I’ll respect your request; but I really think that anyone who doesn’t want to be spoiled has no business in this thread. It’s right there in the OP and in the title. It seems a bit precious to me.
Does anyone know if that was Robert Duvall playing Kreacher? It sure looked like him!
Well, there are Technomages… as well as telepathy and telekinesis.
That was pretty much the whole point of the episode in question. The serial killer’s personality was deleted and replaced with the personality of a Christian monk, who is understandably freaked out when he finds out who he used to be.
And I suppose I haven’t been clear on my position. It was an evil act. It was the worst thing any human being could have done.
Murder is usually considered evil in any fictional universe in which good and evil exist at all. If Hermione had died and the Memory Charm had not been removed, her parents would have been dead. I suppose they’d be “safely” in the afterlife — no, not even that, since their souls would still be trapped in their bodies until Monica and Wendell died of old age.
How do you consider being dead to be safe?
Oops, sorry Marley.
Nah, Hedwig was purchased when they went to Diagon Alley. Earlier owls were just mail-delivery.
In the book,
They ID’d him because he used a disarm spell against an obviously mind-controlled person, rather than trying to kill him. Which makes even less sense. And Hedwig dies via a near-miss while still in her cage.
Finally saw it last night and, well, I thought it was awful, far and away the worst of the series. Thinking back, very little actually happened. There was little in the way of plot, it felt like the end of “Return of the King” stretched out to an entire film. It also suffered (but pretty much all the books do as well, but as they take longer to read you don’t notice it so much) from random shit being pulled out of arses. As soon as they get stuck, out of nowhere someone decides that what they really have to do is meet person X or go to place Y that has never been mentioned before. “Oh, I’ve found something!”
I love the books, but the films for me show the plot up to be quite poor. It is the additional stuff, the background and explanations that make the books compelling reads. Not the plot.
I may be wrong, but I believe the things **Marley **is referring to are plot points that were not in The Deathly Hallows Part 1. As this thread is about the movie, not the novel, things that will be revealed in Part 2 are considered spoilers.
But it’s only an evil act if you’re using Babylon 5 as a guide. And even they did not explore what would happen if the killer never found out what he was, but got killed as an innocent by a relative of a victim. Or how the families would feel about the killer’s new life, free of guilt or penalty (from their point of view). You’re only seeing a tiny part of the moral implication and using that as a blanket stance for a different situation.
In The Wind in the Willows, Pan erases the memory of his presence from the main characters as an act of compassion. The joy of knowing him and removal of that joy would destroy them.
In A Clockwork Orange, depending in which edition you read, the modification of Alex’s personality is either the only *good *thing preventing his continued sociopathic violence, or the *evil *act that prevents his choice of redemption.
In the Dollhouse, identity erasure and replacement is merely a nifty tool for solving crimes.
There is no clear stance of fiction on the alteration/erasure of memory or personality. It’s used as either a major or minor plot point by any number of authors for any number of artistic effects.
Real world. People’s personalities are changed, or erased all the time through head injury, illness and trauma, we still value the lives of the people left.
You are using ‘Life’ and ‘Identity’ as interchangeable. Dementia patients are not dead.
Do you think adoption is evil too? It certainly changes the lives (including names and backgrounds) of the adoptees. They will never be the people they would have been in their biological homes. It is done with the intent of improvng their lives. They are not murdered. What about the dependent children of families in the witness protection program?
British parents sent their children away from home during the second world, some as far away as Australia and New Zealand. Some children never came home, for various reasons that ranged from benign to evil. Some were sent away so young that they lost all memory of their original home and family. But the intent of the parents was to keep their children safe.
Do you think they would have been better off dead in a bomb crater, or can’t you see any difference?
Hermione’s parents in the fictional Potterverse are as helpless as children in the face of a magical war. She does what she feels is neccesary to protect them - it is not done with indifference, she mourns their loss to her while comforting herself with the idea that they are happy, together and safe.
Why should we watch any movie or read any book through the filter of “What would Babylon 5 say about this?”
I read different authors to explore different viewpoints, which is their intent.
Sorry.
Will try to get this thread back to the movie.
Yes, but if someone deliberately causes a head injury, we throw that person in jail. Do you think we shouldn’t?
They still remember their old names and their old lives.
I said Hermione would have committed murder if the Memory Charm had not been lifted. If that’s not sufficient, then no, I do not see any difference. Granted, if the charm was lifted, it would be more like imprisoning them in a dungeon for a year instead of murder. That makes it OK, then!
So, because she feels bad about it, that makes it OK? All right then. I see that no argument will ever convince you of this. Fine. I will not be convinced otherwise, either. I’m done here.
sorry! didn’t know that book knowledge was spoiler.
Sorry, can’t keep that straight. Point still stands - if 17 is the age of majority, then it is the age of majority. Our equivalent on most things is 18.
I don’t believe I have argued it was good, I have argued that it served a good purpose and was a difficult moral quandry.
