Sorry for caps, but I really look forward to some good responses and wanted to get your attention.lol. Now having said that, it annoys me greatly to see the script allowing Harry to wonder around London, i.e. the railway scene with the coffee shop girl etc.
shareAgreed!
I don't understand why they have to change the stories in the book. It's so freaking weird!
Is it that hard for the producers to stick to the book?!
They changed it so much, what a mess!
It has been said to me that the films need to stand alone and be understood by people who haven't read the books, but that scene was such a blatant contradiction of the story as to be absurd. Like Harry using his wand to read by under the covers in his bed at Dursleys'home. That is using magic outside school. In Goblet of Fire, Lucius Malfoy taunts the Weasleys and Harry for having seats so high up at the Quiditch World Cup. Surely that would be an advantage?
shareOddly enough, it's probably one of my favorite scenes in all of the series. It really did feel out of place but at the same time, seeing Harry just travel alone from place to place as if he were lost in thought was interesting. Much more interesting than seeing the Dursley family, again. He was grown up and could go about his business as he saw fit.
I also really liked the colors they used for that particular location. It reminded me a lot of the Matrix.
I have not read the books so... I don't see how it was a plot hole.
It has been said to me that the films need to stand alone and be understood by people who haven't read the books
I wasn't confused by the end, and I haven't read the books. I had questions, sure, but I understood what was going on for the most part.
shareAre you saying that as someone who's seen the films without having read the books? I'm watching these with my husband, who's never read the books, and he's only had a couple of small questions. My cousin, also, loves the films, but won't read the books.
shareHe didn't leave the Dursley's before he started his 5th year at Hogwarts. He was awaiting a trial for performing underage magic in front of a muggle and Ministry threatened they would break his wand. He was locked up with the Dursleys at Privet Drive for a month with no letters from his friends. Now, he cant be tortured and locked up inside forever can he?
When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.
Huh? You are confusing the 5th movie with the 6th movie...
shareI like the scene and actually think Dan had pretty good chemistry with the waitress. However, it is a stupid addition. Harry would not be wondering around like that. He has to stay at the Dursley's for his protection. It would be idiotic of Harry to wonder around London alone knowing Voldemort and the Death Eaters have returned.
shareExactly! It is one of the major points of the book. Protected by his only blood relative, (albiet unwillingly, but bound by a promise to Dumbledore)and who shares the same blood as his Mum who made the ultimate sacrifice for him etc.
shareAll he had to do was return once per year, it didn't mean he had to stay put. Although it was stupid to have him running around by himself.
faith begins at the end of your comfort zone.
All he had to do was return once per year, it didn't mean he had to stay put.
faith begins at the end of your comfort zone.
Aside from it being a plot hole, I just found it weird that they seemed to portray Harry as the type who - at sixteen, no less - is going around London picking up women. And very confidently too.
Reportin' live for Black TV: White folks are dead, we gettin' the f*@# outta here!
UGH! It is NOT A PLOT HOLE. I'm so sick of people throwing that term around without seeming to understand its meaning.
Regardless, I don't see how it's so farfetched. Teenagers can be reckless, especially when they're being thrust into adult situations (such as a trial) when they aren't ready for them yet. I don't get why Harry would be exempt from this given his emotional state at the end of OOTP. In fact, I actually preferred the movie's take on this over the book's. Getting away from the Dursley home, wandering around the city, and flirting with girls seems more like something a kid in his shoes would likely do.
Honestly I don't like when people expect the movies to be exactly like the book or comics, sometimes change is good. Plus some changes make it better or maybe they can't do certain things money wise or something. The Harry Potter franchise has brought it in every movie. I'm sure they knew what they were doing.
share[deleted]
I don't see how it's a plot hole. The fact that Harry is protected while staying at his aunt's house was never once mentioned in the films. Harry does come across as a little reckless for wandering around London alone, but hey, that's a character trait; Harry has always been slightly reckless in his bravery. That's a character trait they established as early as in the first film.
Dumbledore turning up does however imply that Harry was always protected. Dumbledore would of course make sure Harry was always safe in these dangerous times, even if Harry himself didn't bother to care about his own safety.
Yes, I understand the points you make. I always forget how different the films are to the books.
share