I need a Harry Potter history lesson

[DonIago]

Ultimately Goblet of Fire was the biggest disappointment for me. The plot's essentially a whodunit, but since the movie was missing a number of the "extraneous" characters, it wasn't much of a mystery. Some of the choices made in the filming didn't help either.

Kind of like when Valeris shows up in TUC. She's wearing a big "guilty" sign practically from the beginning.

 

[RoJoHen]

Perhaps the films work on a different level if you haven't read the books - just a fun (hopefully!) story without needing all that filled in backstory.

I think they work marvelously. As a group, they are actually one of my favorite series of films. I just had a marathon this past week to get myself ready for the new movie.

You really have to think of the movies as abridged forms of the story. They're missing stuff, sure, but they're not missing anything necessary to tell this simplified version of the tale. I think they're great fun and a quite an emotional ride. I got choked up at the end of "Goblet of Fire" when Cedric died. I was on the edge of my seat at the end of "Order of the Phoenix" when Voldemort and Dumbledore were duking it out.

Honestly, when I watch these movies, I find myself more intrigued than anything by the history. The flashbacks and stories about Voldemort and Lily and James Potter are some of my favorite parts. I almost wish they would make a prequel series of films about the previous generation of Witches and Wizards that told the story of Voldemort's rise to power.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I always thought the biggest flaw in the 6th film was cutting Voldemort out almost completely. OK, the backstory is less important to the films as they are taking a much more 1D good-vs-evil approach to Harry-vs-Voldemort and not delving into why Voldemort is like he is, but taking all that out did kind of mean film 6 was a teenage love story. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it very much because they filmed the scenes they did film very well, but I was sad to see Voldemort's story stripped from the story when that was really the purpose of the 6th book existing.

Well, the film did try and explore this subject a bit ... but they did it through the lens of Malfoy. At different points in the story, both Slughorn and Dumbledore mention how, when Riddle came to Hogwarts, it wasn't obvious that they were instructing a future villain. Much like Malfoy, who was making his own decisions. I really enjoyed the juxtaposition that the film made -- how Malfoy was starting down the same path, but ultimately chose not to embrace it -- except that it wasn't fully developed and didn't mesh well with the rest of the film.

 

[Gaith]

At different points in the story, both Slughorn and Dumbledore mention how, when Riddle came to Hogwarts, it wasn't obvious that they were instructing a future villain.

In stark contradiction to the shown flashbacks, in which he's always creepy at best.

I think the main thing you miss out on just from the films is understanding Voldemort's motivations and reasons for his actions - in film he's just 'eeeeeeeeeeeevil'.

Come now - as if the books are any different. Sure, they say he was abused as a child (Rowling at least has a leg up on The Flanneled One in that respect), is self-hating, etc., but he's also, as Dumby notes, Slytherin's last direct descendant, so no, there's no predestination factor at all, why do you ask?

 

[CaptainCanada]

At different points in the story, both Slughorn and Dumbledore mention how, when Riddle came to Hogwarts, it wasn't obvious that they were instructing a future villain.

In stark contradiction to the shown flashbacks, in which he's always creepy at best.

I think the main thing you miss out on just from the films is understanding Voldemort's motivations and reasons for his actions - in film he's just 'eeeeeeeeeeeevil'.

Come now - as if the books are any different. Sure, they say he was abused as a child (Rowling at least has a leg up on The Flanneled One in that respect), is self-hating, etc., but he's also, as Dumby notes, Slytherin's last direct descendant, so no, there's no predestination factor at all, why do you ask?

No, he wasn't abused as a child; he was the bully at the orphanage.

And, no, it wasn't predestined; that people make their own choices is one of the main themes of the whole series, it's what separates Harry and Voldemort.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, and that theme can be seen clearly with the sorting hat. Harry was, in many ways, similar to Riddle (orphan, half-blood, capable of being great wizards). He just chose to go down a different path. While Riddle chose to use his skills for his benefit, Harry used them to help his friends. I think that's what separated a Slytherin from a Gryffindor.

I mean, considering how he was treated, Harry had plenty of good reason to hate muggles, but he didn't. Riddle chose to become the leader of a pure blood movement. So many little choices had so many big consequences.

