See, I don't feel this way, though. When I read HBP, I feel the book itself focuses a lot on the romance, more so than on Voldemort. I guess that's just interpretation.

 

About Snape, I thought JKR made it very clear that you can only turn into an animal if you are an Animagus; it's not something you can do woth Transfiguration (not on humans, anyway). Which means Snape would have to be an Animagus. I guess that's not impossible, but I doubt it. I think JKR would have made that clear if it were true; why leave it out?

 

we have a difference of opinon on what the book was more about then i guess why i feel this way is because plot wise this is how the book helped (that and i'm one of those wierd people that like Voldy the most ) i look at the books in retrospect and figure what the main plot points are is the progression for helping Harry defeat Voldy in the end, especially since the major plot in this series was harry defeating Voldy and all other plots were side stories.

 

SS - facing his fear of Voldy

CoS - destroying a Horcruxe

PoA - getting wormtail into his debt

GoF - weakening Voldy (the blood) and seeing him come back

OoTP - realizing & dealing with the internal connection between the two

HBP - researching Horcruxes and learning how to defeat Voldy

tDH - finding said Horcruxes and defeating Voldy for good.

 

 

See, but I don't think sex and violence are "equally disturbing," not by a long shot. Sex is not innately disturbing. Violence is. Sex can be made disturbing, depending on the context of the situation, but there is nothing wrong with sex, in and of itself. Violence, however, is wrong. If sex was wrong, nature would have provided a different way for humans to procreate and survive as a species.

 

same arguement can be said of violence, as this is a natural way of defending ones self, finding food and expanding territory (animal kingdom). really both can be equally disturbing depending on the context. some of the sexual scenes in ASoF&I i find really disturbing lmao yet it's acceptable because the author uses it as a part of his plot. in HP sex isn't used to further the plot and therefore shouln't be included.

 

one place where i could see sexual situations put into the HP universe is concerning the DE's. i could see this group (because of what their intentions are) as instituting rape as a means of spreading terror among muggles & mudbloods & blood triators; as rape is a method of gaining control & power over the intended victim and humiliating them. even though i can see this group IRL using thsi method of torture, i wouldn't want that even hinted at in this franchise because it ruins the integrity(sp) of the story and has no place in the targeted age range.

 

 

See, I don't think you understand why I'm saying when I say 'tone.' It has nothing to do with the scenes, that is, it has nothing to do with what happens in the film. It's the tone created by the filmakers, the sound, the lighting, the angle of the shots. I'm talking purely about film making here, not anything to do with the plot. Yes, some of what happens in OotP is dark, but the movie itself was not shot that way, or at least, it wasn't shot the same way that TDH was.

 

you're right, we're havign a semantics debate concerning tone. i'm talking about atmospher of the book when i talk about tone. atmosphere meaning the actios of the characters and how they think, feel relate to the surroundings. this is intrigual to the plot, as it helps drive it and appear more realistic as the reader & movie watcher can feel the tone (fear and such) .

 

even in movies, this can apply as movies also have a plot like books do. in this case, the plot is already written in the form of novels and the movie directors have a good blueprint written for them. and yes, the type of tone you were talking about was used in OoTP. the memories, the dreams, Grimauld place, the Ministry, Umbridge, the Forbidden Forrest, Privet Dr, the Burrow. all these places had a dark, erryily tone & atmosphere to them.

 

and you can't compare shooting styles for OoTP & tDH's, different director and tDH's was shot in 3D while OoTP was re-formatted for 3D and shot with a HD camera. the tones your talking about would be increased greatly in visual effect with a 3D camera because the camera focuses on depth; while the HD camera focuses on clarity & quality.

 

 

Actually, I'm not talking about a modern horror film at all; I have very little respect for most modern horror movies; they're defined by how gory they are whether than how frightening they are. I'm talking more like Alfred Hitchcock type stuff. The suspenseful way it was filmed.

 

you and me both, i can't stnad majority of the so claled scary movies now a days ... except "The Strangers" that was just plain creepy and wrong.... *shudders* i get what your saying now. when i think Horror i don't tend to include suspensful horror in my head; for me, Horror means it scares me (nothign to do with gore) like the Strangers or Cold Creek Manor or the Hitcher; stuff liek that.

