I went to a midnight showing of Harry Potter

[Goblinmonger]

Ask me anything.

[bigwillq]

1. Did anyone die

in the movie? :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

4. Yes. n/t

[AllegroRondo]

2. did you win the costume contest?

[Goblinmonger]

5. Didn't wear a costume, BUT

I did embarrass my 14-year-old daughter, which is a good thing. We were in the theatre for 1.5 hours and they had the same 40 slides rotating and there were about 10 movie trivia questions. After an hour, my 11-year-old son and I starting saying the answer really out loud as soon as the slide came out hoping that people would join us. Then, when the answer slide came up, we would have five because we got it right. Sadly nobody joined in.

[Tikki]

3. Were there many....

children under 12 years olds at that late show?


Tikki

[Goblinmonger]

6. A couple actually,

but mostly it was the nerdy type of high school student that I really like.

[JoDog]

7. Was Arabella Figg

Harry's squib neighbor, in the film?

She's part of a theory I have for book 7.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Yes she was.

Been a while since I read the book, but she played it pretty well.

Want to share your theory?

[JoDog]

9. Sure

Some of us were having a discussion on Book 7 yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6701899

There was a news story yesterday on Syfyportal.com that a character was originally cut from the script of movie 5, but was but back in on the advice of Rowling:

http://www.syfyportal.com/news423874.html

"Filmmakers originally cut a character featured in the fifth book of the series, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," for the upcoming movie, but the renowned author said to put that character back, said David Heyman, producer of the Harry Potter movies.

" 'There was a character we had cut out, and we had discussed that amongst ourselves," Heyman told SciFi Wire. "And then Jo read the draft and she said, 'You know, I wouldn't do that if I were you. Or you can, but if you get to make the seventh film, you'll be tied in knots and it will cause you some difficulties.' So she made sure that that character' was kept in."

She also has said that a non-magical character will perform magic in "desperate circumstances" in book 7 (from the-leaky-cauldron.org).

My theory is that the character being referred to in both comments is Arabella Doreen Figg. While her part as a witness on Harry's behalf is important to the early chapters of book 5, I can easily see writing around her for the sake of streamlining the bulky book. She is mentioned in book 1, but I can't remember if she is in the movie. Figg also makes a brief cameo appearance in book 6. So, I could forgive the script adaptors for pushing that character to the side.

While she was born to a magical family, she has never shown any magical gifts herself. Dumbledore himself considered her a part of the Order of the Pheonix, and charged her with keeping an eye on Harry. And if she could suddenly perform magic in her senior years, that would be surprising.

There is also the puzzle of her name. Rowling has a record of assigning characters names that fit in with the personality or offer hints about the character's role. "Arabella" sounds a lot like some of the female names in the Black family--Cendrella, Bellatrix and Elladora, for instance. The first name comes from a latin word that means "to invoke a saint". There is a class of magical spells called invocations. As for the last name, "Figg", a fig leaf was used in classical art to cover up something embarrassing or unseemly. That is apparently her married name--we have no idea what her maiden name is. She could be a member of the Black family and a distant relation to Sirius. She might even be the "A" in the mysterious "R.A.B".

So I think that Mrs. Figg will have a part to play in "The Deathly Hallows".

[Beer Snob-50]

12. i know this is not part of the thread but still....

She also has said that a non-magical character will perform magic in "desperate circumstances" in book 7 (from the-leaky-cauldron.org).


how about if this is harry's aunt? she has been embarrased all these years as being "different than everyone else"

looking forward to the movie.

[JoDog]

13. it won't be Petunia

Rowling has dispelled that rumor. That's on the same page at The leaky Cauldron. Harry's aunt won't do magic, but we may hear more about communications she had with Dumbledore. It is possible that it could be Harry's cousin, though.

[FedUpWithIt All]

21. Seeing as Dudley saw the Dementors

and only magical folk are supposed to be able to see them, it is possible that there are some surprises in store for him.

They made a point of this in the new film.

[Reciprocity]

26. That still could be Figg.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Interesting

What about Tonks? I guess it would be odd for them to keep her out given his love relationship in 6, but she seemed pretty bummed at the end of 6 and her storyline is pretty sideline given the need to clear out stuff for a 2 hour movie.

[JoDog]

22. Those are other possibilities

Tonks is another character that it would be easy to write around. And it does seem that Dudley has more to him that meets the eye. The ability to see the Dementors may only be part of it. But then the question comes up--if Dudley had enough natural magical ability to see a Dementor, why wasn't he tapped for Hogwarts, as well? The wizarding community must have some way of finding the muggle-born witches and wizards, otherwise Lily Potter and Herminone would never have gone to the school. Perhaps they only take the muggle-born whose families seem most receptive to the idea of magic.

But remember, the quote from Rowling indicates that it is a non-magical person performing magic later in life. Dudley might be a late bloomer, but I wouldn't say he's "later in life" just yet. Although the idea of Dudley starting out at Hogwarts at the age of 17 does open some comic possibilities.

