Jr. make sure that Harry would be the one to touch it and not someone else? Others speculate that Voldemort has a flair for the dramatic and wanted to steal Harry away right in the middle of this huge wizard tournament.

aV

Okay, substitute "Harry's doorknob" with "Harry's penis" and continue making that argument.