HP stupidity

[dream_labyrinth]

Remember that scene in OotP when Harry has detention with Umbridge for telling everybody that Voldemort is back?
He has to write "I must not tell lies", and the words are cut into the back of his hand while writing.

Apparently, and for no reason at all as far as I can see, this has been changed in the movie to read "I must not break rules".

Excuse me? Umbridge at this point is not concerned about him breaking rules. She doesn't want him to say what she wants everyone to believe is a lie.

I could have accepted if they had cut out that scene completely or changed it to something less violent, but simply changing the words is ridiculous.

Really, if they're so keen on making movies out of the Harry Potter books, why don't they do just that instead of tweaking the story around pointlessly?

(I found the link concerning this in huva's journal. Of course, now that the scene is shot it's pretty much pointless to complain, but it is just one more reason for me to not watch the movies.)

Comments

[lucie-p.livejournal.com]

See, I even have an icon for occasions like this one! How sad is that?

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Not sad at all! The icon, I mean.
After all, what's the point of being able to have tons of icons if you then want to makea point and don't have the right icon for it?

[sapphiretragedy.livejournal.com]

*seethes*

I agree with you completely. It's just like that damned pink dress!

But then again - if enough fans complain - like they did for the mis-printed grave stone, something might be done? I don't know. Just gah!

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Pink dress? Let me guess: Hermione at the Yule ball during GoF?
She was wearing robes made of a floaty, periwinkle-blue material...
(GoF Bloomsbury paperback ed., p 452)
What is wrong with those people? Hermione, as described in the book, would never wear pink, and it wouldn't suit her at all, either.

[huva.livejournal.com]

as much as i like finally seeing
what before i've only played in my head,
the movies are basically shite...

i understand that there is a bit to be said
for the difficulty of translating book-to-screen
but the way they flatten out all the characters and plots
...mebbe they should have just made a picture book
and forgone the movie?


but...i do hold out hope
that they may be willing to change it
[like the gravestone, indeed]
i mean, if it was so easy to unravel the ultimate point of their movie
then perhaps they won't have too much trouble putting it back together?

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

What did they do to the gravestone?

I've only watched one movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. Me and two friends kept commenting every scene with "That's wrong!", "That's not what he said!", "That doesn't belong here!" - much to the annoyance of the two people we were watching with, who hadn't read the books.

When I heard they had cut out that one line "My faithful servant is still at Hogwarts", I decided the movies just had to be crap.
I mean, are they going to get the whole "Is Snape a traitor?" plot in by doing flashbacks once he's killed Dumbledore?

Snape's one of the best characters in the books, JKR must have spent ages to get his characterisation as facetted as it is, and then some idiot thinks it can all be cut to make him a cardboard evil teacher?

bit of a ramble

[huva.livejournal.com]

[first, out of curiosity
is the 'my faithful servant' line you're referring to
the same one you mentioned in your post the other day?
if so,
you've already established that it referred to crouch
not snape]


as for the grave stone...

before GoF was released
one of the stills showed a glaring error
that was naturally torn apart by the fandom:
(http://photobucket.com/)
a: it lists voldemort's father's name as being
'tom marvolo riddle'
and as we knew from HBP
'marvolo' was given to voldemort from his mother's side
so it was unlikely that it was ALSO his father's middle name

b: riddle sr.'s date of birth is listed as
1915
and since most canon sources peg voldy's as
1926
that would have made his father 11 when he was born
...also, highly unlikely

this was repaired for the movie release:
(http://photobucket.com/)
and the change was largely credited
to the fans' numerous petitions and outcries

so there's still hope
for 'i must not tell lies'...
*crosses fingers*



and i whole-heartedly agree
that snape has gotten the shaft
as far as the movies are concerned
[other than getting to be portrayed
by the lovely mr. rickman
who is far too pretty to be the greasy git
but i'm not complaining]

and if there ARE any movie-goers
who haven't read the books
and don't buy the hasty plotlines
that the producers throw in to give the 'traitor' arguement depth
well, then maybe they'll be so motivated
as to pick up one of the bloody books!

Re: bit of a ramble

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Nah, Voldemort makes mention of his "most faithful servant" twice. The second time, it becomes clear shortly after that it refers to Crouch jr. (Yet it isn't clear at the point the statement is made), the first time it's made I believe in the Riddle House, to Wormtail, so right at the beginning of the book, leaving a lot of time to ponder whether it's Snape he's talking about.

Re: bit of a ramble

[huva.livejournal.com]

gotcha...

btw...the 'edit' that bothers me most: they NEVER explain who the marauders are...not even in GoF, as a side note...

small, but bugs the piss outta me...

Re: bit of a ramble

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

But that's silly!
I mean, it's on the map. And if they want to make a point of Harry not using the Potions book of the HBP, they have to explain somehow that he knows who made the Marauders' Map, otherwise Hermione telling him off because of the book will make no sense at all.