[Goblinmonger]

23. If it was Tonks they were going to write out

I'm glad they put her back in because the actress playing her is gorgeous.

[Goblinmonger]

20. What about Hagrid's brother

I could see them leaving that part out of the movie for time and FX and actually it is pretty minor part of the movie compared to the portion of the book.

[JoDog]

29. It's Kreacher!

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/25/kreacher-comforts-mtv-solves-a-harry-potter-mystery/

"'It was Kreacher, actually,' director David Yates confirmed to MTV News on Sunday. 'We took Kreacher out, and Jo said, ‘Listen guys, you don’t have to put Kreacher back, but I’m just telling you, if you want to kind of keep a thread going for six and seven, you might want Kreacher to come back.’ She basically told us Kreacher plays a role in Seven, in a sense. She hinted. We thought about it for five seconds, and he came back.'

What you won’t see in the Kreacher scenes, however, is him squirreling away any artifacts such as, say, a mysterious locket no one can open (see “Elf’s Absence From Next ‘Harry Potter’ Flick Opens Up Plot Questions“). 'Bad David!' Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry, teased his director about the locket’s absence. 'It was kind of tricky to raise that in our story, because it’s for so much later,' Yates said. 'We figured we can probably introduce it later, and that’s the approach we took.' ”

I'm thinking that a certain locket that a certain house elf kept might be the artifact of Slytherin.

[Debi]

10. I'm going on Thursday

no question just wanted to let you know :hi:

[Goblinmonger]

11. Enjoy

It's worth it.

[NewJeffCT]

14. How true is the movie to the book?

I haven't read the book, or book 6, either.

So, I want to know if I can substitute reading the book with seeing the movie?

[Goblinmonger]

15. Read the book

There are some major things left out (which, presumably, won't play in future MOVIES) and you will want that information to read 6 (and I would guess 7).

[NewJeffCT]

17. I'd love to, but

with the amount of free time that I have, it would take me about 2 years to get through the book. I think I've read one book from cover to cover since my daughter was born 4 years ago.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. How is it as a film?

The rewiews so far are very mixed, saying that it doesn't work as a "stand alone" film. Every criticism I've read (too dark, Harry to "angry", not enough fun) actually sound is if they were staying pretty true to the tone of the book and evolution of the characters. :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

19. I think they stayed true to the mood/tone of the book

Some possible spoilers:


Positives:
They do a GREAT job of showing Harry as a leader/teacher.
They do a FANTASTIC job of inquisition and 1984 imagery
It is dark, but so was the book.
The themes of friendship are well done.
Generally well-paced

Negatives:
The dialogue during relationship development was sometimes painful, i.e. Cho (though sometimes good between the threesome)
The pacing during relationship development was off compared to the rest of the film.
They change some pretty important stuff about the fate (i.e. who and how and when it is broken) of the Ministries copy of the prophecy

[Ayesha]

24. The character that almost got cut

I read an article that confirmed that it was Kreacher the house-elf who was going to be cut, but JKR said not to. This suggests to me that Kreacher may know something about where a Horcrux is located (the locket briefly mentioned in Book 5?) or could even be a Horcrux himself.

[JoDog]

27. Do you have a link?

[Ayesha]

28. Here...

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/25/kreacher-comforts-mtv-solves-a-harry-potter-mystery

[mvd]

25. I'm going to see it today

To me, the movies can't match the excitement of the books, but they are fun to watch. I thought they made Goblet Of Fire a little too dark, so I'm anxious to see if they went overboard here. Ebert says they did, but I don't follow music reviewers, and there's not much more reason to follow a movie review.

[mvd]

30. Here's my review - it's well worth seeing

I'm a person who always gets more excited about the Harry Potter books than the movies. But most of the movies have been fun to watch. Movies for Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber Of Secrets really captured the magic of Harry Potter. I thought the movie for Prisoner Of Azkaban was still good, but a little too dark. The movie Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire was the worst of the series: even the scene with Voldemort's return was bland. While not quite as good as the first two movies, Order Of The Pheonix puts the franchise back on the right path. The casting is fabulous. People might expect Dolores Umbridge to look and act stern, but Imelda Staunton plays her in a perky and gingerbready way. This deceptiveness definitely feels right. Luna Lovegood was very charming and adorable, though they could have played up her quirky side more. There was a nice mix of darkness and enchantment in this movie. The part with Voldemort getting into Harry's head was very prominent, and indeed, it is an important plot line. The pacing of the movie and special effects were also good. One of my favorite scenes was the fireworks-like display that Fred and George Weasley put on. Umbridge's undoing was funny. The ending was kind of rushed, but it did get in most of the important points. Dumbledore's battle with Voldemort was quite intense. I wanted to see the romance between Cho and Harry get more of a superficial glance, since she was Harry's first love. The movie generally did a good job of editing, but that should have gotten more time. Overall, though, a very satisfying Harry Potter movie.

Grade: B+