LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2006 So does that mean that the barkeep at the Hog's Head IS Aberforth Dumbledore??? I can't remember if JKR ever acknowledged that rumor or not. ??? Dumbledore has a brother named Aberforth who was a part of the original Order of the Phoenix. Aberforth is sort of reclusive ever since he was accused of performing inappropriate magic on goats (it's not explained any further than that in the book so take it as you will). In OotP it says that the barkeep at the Hog's Head smells like goats and "looks familliar" (Harry saw a picture of Aberforth in OotP when Moody showed him the old picture of the Order). A fan asked JKR once if that was just coincidence and JKR was real cryptic with her answer. I think she said "You're very observant" or something like that. So speculation is abound that the barkeep is Aberforth. I don't remember that from OotP at all. The story of Dumbledore's brother was in Goblet of Fire. The comment about the barkeep smelling like goats you probably just passed over because it held no significance to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Ahhh, I see. I just finished PoA but my school library doesn't have GoF, so I have to buy it or something. It is kind of weird reading the books 5,6,1,2,3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anakin Flair 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Ahhh, I see. I just finished PoA but my school library doesn't have GoF, so I have to buy it or something. It is kind of weird reading the books 5,6,1,2,3. Try reading them 1,4,5,2 and 3. With about 5 years between 1 and 4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 I got lucky, I didn't start reading these till GoF came out, so I read 1, 2, 3, 4 back-to-back, followed by the looooong wait for 5 and 6. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 I read them all in order, but not until after seeing the first 3 movies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 The Kill Bill treatment would've sucked. At most there's about 10-20 minutes you could've added, not enough for two whole movies. Hermoine and the house elves was awful. A book and a movie are totally different, you can't just cram everytthing in there because JK Rowling wrote it. Actually, they could definitely have added at least an hour and a half of extra stuff. Either make a three to three and a half hour movie or split it after the dance. Whats suffering the most is the character development. Potter is such a character, because he does a lot of everyday stuff with his family and friends, as well as all the "The One Who Lived" stuff. It's all being AXED. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 All that "everyday" stuff bogs down a movie. You have to axe stuff or else the movie will just drag out. A book is a lot different then a movie, I can't even imagine how tedious sitting through that extra 90 minutes would be. The scene on the staircase after Harry takes a bath is the only scene I think that definetly should've been added to the movie. Maybe scenes of Harry training for the third task, and Dumbledore explaining What happened between Harry and Voldemort but other then that, no way. The movie is fine as is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BGarrett7 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 It is important in OotP.I think that is my main complaint with the movies thus far. Because of the storylines and arcs that have been cut from the first four movies, they are seriously painting themselves into a corner for movies five and six, and I'll go ahead and assume seven, as well. I think the biggest problem is not the actual material cut, it's that there is no continuity to what is chosen and what isn't because of the number of directors that have been shuffled in and out over the course of just five movies so far. I mean, I believe we can all agree that on the first two movies, at least there was the same director for both, but it just so happened to be Columbus who absolutely ruined them and left a huge problem for Cuaron. Not that he didn't stop in and totally knock the ball out of the park with Prisoner though, I can't think of a single problem that I have with the direction he took and the material he chose to leave out. Unfortunately, because of the timing for Goblet yet another director took over, Newell, as we all know. And it's not that he did a bad job with the movie -- certainly better than Columbus, not nowhere near as good as Cuaron -- but things were already starting to snowball against him. Snape's underlying evilness and general hatred for Harry, the backstory on Hagrid, Hermione's house elf campaign, and a whole slew of things that were relevent in Goblet had already been rushed through or ignored in the first three movies, so already having time constraints, he really had no choice to include or leave out what he did. The person that I'm really feeling sorry for now is David Yates. Unless he can go ahead and commit to doing HBP as well, and there is yet another turnover, what he chooses to shoot and include could make or break the sixth movie. So, unless he has signed onto do at least two movies, he is either going to be putting someone behind the eight-ball or worse yet, setting himself up for catastrophe if he isn't thinking far enough ahead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Umm, you are blaiming the wrong people there. The material that was left in or out is because of Steve Kloves, the screenwriter. Maybe OotP will be different because it is written by a different guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 This is from Mugglenet.com No Weasley is our King storyline in OOTP Bad news for those who are looking forward to a good grudge match in the Order of the Phoenix film next summer! We've been informed that there is no storyline in the movie surrounding Ron's Quidditch hardships, nor has there been any filming on broomsticks done by Rupert. We're led to believe that this means there will be no Quidditch in the fifth film at all. We hope to learn more soon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMann2003 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 Honestly, you can remove the whole Ron as Keeper subplot effortlessly from the book and not loose any crucial main story points. I just hope they keep the scene where Mrs. Weasley is trying to rid a boggart that keeps turning into dead Weasley's as she sobs. That scene was cold in the book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NYankees Report post Posted August 27, 2006 The Weasley subplot was pretty funny in the book but it really isn't needed in the movie. Quidditch has also been done to death in the previous movies and now is the time to stick to the story as it picks up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 Yeah, but I was a big fan of that storyline. Ron doesn't have much and something like that was good for him. But I can see why they cut it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMann2003 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 I've been rereading "Half Blood Prince" and I'm visioning Bob Hoskins for Slughorn and Bill Nighy for Rufus Scrimgeour. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 All I gotta say is, the one thing they absolutely cannot cut out is The Weasley Twins' revenge on Umbridge. They can cut out anything else they want but that HAS to stay! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 27, 2006 They'll keep that in, they have to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anakin Flair 0 Report post Posted August 28, 2006 If they don't have any Quidditch, does that mean they're cutting out Harry's life-time ban and Umbridge confiscating his broom? I know she does a lot of terrible things to Harry in teh book, but that was one of the worst. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2006 They'll likely keep that in, important point of his life having his favorite thing taken away from him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2006 They'll likely keep that in, important point of his life having his favorite thing taken away from him. Wasn't it also that he was on double-extra secret probation after that as well and if he looked at her cross-eyed, he'd be tossed out of school? It's been a while since I read the book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted August 30, 2006 Pretty much, yes. And I'm like you. I haven't read Harry Potter in like forever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted August 31, 2006 I'm listening to Goblet on an audiobook right now. I only listen when I drive because I am sick of listening to music. It makes rides a lot quicker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 Fred and George look like they are 29 years old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NYankees Report post Posted September 26, 2006 These kids have the worst haircuts imaginable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DMann2003 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 Luna's hair doesn't look crazy enough And is it just me, or does Ron actually look younger? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 These kids have the worst haircuts imaginable. Of course. They're British! Do you expect them to look good? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 Is that Neville Longbottom in the back there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ginger Snaps 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 These kids have the worst haircuts imaginable. Especially Fred and George. They were kind of sexy with the long hair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conspiracy_Victim 0 Report post Posted September 26, 2006 Is that Neville Longbottom in the back there? I think so. He's gotten skinnier and all Brit-emo on us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anakin Flair 0 Report post Posted September 27, 2006 Luna's hair doesn't look crazy enough And is it just me, or does Ron actually look younger? It's because he has the same haircut he had back in Chamber. The longer hair made him look older, but it didn't fit in with the continuity of the series (Molly would NEVER let him have his hair that long). The thing I'm shocked about is Dean. Either everyboody else is really short, or he shot up about two feet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted September 27, 2006 He shot up two feet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
