I’m only acquainted with the HP franchise via the movies. I’ve never read the books but, being a parent of a child in the primary demographic from the first book forward, I’ve dutifully taken my kids to each and every one of the movies. I understand that we are up to movie number 7 with only one more to go. I realize that I missed quite a number of the subtleties here and there while watching the latest installment. For instance, I didn’t know that the glow-y thing in the forest was a patronus, or what it’s implications were, or if I had ever seen one in any of the previous movies. But, even with this and probably a thousand other little details missing, I still got my money’s worth of entertainment.
I do have one question before going into the next and final movie. Does Ron ever sprout a pair? Does he ever wipe that silly grin off his face and man-up? Does he ever learn to effectively kick ass with the powers he has been granted? I ask because I had such high hopes in this movie early on after they’ve had the sky cycle chase when Harry is about to sneak out and go it alone. Ron comes out and strong arms/guilts Harry into sticking with the team. As they are walking away from the camera it evident that, over the years, Ron has grown into a strapping young man. By now he should be quite capable of protecting Harry both physically and magically. Instead, in the next few scenes, he reverts to the same whiny little git he was in the first movie. Please, someone tell me that someday he grows up.
They were given protection by the Order (Dedaleus Diggle), at least to get far enough away from Privet Drive to avoid triggering the Ministry Trace before aparating to ‘a safe place’. In the book, Harry expected them to come back at some stage because as they are all preparing to leave he wonders if they’ll burn his school clothes and everything else he leaves behind.
They seemed to be under the protection of the Order in their brief movie departure, can anyone confirm that?
In this latest movie, Ron was the one to destroy a horcrux, and the evil artifact was using its best mind power to attack him. That is one of his great moments in the series. He has a flash of intelligence in the second half of the book, which we will probably see in the next movie, but his main quality is the courage to stick around with Harry Potter through all of Harry’s trials.
So, in other words, he is a hero, but I don’t know if there will be a moment that will strike you as redeeming Ron for his seemingly never-ending second-banana status.
Well you’re looking at this from a purely technical perspective in that if Hermione erased the memories of her from her parent’s mind she would have also had to erase any memories surrounding or involving herself. You are assuming that magic simply by virtue of being magic would not have a way around this. Also in response to what someone else posted about ron’s heroics, in both the books and in the movies Harry is a petulant, arrogant little drama queen and they are both hero’s in my book just for putting up with him as I’d have told him to sort his shit out and leave me the hell out of it from day one.
Also If Voldemort had caught hermoine’s parents he would have probably killed them anyway as they were muggles regardless of wether she’d wiped their memories or not so they weren’t doing anything by wiping their memories anyway.
Ron has always been kinda… passive. His deal is that he is the youngest boy in a family of seven; he has five older brothers, all of whom have distinguished themselves in some way, and his self-esteem is a little squashed. He can’t quite believe that the girl he loves could ever love a nobody like him. So even though he responds by being the slouchy teen-ager who works very hard at not working very hard, Rowling has always tried to make the point that he is quite keenly intelligent and has real potential, although he may not realize it.
I’ve always been a huge Ron fan, and it always bothered me the way the fact he was good at chess, as established in Philosopher’s Stone, just got quietly forgotten. That suggests he has a level of intelligence and strategic thinking but his character, especially in the movies, got increasingly buffonish over time.
Ron’s failure to develop in a consistent fashion is a function of poor writing. He serves as a contrivance, and his variably whiny lack-of-a-pair arises due to a writer who hamfistedly tries to introduce less than authentic angst between characters. Ron had suitable intellect and facility with strategy at one point because a chess trial seemed like a neat challenge for the characters to overcome at the time.
Finally saw the film last night. Enjoyed more that last couple. Should say that I’ve read the books - but only the once as they came out - and I’ve seen the films - again mostly only once. So I’ve a fair idea of the story arc and the general plotlines but can’t really remember details!
Normal number of niggles but the only thing I think they could had given a bit more explanation of would be the mirror - I’d forgotten where it came from and what it could do. I didn’t have a problem with understanding what was happening as the locket tried to choke Harry as he dived for the sword nor with Bellatrix’s reaction to the Sword (though I had got the idea Dumbledore had hidden the Sword before his death, I’d forgotten it was meant to be in Gringotts). The wander in the woods dragged a bit but was fair enough and a lot better than the hundred plus pages in the book!
One thing I noticed again and again is how careless they are with their wands :dubious: Always putting them down out of reach. If this is your key to doing magic (not to mention your one protection against evil creatures who want to kill you) would you ever let it out of your reach? Why on earth do they not have them hanging on a cord round their wrists or tied to their belts? Wands can obviously be set in a mounting like Lucious Malfoy’s “wand stick” so putting a string on one should be no problem.
One thing we noticed was how much of a three hander it was. None of the other characters - good or bad - had much more than a walk on part. Just as well Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have actually matured as actors - they did hold it together very well.
Good decision to break the book into two films. It would have been very difficult to edit it down anymore - already some of the scenes were appreviated - but it was, inevitably, a bit of an anti-climax when this one finished. Roll on July!