You are wrong - I have given the reason several times. The primary point of erasing her parents’ memories was to protect them from being identified, to protect them from thereby being tortured, and to thus protect Hermione and Harry from Voldemort learning what they know and from them being used as bait. None of which applies to Harry’s memories of anyone.
That is certainly an argument in moral reasoning to consider. What is the nature of identity? What does it mean that they lose their identities but still live? Is that morally acceptable or repugnant?
Harry, Hermione, and Ron have escaped from the Malfoy residence with the assistance of Dobby, A Free Elf, rescuing Luna in the process. Doing so got Dobby whacked, so they stuff him in the ground. Meanwhile, Voldemort finally scores the magic wand he thinks will allow him to kill Harry - the Elder Wand. He discovered it was possessed by Dumbledore and buried with him, so Voldemort raids the tome and raises the want in triumph.
They still have to uncover the other horcruxes first.
I suppose opinions can differ, but I disagree strongly. The other stories suffered from not being able to flesh out the side plots, and most Potter fans find plenty of things they wish were in the other movies - certainly starting with Prisoner of Azkaban. I can’t say that the movies don’t show a clear storyline, because I didn’t experience them as a non-reader, so I’m comparing them to my memory of the books.
The thing is, they give little nods to the book that only serve to annoy more for the offhand way they are carried out and blown off.
This movie had a lot to accomplish. It had to do Harry’s escape from the Dursleys’, the wedding and fall of the Ministry, the trio’s run to the Black house, the infiltration of the Ministry to get the locket, the escape that ended in the woods, the pointless wandering that takes an emotional toll and strains their relationship, the journey to Godrick’s Hollow to acquire the tell-all history of Dumbledore and see the grave of what’s his face, the discovery of the sword and return of Ron, meeting up with Luna’s father and hearing the story of the Deadly Hallows, the capture by Greyback and inquisition by Belatrix, and finally the flight from the Malfoys.
The second half has to
identify, find, and destroy the remaining three horcruxes, which includes learning about Dumbledore, then go to Hogwarts for the big battle, end up with Harry confronting Voldemort and having his near-death experience, finally finishing off Voldemort, finding out about Snape and why Dumbledore trusted him and how he was really good all along, and then having a final wrap up scene with the kids.
That’s plenty to fill the movie, keep it action-packed, and not feel stretched.
That wasn’t quite how that scene went. The ambush occurred and they didn’t know why, but that wasn’t what he pointed at Hedwig about. Rather, he was explaining how Voldemort knew which Harry was the real Harry - Hedwig came to defend him. As for not mourning, there was a lot going on, including the death of Mad-eye Moody, and the blasting of one of the twins’ ears. Plus the paranoia about how the ambush occurred. Yeah, they didn’t take a moment specifically for Hedwig, but it was included in the dramatic tension, and why Harry tried to storm off before the wedding, to be stopped by Ron.
At least she died being heroic - saving Harry - not just being an innocent bystander trapped in a cage. Yeah, there’s reasons for each version.
No, you’ve been quite clear on your position, you just haven’t been listening to everyone else, and assuming we’re all saying the same thing when we are not.
That’s a philosophical position that isn’t unanimously agreed.
In reply to Ricksumon.
Head injuries may be accidental. You’ve ignored the illness and trauma aspects and we prosecute violent offenders for their intent to cause physical injury, not for the incidental effects of that injury.
Adopted infants do *not *remember their past lives - neither did many evacuee children. Way to ignore both the example and the point.
I bet the kids who survived the war would disagree with you that there is no difference between living with a new identity (even those who were too young to remember their past identity) and being dead.
And again (and again and again) Hermione’s intent was to protect her parents, to give them life and happiness. That her methods were questionable (open to either being right or wrong) was part of the overriding theme of the series.
Please start a GD thread about this. I’d love to see the actual philosophers on this board take on the moral code of Babylon 5.
The complication is that the thread (and the OP and the title) is about the movie, not the book. The spoiler issue is around posting items only known from having read the book, like whose patronus that was, or the big ninja vs. wizards gunfight that’s coming up.
Don’t mention the zombies!
OK, I admit — I can’t let this one go.
Causing psychological trauma can also be prosecuted — or, at the very least, subject to civil lawsuits. Do you really think deleting someone’s mind doesn’t qualify as mental trauma? Oh, and we can prosecute people for causing injuries even if they didn’t intend to cause them. Involuntary manslaughter is one example.
Oh, please. I gave an example of why mind deletion was immoral by comparing to another case of mind deletion and you said it was meaningless because it was from a different series. You compared mind deletion to adoption, being hit on the head, and the Witness Protection Program, none of which are remotely the same thing.
It’s as if I wanted to compare one apple to another apple and you said I couldn’t because they were different brands, but I shouldn’t ignore the example of comparing the apple to the fire engine — because they’re both red.
