# Harry Potter books



## trixiedog (Feb 13, 2009)

Now that I have seen all the movies, my friend told me the Harry Potter books are awesome and even better than the movies.  They are not available on the kindle!  Boo!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

They'll be available in e-format in October via www.pottermore.com.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

And yes, they are better than the movies.  The movies don't have time for all the subplots, characters and developments.


----------



## trixiedog (Feb 13, 2009)

DYB:  Thanks for letting me know the books are better than the movies!  I am very excited, but have to wait until October...  

Ann in Arlington:  Sorry for posting in the wrong spot.  I agonized over where to post my subject...    
I don't post very much so I am not very good at it.


----------



## erikhanberg (Jul 15, 2011)

I've read them through 3 times now. I can't recommend the books enough.


----------



## leearco (Jul 17, 2011)

If I hadn't read the books first, the last few movies would be confusing.
The Order of the Phoenix book was great, but the movie was really missing something that the book had.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

There are many important things and plot points from the books that are ignored in the movies, which I understand.  But I never understand how people who haven't read the books follow the plot just by watching the movies!  I'll be seeing the last movie tomorrow, so today I refreshed my memory by watching "Deathly Hallows Part 1."  And one of the things that struck me is the broken mirror shard that Harry keeps staring at and seeing someone watching him.  He then asks the mirror for help and Dobbie arrives.  If you haven't read the books - you have no idea what the bloody hell that mirror is and why Harry has it with him!  In the books it's an item that's been around since "Order of the Phoenix."


----------



## trixiedog (Feb 13, 2009)

DYB said:


> There are many important things and plot points from the books that are ignored in the movies, which I understand. But I never understand how people who haven't read the books follow the plot just by watching the movies! I'll be seeing the last movie tomorrow, so today I refreshed my memory by watching "Deathly Hallows Part 1." And one of the things that struck me is the broken mirror shard that Harry keeps staring at and seeing someone watching him. He then asks the mirror for help and Dobbie arrives. If you haven't read the books - you have no idea what the bloody hell that mirror is and why Harry has it with him! In the books it's an item that's been around since "Order of the Phoenix."


Thanks! So glad it was just not me being confused some from movie to movie!  I am so excited now after everyones comments and can't hardly wait until October to start reading the books.


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

They haven't been available in e-book format at all but now JK Rowling is self-publishing them in e-book format. Its very exciting news for all of us. I can't wait to get digital copies of all the books. I highly recommend that anyone who is a fan of the movies read the books. There are actually things in the movies that you don't realize are confusing or missing until you've read the books all the way through. I just saw the last movie last week and I'm sad that I have no more movies to look forward to. I can, however, enjoy the books over and over.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

The best book and probably the worst movie is The Goblet of Fire. They had to cut so much and so the movie seemed so choppy and inconsistent. The book, on the other hand, really surprised me with how gripping it was, and it remains one of the most fun times I've ever had with a book. Poor Hermoine ends up with a crummy storyline in this one though.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

erikhanberg said:


> I've read them through 3 times now. I can't recommend the books enough.


Only three times? 

My daughter hasn't read them but has seen all the movies. She always has to call me right after the movie to find out what was really happening. She didn't like DH1, but if she'd read the book first, she wouldn't have been so confused.

DH2 is the best.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I've read them probably...8 times, including the English language version.  Errr, the British version.  "Harry Potter" and "The Count of Monte Cristo" are my go-to books now for pure relaxation and enjoyment, and ones I will re-read every year or two.


----------



## magicabooks (Jul 20, 2011)

Really, the books are usually better than the movies. That's just how it is most of the time. If they really made it so close to the first book alone, it would probably be a 6-hour movie.

Look at Lord of the Rings. They were pushing 3 hours per book with that one. They still had to cut a bunch of important parts out in the movie version.


----------



## Michael Scott Miller (Sep 2, 2010)

I love that the movies stay true to the books, but agree with the others here that so much is left out due to time constraints.  For me, the most noticeable element lacking in the movies is the character development.  The movie versions all seem to be a breathless sprint from scene to scene to scene.  The books develop the characters much more deeply including the relationships between not only the main characters, but many of the side characters as well.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

More news from Pottermore.