On the big controversy re Hermione and her parents memories: Wow! Very intense! I’d only add that I’m with Infovore, I don’t like the casual erasing of memories throughout the series, not just this use of it. It offends my idea of respect for other individuals (as seems to be **ricksummons’ **view) but there is not much point in complaining about it. It is just the way it is in Potterverse. In the context of her upbringing at Hogwarts Hermione’s decision would be painful but reasonable and necessary. When you get down to it there are many things in the world of Harry Potter that are anathema to our modern, western, sensibilities - How does the Minister of Magic get chosen? Why is life at Hogwarts so insanely risky? - you just have to go along for the ride if you want to enjoy books and the films. You might as well complain that Quiddich makes no sense
Very final thought: Trailers in the UK would normally be known as “mobile homes” if confined to a static pitch. Caravans are generally the things that get towed behind cars, block narrow roads in Deveon and Cornwall, and are destroyed by Top Gear!
Muggles, in the Harry Potter universe, seem to be regarded by members of the wizarding community at best as if they were some kind of dim-witted children or cute but helpless animals. You might love them and want to protect them, but you’d never think of actually treating them as equals or respecting their wishes. And that’s supposed to be the sympathetic protagonist side. It’s why I’ve started to regard the Harry Potter series as not being about good versus evil, but rather a story of evil versus slightly less evil. Hermione erasing her parent’s memories is just another example of this.
I think the disconnect regarding Hermione and oblivate stems from differing views on what constitutes a moral or immoral act. ricksummons is of the opinion that the act defines morality, while others view motivation as the indicator of morality. For example, Person A goes into a store and decides not to steal anything because he is afraid to get caught. Person B goes into a store and decides not to steal anything because doing so would be hurtful to the store owner. Are these acts equivalent?
In the Harry Potter universe, we have Hermione who oblivates her parents’ memories. What is her motivation? ricksummons uses the act itself as proof that Hermione discounts her parents’ worth – treating muggles as beneath her. However, others view the reasoning for the act as the point of judgement. They see Hermione’s love and protectiveness as the reason for the spell, not bias towards muggles.
So which is it? Is morality defined by action or motivation for the action?
I normally wouldn’t see a movie twice in such a short span, but my Brother and SIL had some passes about to expire and invited us out.
SIL is a fan of both the books and the films; Bro had never read or seen any of either, though she gave him a tutorial beforehand. Afterward, he said he enjoyed it more than he expected to, followed the story OK, and liked that it was more grim and serious than he thought it would be. He’s actually looking forward to the next one!
As for me, I was happy to sit through it again. In fact, it seemed shorter the second time, and I felt I was able to watch with a keener eye for detail and subtleties. For instance, I kept track of every mention of the Sword of Griffyndor, and had forgetten whose patronus the doe was until this thread, so the whole pond scene made more sense. I’d say it definitely held up to a second viewing.
But at the same time I noticed a few things that bugged me the second time around. Why not just give Harry the polyjuice potion, and instead of multiple Harrys there’d be no Harrys? Turn him into some random muggle and he could go about totally anomomously. Hermoine is shown to be a skilled apparator, so I’d think getting away from the snatchers would have been a relatively trivial matter. And jeez, Dobby, shut up with the whole “free elf” speech and just get the hell out of there already!
ETA: Regarding the “obliviate” issue: I haven’t seen this much contention over five seconds of film since Greedo shot first!
Ron is written a bit more strongly in the books than shown in the movies, where he mainly seems to be comic relief.
In Book 3, he is the one who stands up to Sirius (when they still think he is evil) saying that he would have to kill “all of them.” For some reason, this line was given to Hermione in the movie.
And remember, when he is acting like a git in this movie, he is under the influence of the horcrux, which is amplyfing all of his negative emotions.
Harry couldn’t take the polyjuice potion because he is underage.
In the book (which I am re-reading because the Kid refuses to be the font of all my knowledge any more) it’s explained that the ministry is looking for any excuse to arrest Harry so the Order is trying to get Harry out without him using any magic. That he immediately uses magic fighting off death eaters and Voldemort is explained by the Ministry not wanting to publicise Voldemort’s very public attack and ability to fly without a broomstick.
I have a sneaking suspicion she wrote that scene with the future movie in mind.
Hermione can’t aparate away from the snatchers because she needed to be touching Harry (his wand was broken) for them both to end up in the same place.
Ah, OK. I didn’t figure that taking a potion would count as “using magic” and be traceable, but that’s a sensible explanation.
So she could apparate over to Harry, grab him, apparate over to Ron, grab him, then whisk them all to safety. Okay, so maybe she’s not that skilled; she did splinch Ron while doing two apparations in rapid succession. But their lives were at stake here, not to mention the danger of Volemort getting his hands on Harry. She might have given it a shot, anyway.
(Quite a minor beef, though. I really enjoyed the film!)
This is what happens when a middle aged person tries to write teenaged angst. Like someone said earlier, I would have kicked Harry’s arse from book three to book seven if I’d had to live with the whinging.
Wheelz, I can only fanwank that it was her fear of hurting Ron again. I would have liked to see a better capture too, using expelliarmus would have been clever since it was Harry’s ‘signature’ move.
Joanne has a habitual aptitude for ill developed characters but chess is a game that can be learned to be played expertly by unintelligent people, though it takes a genius to be a true master and play actual chess which is frought with cultural rules such as ettiquette and tempo. my point being even if ron were a moron he could still be fairly brilliant at chess, this doesn’t excuse the fact that Rowling is a horrible writer who didn’t deserve the soiled blanket she started with and I will ever defame her in whatever way I am able until my voice is echoless.
Really? Do you have teenagers at home? In that sense, Rowling actually did a very good job of capturing the kind of self-serious, overwrought whinging that makes you want to give someone a swift kick in the backside.