 

[cultcross]

I think the main thing you miss out on just from the films is understanding Voldemort's motivations and reasons for his actions - in film he's just 'eeeeeeeeeeeevil'.

Come now - as if the books are any different. Sure, they say he was abused as a child (Rowling at least has a leg up on The Flanneled One in that respect), is self-hating, etc., but he's also, as Dumby notes, Slytherin's last direct descendant, so no, there's no predestination factor at all, why do you ask?

The Slytherin thing, as I've said before, is dumb. That anything remotely connected to him by name, house, ancestry or post code is automatically evil or at least untrustworthy. It flies in the face of the points Rowling is trying to make about choices, and it would have been much better if Harry had turned out to be Slythrin's descendant.

However, the stupid 'houses' thing aside, Voldemort's backstory, that he is utterly shit scared of death, which he sees as the ultimate weakness, and intends to become its master by cheating it, is a powerful and realistic motivating factor. Combined with his ethnic cleansing angle (which lets face it is hardly unusual in the real world, historically), his actions make sense. He's not just evil for the sake of it. The 'abused as a child' angle was surperfluous in the end - that was deliberately similar to Harry so Rowling could make the point that their making different choices later meant that his poor background was no excuse. A similar point is made from the fact that James Potter was a bit of a twat - although Harry stems from such stock, he can choose to be better. Voldemort chose to follow the path he'd tried out in childhood, and ultimately it led him to the dark arts and the Horcrux. It's pretty well established that after the creation of the Horcruxes his soul is damaged essentially beyond repair.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

At different points in the story, both Slughorn and Dumbledore mention how, when Riddle came to Hogwarts, it wasn't obvious that they were instructing a future villain.

In stark contradiction to the shown flashbacks, in which he's always creepy at best.

That's true. I'll attempt some fan-speculation and say that, perhaps, the creepy memories were colored by what Slughorn and Dumbledore knew later on in life? As in, their memories are slightly altered by knowing now that Voldemort is "teh eeevuhl"? Maybe? Too much of a stretch?

Either way, the HBP movie makes more sense to me when I see the parallels between Voldemort and Malfoy -- even if no such parallels actually exist.

 

[RoJoHen]

Either way, the HBP movie makes more sense to me when I see the parallels between Voldemort and Malfoy -- even if no such parallels actually exist.

I don't really see those parallels. I see Draco, the spoiled racist brat, trying to prove himself to his father and the rest of his family. He acts big and tough his entire childhood because he as some measure of power, but when it comes down to it, he is as much a slave to Voldemort as his family is. Draco was never really an evil guy; he just has misguided beliefs and a big mouth. It's not until he's forced to really do something terrible that he realizes the kind of person he really is.

Draco is like the Reverse Anakin.

 

[C_Miller]

That may be, but when you only have 2 hours to tell a Harry Potter story, you kind of have to make him and his friends the center of attention.

I agree to a point. I didn't like the 6th book much in the first place and it doesn't help that I can't see Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright as a couple, but the one thing that the book did right is that they juxtaposed all this heavy stuff with the lighter stuff, but the lighter stuff never was in the forefront. In fact, that's really what the books in general succeeded at. The Half Blood Prince movie hurt the balance, IMO of course.

You you're willing, you should give the books a shot, you should give them a read. HBP does some really cool stuff with Voldemort's past.

 

[RoJoHen]

You you're willing, you should give the books a shot, you should give them a read. HBP does some really cool stuff with Voldemort's past.

I tried reading the first one back in the day, but I quit halfway through because I was so bored by it.

I know people say "they get so much better," but I'm not really willing to make that commitment. The movies are fine for me.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I don't really see those parallels. I see Draco, the spoiled racist brat, trying to prove himself to his father and the rest of his family. He acts big and tough his entire childhood because he as some measure of power, but when it comes down to it, he is as much a slave to Voldemort as his family is. Draco was never really an evil guy; he just has misguided beliefs and a big mouth. It's not until he's forced to really do something terrible that he realizes the kind of person he really is.

Draco is like the Reverse Anakin.