We'll have to pay through Google and all books will be readable on the Google ereader.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> More news from Pottermore.
> 
> We'll have to pay through Google and all books will be readable on the Google ereader.


So it will not be readable on the Kindle? In the original announcement they said the books would be readable on all ereaders and that they were working with Amazon, etc. to make that happen. I guess things didn't work out? Well, I won't be buying a Google ereader, so I guess I'll keep my "Harry Potter" money until they release the books for Kindle.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

DYB said:


> So it will not be readable on the Kindle? In the original announcement they said the books would be readable on all ereaders and that they were working with Amazon, etc. to make that happen. I guess things didn't work out? Well, I won't be buying a Google ereader, so I guess I'll keep my "Harry Potter" money until they release the books for Kindle.


The last report I read said the books would be released DRM free in Google's open ebook format making them compatible with just about every ereader except the Kindle - Amazon were said to be "working on it". If they are DRM free then third party software such as Calibre would be able to convert them to a .mobi format, to be transferred to the Kindle. Personally I'd just prefer to be able to buy them from Amazon.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

i wish this would be step to make Amazon support epub but thats probably not going to happen


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Linjeakel said:


> The last report I read said the books would be released DRM free in Google's open ebook format making them compatible with just about every ereader except the Kindle - Amazon were said to be "working on it". If they are DRM free then third party software such as Calibre would be able to convert them to a .mobi format, to be transferred to the Kindle. Personally I'd just prefer to be able to buy them from Amazon.


Yes, I would rather just buy them from Amazon, too. My understanding was the books would be compatible with all ereaders through Overdrive. Don't understand the technical aspects of that, but I believe that was the original announcement.

When they announced the other day that payments would be made through Google, it was also confirmed the books would be compatible with the Google ereader. That didn't mean we could only read them on the Google ereader.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

I'm so excited for the ebooks. (My wallet is not as excited.) 

And yes! The books are far, far better. Partly because I think Harry is just so much MORE than what Daniel Radcliffe portrayed. (Sorry)


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

Thrilled at the e release of hp I've read all books atleast 3 times but it won't matter to me at all if it's not available for kindle thru amazon


----------



## trixiedog (Feb 13, 2009)

I read some exciting news today on the internet....in an article dated yesterday, it said the Amazon Kindle would not be left out in the cold as far as Harry Potter Books were concerned....It said "Pottermore" would be handling the digital distribution of her books only from her website.   You would select the book, then the platform to be delivered to....  Kindle, Nook etc.  It also said the "preferred 3rd party payment platform would be Google, meaning for shoppers you could use a credit card.

Also said in Pottermore that you could tour the virtual replicas of Dragon Alley, Interact with one another, mix up potions and cast the occasional spell. You could also spend some time in the boarding school Hogwarts, as well as help the team win the house cup.

Whew that is a relief that we can purchase the books for the Kindle.   Because after everyones comments on how good the books are, I am dying to read them.  Wanted to be able to read them on my Kindle though, not on a huge book!


----------



## John Dorian (Jul 23, 2011)

Anyone who's ever read a book will always tell you that books are better than the movie. Honestly, in some cases that is very true. Then again in some cases it is not.

I point you to Jaws and the giant mechanical shark 

I've both read the books and seen the movies and honestly, I did like the movies better. The books are rather finnicky and the plots frays far too much for me. The movies were a lot more straightforward, while still keeping true to its style and taste.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

I have to admit that I was a Harry Potter hater, because of the hype surrounding the books. After my wife dragged me to see the movies I was finally convinced that I'd start reading them. Basically once the books, and subsequently the movies, were more mature (Goblet of Fire) I found them great to read.

One of the few series I have read back to back with no "break" books. Read them.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I was never a "hater" but I wasn't particularly interested in reading them at first . . .they're kids books, bah! . . . and my son was old enough -- I think he was 16 or 17 before they showed up on our radar -- that they weren't 'his' reading level.  But then some adults who I respected said, "no, really.  They're good stories, you should try them." By this time there were 3 out and the 4th was due out really soon.  AND, my son had friends who said to him, "no, really. They're good stories, you should try them."  So we did.  Shared the first four books but then after that we each got our own copies.  And we both re-read everything before each new one came out. . . . .and neither of us is usually a re-reader, either.  

