[Starflux]

What a horrible column, that was! It is at the same time ironic and absolutely appalling that the writer first goes on about that fantasy-books require an 'open mind' and sets himself up as someone more enlightened than others, and then proceeds with this vicious, sour little attack on anyone who doesn't like Harry Potter, postulating that they must have lost the ability to be open to new things. Besides insulting a huge amount of intelligent, emotionally well-developed people who simply don't like the series for whatever myriad reasons that have nothing to do with them being of inferior quality, he also undermines his own presumed superiority by engaging in a bigoted mud-slinging campaign. How mentally little.

And this is your favourite reviewer, Trumgottist? Eh holé.

[Fairygdmther]

Wonderful review, Trumgottist! And I wholeheartedly agree!

FGM

[Ninja Dodo]

By the way, is there anyone else that felt the location they shot in the first two movies was the real Hogwarts and the one up in the mountains in the rest of the movies just didn't feel like the same place?

Whenever I read the books now I still imagine the old version. That and my visual image of Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, Mad-eye Moody and Umbridge is very different from the later movies. Most if not all of the characters from the first movie though are those characters for me, especially Alan Rickman and Richard Harris.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

By the way, is there anyone else that felt the location they shot in the first two movies was the real Hogwarts and the one up in the mountains in the rest of the movies just didn't feel like the same place?

Whenever I read the books now I still imagine the old version. That and my visual image of Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, Mad-eye Moody and Umbridge is very different from the later movies. Most if not all of the characters from the first movie though are those characters for me, especially Alan Rickman and Richard Harris.

Hm, no. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite movie.

[Wormsie]

Snape, Dumbledore, Ron, Harry, Hermione and ... somebody else felt like they actually resembled the characters in the books. Trelawney was wonderful, but other than that, they were miles off: Draco Malfoy being far too good-looking, and Viktor Krum being too handsome and burly.

[Ninja Dodo]

No I don't mean they were superior movies - Azkeban was great - I'm purely talking about the location. The change of scenery from film 2 to 3 was very jarring for me and the original, perhaps purely by virtue of being first, sticks in my head as being the definitive setting of Hogwarts.

[Spiwak]

Well, I suppose. PoA made the castle very Gothic and since then it has sort of felt like a place I couldn't imagine children actually wanting to spend all their time or the place Harry and Ron and Hermione invest so much love into. Tends to look a little cold and creepy.

That's one of the problems I've developed with the movies. Total lack of setting, since they attempt to cram as much of the book in as possible (which of course also leads to pacing problems).

[Ninja Dodo]

Yeah, though I really liked Azkeban it felt rushed to me. The fourth I didn't like at all because it was more compilation than an interpretation.

But yes I think you're right. It's not just the landscape, even the character of the architecture was different.

[tsa]

I just finished the book. I agree with Squinky that thanks to the excellent story the Harry Potter books are much more fun to read than Tolkien's work. I also can't get through the Lord of the Rings, and was very bored by the first LOTR movie (didn't see the others). But concerning Harry:
I thought the seventh book was good, much better than the sixth book. But Harry had an amazing amount of luck! Every time there really was no way out, a deus ex machina appeared and he was saved. This started to annoy me as the story developed. Especially the way Harry escaped from Gringotts was ridiculous.
I loved the way Dumbledore was described as a man with a real character, with serious flaws. The fact that the man knew what his flaws were, and had the strength to work around them or try to change himself was very well worked out. The same holds for Snape. Imagine having to live your life like he did! I felt very sorry for the man, and if I were Snape I would feel very honored by Harry naming one of his kids after me.
I didn't have many problems with the part where the elusive trio (later duo, then trio again) went through the country in the tent, but that part took so much time that I am still not sure how much time is covered by the whole book. I mean, was it a year, or 6 months that they traveled around?
I must say I was quite disappointed by the ending though. The sun coming up over Hogwarts just before Voldy was killed was just too cheesy, too much a film scenario. Be sure to see that in every trailer for the last movie! Also the fact that Harry used te Expelliarmus spell on Voldemort in the final battle was really too far-fetched to me. I guess Rowling wanted to make sure Harry was so good he never tried to kill anyone ever, but if I was in Harries situation I would have taken no chances at that point.
But the thing that disappointed me most was the fact that we never found out what happened after 'Voldy turned mouldy'. There were still a lot of Death Eaters around, and I can't imagine they all suddenly 'turned good'. The whole story of the world of Harry Potter was just too realistic for that. The end doesn't give credit to all that was shown to us. The only hint we get that indeed, there are still people who think differently from Harry and his friends is the fact that Slytherin still exists 19 years later. But what happened to all the Death Eaters in the castle after Voldy was killed? How is the Ministery for Magic transformed? What has Harry Potter done in the 19 years between the killing of Voldemort and the Epilogue? What happened to Kreecher? That's what I want to know!