 

 

I completely disagree with this. I don't think we can assume those people are lazy. Maybe they don't mind seeing a fun movie like Harry Potter, but don't really enjoy reading those types of books. That doesn't make them lazy. Some people also have a lot to read for school, and don't have time; I can cite my poor brother as one. He's a freaking genius, but his class load right now is nuts, so he has no time for reading on his free time. He has read the HP books, when they came out, but he wants to read WoT, for instance, and there's no way he can right now.

 

there are exceptions, but i point to most of the teens that go & see this movie and Twilight or the PJ movies. these are the lazy ones i'm talking abotu and the ones that tend to mouth off and try to debate with me because their know-it-all bratts *mumbles* also, in general kids today just don't understand the fun in reading; they like the movies but when they see the book they cringe cause it's a book. as a kid who LOVED to read i can't understand this and tend to call them lazy buggers that and the fact that they're missing SO MUCH by just watchign the movies i can't understand not wanting to read the book if you enjoyed the movies. alot of people give the answer "I've seen the movie, so why should i read the book" i'm like "you realize in OoTp & GoF they left out half the book right? and their like "Oh Really like what?" and i ramble off a few bits then tell them "just read the book"

 

 

this is why i say their lazy.

 

 

 

Also, I'm very much against the opinion, in general, that people who read are better than people who just watch movies or TV. I'm not saying that's what you're saying at all, because I don't think it is, but this just made me think of it, because someone else I know was talking about this the other day. I just know that I find just as much value in television or film as I do in books, as long as it's all quality materal. I think I get a lot more out of watching a quality show like Lost than reading a trashy romance novel.

 

here theres another difference of opinion. i get alot more out of a trashy romance novel than watching a chick flick as i can escape and insert myself into the characters. that and my veiw of kids being too lazy to read anything larger than a "Cosmo" mag.

 

 

BTW, I know I sound super serious here, but I'm totally enjoying this debate with you, Red So if I come across offensively at all, it's totally not my intention. Just thought I should say that, because I know I really get too into it sometimes :D It's kind of great, actually, that we can both be such big fans of this series and yet have such different opinions about it :D

 

me too, and i'm sorry if i'm comming off as serious as well. i actually miss the old days of debating who RAB was, how many Horocruxes were, if Harry would live, if Harry was a Horocruxe *grumbles* and wether DD was dead or not. on the last one, i had to seriously lmao when JKR came out an proved that he was dead yet dummys still refused to drop the debate *head desk* by doing so she made an entrie website go away over night lmao

 

i'm actually really enjoying the debate as well and encourage others to enter into it. but watch out, i might bite *grins*

I also thought Hedgwig's death was cooler in the movie. When she attacked the DE I was like all "Go Hedgwig, kick his ass!" And when she got shot out of the sky I was sad, even though I knew it was coming.

 

I thought the dance scene was great also.

 

The whole scene with Harry and Hermonie having sex was just wrong, it felt wrong and I almost wanted to throw up. I think that was the intent.

 

I understand why they didn't do the Mad Eye Tribute like in the book. In the US if parental figures were to give teenagers shots it would get slapped with a R rating. One of teens was about 15.

The whole scene with Harry and Hermonie having sex was just wrong, it felt wrong and I almost wanted to throw up. I think that was the intent.

 

 

Exactly. I certainly didn't enjoy the scene; the whole time me and my cousin were going, Eww eww eww stop stop STOP! More because it was Harry and Hermione together than anything else though :P

I finally saw it! Huzzah!

 

Main points:

 

1) I wasn't ready for Dobby to die :(

2) The Harry + Hermione scene was weird, but I found myself more jealous of Daniel Radcliffe than anything else.

3) It was nicely directed with a good pacing and character development

4) It looked good

5) I really wanted to watch the second part right then

6) Hermione is so awesome and hot! Watching her blow shit up was like watching Scarlett Johansson cook peanut butter and syrup pancakes in a bikini.

7) Daniel Radcliffe finally, kinda-sorta maybe, pulled off crying

8) Alan Rickman is the balls

9) I wanted to see more of Tom Felton (Draco)

10) George's ear was lamely disfigured (I expected no ear!)

11) I really liked it. I thought it was well done and I can't wait for the next installment. I will say that it's not my favorite movie, that honor goes to The Order of the Phoenix.