So, there's definitely something about them.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

It was my mother with her teaching background who pointed out to me how Rowling had used her own teaching background to build in a realistic portrayal of a group of kids from very different backgrounds, and how that affected their interactions with each other. Harry and Ron each envying what the other had that they did not made it in, but others, like Seamus and Dean, didn't.

There are a lot of other little things like that which I really liked in the books which couldn't make it into the movies. I enjoyed the movies a lot, but I'm very glad I read the books for all the extra things like that.


----------



## derek alvah (Jul 2, 2010)

Glad these are going to be available in e-book format. Seeing as Kindle is one of the best if not THE best selling e-readers on the market today, I don't see them being so foolish as to leave us kindlers out in the cold when it comes to the HP books. That would be plain bad business sense. I'm just wondering what the price will be. I've thought about it and I'm willing to pay more than the hardcover price, just for the convenience  of having them on my kindle, but I'm not sure how much more. Any of you have a set price limit in mind that you won't go over? I just hope the fact that she's only selling them through her own site doesn't mean she'll be charging outrageous prices. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Oh yeah, the books are much better.  I mean, the movies were pretty good, but the books were great.  In fact, I saw the first two movies in the theater, then two more after that on cable...then skipped a couple.  I finally saw the last one in the theater...but I was so wrapped up in the books I did not feel like I missed anything by skipping the movies.


----------



## Queenbe Monyei (Apr 5, 2011)

Yes the books are pretty amazing. I love the movies, but there were so many scenarios and character's that weren't even a THOUGHT in the movies. Umm hello, where was Binky and Tom Riddle's mom? I mean I can't really complain. There's only so much you can do when you squeeze a 700-800 book in a 2-3 hour film. If they had stretched the films out and did like a mini series, I'm sure all us potter fans would have watched every single one. Just saying.


----------



## B Regan Asher (Jun 14, 2011)

I really enjoyed all of the Harry Potter books but, like so many book series, my favorite was the first one.  Ditto on the movies ... the first movie was best and I think pretty true to the book.  My big disappointment with the movies was when they changed directors on the third one.  The first two movies were quite enchanting I thought.  Somehow they lost this with the new director.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

I love them all, but there are more exciting to watch in movies.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

B Regan Asher said:


> I really enjoyed all of the Harry Potter books but, like so many book series, my favorite was the first one. Ditto on the movies ... the first movie was best and I think pretty true to the book. My big disappointment with the movies was when they changed directors on the third one. The first two movies were quite enchanting I thought. Somehow they lost this with the new director.


That's exactly how I feel about Cuaron. Those talking shrunken heads ruined the movie all by themselves, not to mention all the rest of it. I've got the extended version and I haven't watched it yet.

Too bad, because PoA was one of the best books of the series.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I never saw the movies, but I thought the first four or five books were rather tepid.  They were OK, I suppose, but no reason to get excited.  She does good with secondary characters, but by book five I was just tired of Harry Potter the magical boy that I never wanted to finish the rest.


----------



## jd78 (Dec 8, 2009)

From what I have read and heard the HP books will be available in ALL e-reader formats including Kindle. The catch is that it will only be sold through the Pottermore website probably using Google Checkout. Only Rowling has this type of pull and she has stated that she wants the books available to "everyone" (as long as it's through her website  ). The update that was mention was details the surfaced specially about Google Books. Kindle will be included and Amazon has stated they are willing to play ball, but no official details have be mentioned yet.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> That's exactly how I feel about Cuaron. Those talking shrunken heads ruined the movie all by themselves, not to mention all the rest of it. I've got the extended version and I haven't watched it yet.
> 
> Too bad, because PoA was one of the best books of the series.


Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. Chris Columbus is a hack director. His movies (the first two) are boring word-for-word adaptations of Rowling's vision - which might work on the page, but not in film. He lost the magic and the charm. Cuaron made a _movie._ He was the first in the series to realize that slavish loyalty is dull. To me he finally captured the right tone, the magic and the menace, of Rowling's narrative. I think everything Cuaron did was an improvement over Columbus (not hard to do), including the changing of the geography. I never understood why Columbus placed Hagrid's hut right outside of the castle gates - since Rowling described the journey to his hut as dangerous. There was nothing dangerous about it in the first two movies. By placing it so far out of the way Cuaron finally captured what Rowling intended. Cuaron did some critical thinking and interpreting. Columbus let Rowling do all of his thinking for him. Incidentally, that's why he was hired in the first place. Among directors who expressed an interest in the early adaptations were Spielberg, Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam. But their visions were too far outside of the producers' comfort zone at that time. So they hired an unimaginative has-been instead.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

DYB said:


> Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. Chris Columbus is a hack director. His movies (the first two) are boring word-for-word adaptations of Rowling's vision - which might work on the page, but not in film. He lost the magic and the charm. Cuaron made a _movie._ He was the first in the series to realize that slavish loyalty is dull. To me he finally captured the right tone, the magic and the menace, of Rowling's narrative. I think everything Cuaron did was an improvement over Columbus (not hard to do), including the changing of the geography. I never understood why Columbus placed Hagrid's hut right outside of the castle gates - since Rowling described the journey to his hut as dangerous. There was nothing dangerous about it in the first two movies. By placing it so far out of the way Cuaron finally captured what Rowling intended. Cuaron did some critical thinking and interpreting. Columbus let Rowling do all of his thinking for him. Incidentally, that's why he was hired in the first place. Among directors who expressed an interest in the early adaptations were Spielberg, Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam. But their visions were too far outside of the producers' comfort zone at that time. So they hired an unimaginative has-been instead.


I'm sorry. I should have made myself more clear about my objection to Cuaron. I didn't mind that he made the settings darker. The Wizarding World is very medieval and that's the way it should be portrayed.

He just put in a lot of things that were pointless and distracting such as the aforementioned shrunken heads and about a dozen or so Mexican symbols. Don't ask me what they were because I haven't read the list in a while. Then there was all that clock symbolism. Boring and a waste of time. He treated this like an art movie. The dementors looked like shredded black handkerchiefs and Sirius's dog was anything but big and shaggy. It looked like some skinny, mangy mutt.

My biggest objection was the acting. A director should bring out the best in the actors and I felt the performances, even from the adults, were lackluster at best. The only performance I enjoyed was Stan Shunpike. I wasn't even thrilled with Snape or McGonagall.

Cuaron expressed interest several times in coming back to direct another one but he was largely ignored.

I know a lot of people didn't like Chris Columbus, but I felt he did right by the first two books. They were more simplistic than the later books and that's the way he filmed them. If Cuaron had directed the first film, I doubt if I would have bothered seeing the rest.


----------



## Julia444 (Feb 24, 2011)

I'm really looking forward to POTTERMORE, but today, as I perused the sale merchandise at our local Borders (a sad affair), I saw the giant box that looks like Harry's school trunk, and in it is the complete set of hardbacks.  I'm all for getting rid of lots of my old hardbacks and paperbacks and sticking to the Kindle for the most part, but those hardbacks are gorgeous.  I would never get rid of my Harry Potter collection.

Julia


----------



## Straker (Oct 1, 2010)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> My biggest objection was the acting. A director should bring out the best in the actors and I felt the performances, even from the adults, were lackluster at best. The only performance I enjoyed was Stan Shunpike. I wasn't even thrilled with Snape or McGonagall.


I've never understood the praise heaped on Cuaron for PofA. The scene where Snape bursts in on Sirius and Lupin, and the whole werewolf/dog scene that follows a bit later on, look like they came out of some grade Z Hammer horror film from the 60s. I kept waiting for Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing to show up.


----------



## Michelle Muto (Feb 1, 2011)

I love the books! Yes, they are better. There's a scene in the fourth book, I think, that had me in stitches laughing so hard. It never made it to the screen. The Weasley's calling the Dursely's and all of them traveling to the Dursley's fireplace and winding up in the walls. 