What you say about Malfoy is true. But when I watch the film, there are a lot of moments when the "teenage love story" is explicitly juxtaposed with Malfoy -- there are at least a handful of shots in which the silly "snogging" is shown and then, either in background or as an extension of the shot, we see a brooding Malfoy. And because both Slughorn and Dumbledore describe Riddle's descent into Voldemort in terms of choices made while at Hogwarts, I see the comparison of carefree teens and the descent of Malfoy as, at the very least, a kind of mirror for Voldemort. Of course, Malfoy doesn't go through with it -- choosing not to kill Dumbledore -- but his efforts do lead to Dumbledore's death: a consequence of choice. I like the commentary in those parallels and juxtapositions (which, though I see them in the film, I freely admit may not have been the actual intent of the movie).

 

[cultcross]

You you're willing, you should give the books a shot, you should give them a read. HBP does some really cool stuff with Voldemort's past.

I tried reading the first one back in the day, but I quit halfway through because I was so bored by it.

I know people say "they get so much better," but I'm not really willing to make that commitment. The movies are fine for me.

Well it's not that they get 'so much better', it's just that books 1 and 2 are children's books. It's not a surprise that adults find them... well, childish. I read through them in order to have the story in order and from book 3 I was hooked. In retrospect now, I have much more of a soft spot for the first two books because of where they led and the story they began, but when I first read them I just had to swallow the fact they were kids books and get through them.

It's not much of a commitment, it's entirely possible to read books 1 through 3 in an evening.

 

[C_Miller]

You you're willing, you should give the books a shot, you should give them a read. HBP does some really cool stuff with Voldemort's past.

I tried reading the first one back in the day, but I quit halfway through because I was so bored by it.

I know people say "they get so much better," but I'm not really willing to make that commitment. The movies are fine for me.

I can respect that. For me, J.K. Rowling is a great "ideas" person, but sometimes her execution leaves a lot to be desired. In the other HP thread, I mentioned how in the last 3 books, she all but forgot how to write the friendship between Harry, Ron and Hermione. The movies reconcile that.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Last time I read Chamber of Secrets, I was struck by how relevant a lot of its plot was to the rest of the series. It's my least-favorite story of the seven, but I enjoyed it quite a bit more re-reading it, knowing how everything ended up.

 

[C_Miller]

You you're willing, you should give the books a shot, you should give them a read. HBP does some really cool stuff with Voldemort's past.

I tried reading the first one back in the day, but I quit halfway through because I was so bored by it.

I know people say "they get so much better," but I'm not really willing to make that commitment. The movies are fine for me.

Well it's not that they get 'so much better', it's just that books 1 and 2 are children's books. It's not a surprise that adults find them... well, childish. I read through them in order to have the story in order and from book 3 I was hooked. In retrospect now, I have much more of a soft spot for the first two books because of where they led and the story they began, but when I first read them I just had to swallow the fact they were kids books and get through them.

It's not much of a commitment, it's entirely possible to read books 1 through 3 in an evening.

Yeah, that's one of the bones I'll throw Rowling. She did a really good job growing with her audience

 

[DonIago]

Of course, Malfoy doesn't go through with it -- choosing not to kill Dumbledore -- but his efforts do lead to Dumbledore's death: a consequence of choice. I like the commentary in those parallels and juxtapositions (which, though I see them in the film, I freely admit may not have been the actual intent of the movie).

That's not really accurate. At the beginning of HBP Dumbledore is already dead for all practical purposes, and he's going to die independent of Draco's actions during the book. The only questions are when and under what circumstances, though of course we don't realize that at the time.

Malfoy and Snape are really my favorite characters of the series. As someone who was never one of the "cool kids" myself, I find them much easier to relate to in some ways than the trio.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well it's not that they get 'so much better', it's just that books 1 and 2 are children's books. It's not a surprise that adults find them... well, childish.

I was 12 at the time.

 

[DonIago]

For myself I was about ready to be done with the franchise after the first two movies, but the third one totally hooked me. Read the first three books, and since then I've been stuck in the perhaps-unfortunate world of people who've read the books before seeing the movies.

Particularly after Goblet of Fire I kind of wondered whether I'd have been better off if I hadn't read the book first.

 

[RoJoHen]

For myself I was about ready to be done with the franchise after the first two movies, but the third one totally hooked me.

The movies elicited the same reaction from me. I thought the first two were wholly mediocre, but I saw the third and was blown away.

The only difference is that I had already made the commitment not to read the books.