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by tsa

I guess Rowling wanted to make sure Harry was so good he never tried to kill anyone ever, but if I was in Harries situation I would have taken no chances at that point.

He did use Crucio, which is bad enough for me.

[Filmman]

Great Book I love the Harry Potter Series it a cool movie and book.

[Wormsie]

Rowling keeps revealing more information of characters.

The most notable news of the night was the revelation of Dumbledore's sexuality. Jo says Dumbledore was gay and in love with Gellert Grindelwald. JK, in response to the audience's reaction, said "If I had known this would have made you so happy, I would have told you years ago."

Not quite as head-turning, but equally significant, Jo announced Neville Longbottom's marriage with Hannah Abbott. Hannah became the new landlady of the Leaky Cauldron.

Other heart-warming (ha!) news was revealed about Petunia Dursley. The night Harry left Privet Drive, Petunia wanted to tell Harry, "I know what you're up against and I hope it turns out okay."

Source: http://www.mugglenet.com

For some strange reason I got a strange grin on my face after hearing the bit about Dumbledore being gay. Yet somehow I hope everybody won't just focus on Dumbledore's gayness instead of all the other more important and interesting aspects of the books. Slash fan fiction writers will surely be pleased with this, anyway.

[Spiwak]

I think she said that to stir up trouble. I didn't read any sexuality in his character whatsoever, much less homosexuality. She can act like there's some alternate Harry Potter dimension where these characters actually have lives outside what was written in the books, but if it's not in the text then it doesn't exist.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I think she said that to stir up trouble. I didn't read any sexuality in his character whatsoever, much less homosexuality.

I wish she would have mentioned it in the books - now that she's mentioned it, that is. It would have suited the books well, as tolerance and humanity have an important part in the story (and apparently Rowling didn't mention it because either the wizarding world is prejudiced or the real world is prejudiced and she thought better not mention it in the books). Moreover, I think Rowling's revelation deepened the conflict between Dumbledore and Grindelwald and made it more tragic and explained... something, can't quite put my finger on it, but it made the whole thing work on a whole new level.

I don't think she said it to stir up trouble as such, I think she just wanted to be honest with the questioner. If it stirs up trouble that she talks openly of gays I'm all for it. I mean, people ask her all sorts of things she didn't mention in the books such as, ahem, about Aberforth's goats and what Harry and Ron did after school and so on.

I don't think there's much sexuality between any of the characters in the books, but there is love. Being gay isn't just about sex, you know.

She can act like there's some alternate Harry Potter dimension where these characters actually have lives outside what was written in the books, but if it's not in the text then it doesn't exist.

Aww, you'll get over the shock soon.

[dantebk]

I arrived to the Harry Potter scene rather late, I suppose. Read the first book in August and the last book two weeks ago. Needless to say I liked them. And I'm one who normally hates stories with fantasy or magic, but these books are so well-written that the setting isn't used as a crutch, as I feel is so often the case.

As so many have said, I didn't like the epilogue much. I understand it thematically, but viscerally I'd have preferred to see the characters 1 day after the climax, as opposed to 19 years. Especially would have liked Harry and Ginny to hook up (his interruptus from his 17th birthday broke my heart).

The temptation exists to go through this thread and respond to other comments point by point, but too tired/no time.

I will say that when I realized the day after reading the book why Snape asked Harry to "look into my eyes" right before he died, I literally gasped.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by dantebk

As so many have said, I didn't like the epilogue much. I understand it thematically, but viscerally I'd have preferred to see the characters 1 day after the climax, as opposed to 19 years. Especially would have liked Harry and Ginny to hook up (his interruptus from his 17th birthday broke my heart).

Harry and Ginny didn't hook up???

OK, first of all we have to make sure "hook up" means getting together. I have always thought it means that, but I could be wrong. In case it does, yes, Harry and Ginny did end up together and had kids and all. At least that's what I read from the epilogue.

[dantebk]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

Harry and Ginny didn't hook up???

OK, first of all we have to make sure "hook up" means getting together. I have always thought it means that, but I could be wrong. In case it does, yes, Harry and Ginny did end up together and had kids and all. At least that's what I read from the epilogue.

I know they ended up together, and obviously they did what was necessary to create children, but I thought they might show them -- maybe the day after the climax of the story -- at least going into a bedroom together or something. Finish what they started on his birthday.

[Squinky]

Maybe she wanted to leave that scene for the fanfic writers. Well, the ones who aren't having a field day with Dumbledore's newly-revealed homosexyouality, anyway.