If they were too young to have memories of their past life, then they didn’t really have a past identity to lose. We’re talking about fully grown adults whose minds were forcibly invaded and existing memories destroyed. Do you really not realize the difference between these two scenarios?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If her actions and the results of those actions were evil, then her intentions are meaningless. Grindelwald intended to create a better world where wizards ruled over Muggles for their own good. Was Dumbledore wrong to stop him?
Babylon 5 was an example. Way to ignore both the example and the point.
Perhaps you should.
It was a challenge to get someone to do so. Since you have, I will retract that statement.
My point is that what Hermione did to her parents was as bad as anything Voldemort could have done to them, thereby defeating the purpose of “protecting” them. Now, if Voldemort had caught Hermione’s parents, he could have done a lot of things, but it would probably have boiled down to one of these two alternatives:
-
Simply kill them with Avada Kedavra. My position is that erasing their memories did effectively kill them. That may not be a universally accepted philosophical position, but it’s strange that nobody accepts it.
-
Torture them into insanity with Crucio, just like Bellatrix did to Neville’s parents. Well, that would destroy their memories, identities, and capacities for free will, which is also what Hermione’s Memory Charm did.
Now, you mentioned that Hermione was also protecting Harry, since she’d told her parents “quite a bit” about him. What did she tell them, exactly? If the Grangers knew that Harry was the Chosen One and that he was being hunted by Voldemort, then surely they’d have agreed to go into hiding voluntarily — or even have their memories of Harry erased voluntarily. There’d have been no need to delete their memories of Hermione or themselves.
If they didn’t know this, then what could the Grangers have possibly known about Harry that would be vital information to the Death Eaters, yet would seem innocuous to the Grangers?
Which is it? Does intent count, as in reducing murder to manslaughter, or does it not count because Hermione is mean?
Does identity count, or only if it’s the identity of an adult - and if there’s no chance of remembering your former identity, why does age matter at all? Why does reality not count if it’s a disease that forcibly invades the mind and destroys memory? Or a surgeon removing a tumor, knowing it will cause memory loss and personality change?
Dumbledore was proud of his ability to make really spectacular mistakes. Again, it’s one of the main themes of the series from book one to book seven that people make choices that can lead to evil, without being wholly evil (or good) themselves.
You say that in the worst case scenario where she doesn’t live to reset their memories, Hermione’s actions do nothing but save her parents being tortured before being killed. Most of us see that as a good result. She has saved them from suffering before they die.
For the third time, can you make your own thread to argue this point?
Because being stuck for the rest of your life in a ward at St Mungo’s is not any worse for a Muggle than being a dentist in Australia? :dubious:
You keep saying that but I don’t think it’s true. She didn’t erase their memories completely, she just erased memories specifically of herself. Her parents certainly had lives and personalities before she was born, and presumably also had somewhat of a life outside of her (especially since she was gone most of the year). It’s like swiping someone’s kidney; sure they’re mutilated, but they’re not dead.
I reject that conclusion. See below.
I’m not rejecting it outhand. I am giving it a fair consideration, and can see some justification. That’s why I say it is a complex philosophical issue, and I don’t think it can be resolved in a movie review thread.
The end result may have been similar in destruction of memories and identities, but different in the path of accomplishment, and different in the part about insanity and mental incompetance. Just as one obvious difference, the whole pain part of the torture by crucio seems significant to me. It also strikes me as significantly different that they get to go on living independent lives with their sanity intact, just different lives than they previously did. That’s a whole lot different than stuck in a mental hospital drooling on themselves and having their butts wiped by the nursing staff because they can’t do it themselves. And that’s just the parts dealing with their outcome.
I thought I had already stated, they could be used as bait to lure Hermione into trying to rescue them. Which would mean Harry would come along for the ride, or they might catch Hermione and then have her for bait. At the very least, get a shot at wiping out some more [del]enemies of the state[/del] [del]protestors[/del] Order of the Phoenix members. That in itself would be a victory, nevermind pumping them for information on where Harry might be hiding, who he might go to for help, etc. Remember that killing Harry was a necessary but not sufficient goal - Voldemort had to kill Harry, but really wanted to take over the world. Harry was a stepping stone because of the “Boy Who Lived” mythos and what it meant to the magical world at large. Once he finished off Harry, the world would know that no one could stand up to him (especially with Dumbledore already dead). His ultimate goal - world domination - would certainly be served by capturing Hermione’s parents and using them to get Hermione to surrender or get captured or killed. Getting other Phoenix members would be a bonus, and getting Harry in the deal would be a big plus. It was goal, but not the only one, and any of those goals make Hermione’s parents to be in worse danger as her parents than as random muggles in Australia.
And I still don’t recall the Dursleys being protected by the Order. They snuck off, sure, but that was to get out of the crossfire. Not because the Dursleys have any import to Harry, and thus any use to Voldemort.
Yumblie said:
That gets back to the philosophical issue of what makes a person’s identity - is there some core being and the circumstances and experiences are just wall decorations, or do the experiences shape the core being, so by deleting them you change the essence of the person? I don’t think it’s a simple question. And deleting herself at 17 from their memories is a big chunk of their experiences that is changed.