Most books are better than their movie counterparts, imo. 

Still, I watch the movies over and over. They're 'comfort' movies.


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

JK Rowling is self-publishing the series in e-book format. Not sure which formats she'll make them available in, but I can't imagine that they won't be on the Kindle. Just give it a little time. It's coming.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Straker said:


> I've never understood the praise heaped on Cuaron for PofA. The scene where Snape bursts in on Sirius and Lupin, and the whole werewolf/dog scene that follows a bit later on, look like they came out of some grade Z Hammer horror film from the 60s. I kept waiting for Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing to show up.


Yes. Worst scenes in the movie. The fight between Remus and Sirius' animagi should have been spectacular but it was very disappointing.



Michelle Muto said:


> I love the books! Yes, they are better. There's a scene in the fourth book, I think, that had me in stitches laughing so hard. It never made it to the screen. The Weasley's calling the Dursely's and all of them traveling to the Dursley's fireplace and winding up in the walls.


Yes, the fourth book when they are picking up Harry to go to the World Quidditch Cup. Hilarious. I read that chapter over and over and I laughed every time. I would have loved that to be in the movie.

One of the other scenes I missed was HBP, I think, when Luna was commentating on the Quidditch Match. I can just picture Evana doing that one.

I'm holding off rereading the books until October. I so hope she keeps the price reasonable.



Julia444 said:


> I'm really looking forward to POTTERMORE, but today, as I perused the sale merchandise at our local Borders (a sad affair), I saw the giant box that looks like Harry's school trunk, and in it is the complete set of hardbacks. I'm all for getting rid of lots of my old hardbacks and paperbacks and sticking to the Kindle for the most part, but those hardbacks are gorgeous. I would never get rid of my Harry Potter collection.
> 
> Julia


I would never get rid of mine either. I've got the complete hardback set and I did have all the paperbacks. Three of the PB's have disappeared over the years. I know it's silly, but I will be replacing them even though I'm getting the ebooks.


----------



## cork_dork_mom (Mar 24, 2011)

I totally agree with everyone - the books are much better than the movies. Isn't that always the case?  

On a different note - the think the audio versions are a smidgen better than the books. Jim Dale does an amazing job bringing the books to life. When we would drive to Colorado through west Texas we would listen to Harry Potter - made the trip less painful - such a booooring drive  

My 16 yr. old son and I finally saw the last movie yesterday. My son said with a heavy sigh, "Mom, it's a sad day. It's the end of my childhood now that Harry Potter is over."  Made me chuckle - then I realized that he's kinda right...


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

The book is usually better. As the Harry Potter books got longer and longer, the movies had to cut more and more out for time constraints. Even with the final book in two movies, they left a lot out. If I hadn't read the books, I would have been lost watching the later movies.

Every now and then something comes along that is lightning in a bottle and transforms everything. I don't know if Harry Potter is fantastic writing, there are some big plot holes. But remember Dead Poets Society, where they are going over a chapter on what makes a good poem, and it reads like a mathematical formula, and he has them rip that page out if the book. New conventions are made because someone broke the old conventions.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

The movies are very good and I love them, but what makes the Harry Potter series truly special just cannot be translated to film. The subplots, the interwoven details between the books, all the background information on Dumbledore, and so forth.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> The best book and probably the worst movie is The Goblet of Fire. They had to cut so much and so the movie seemed so choppy and inconsistent. The book, on the other hand, really surprised me with how gripping it was, and it remains one of the most fun times I've ever had with a book. Poor Hermoine ends up with a crummy storyline in this one though.


Before I saw Goblet of Fire in the theater, I'd only read Sorcerer's Stone. But I loved the movie so much, I had to go read all the books. Like most books-turned-movies, I think you have to take the movies as a separate entity.

On a related note, I went to see DH2 with some non-reader friends opening night. The guy goes "I don't understand why any guy would be here unless they were dragged by their women." 
I responded, "Don't forget, most of these people grew up on Harry Potter." 
"Nuh uh. The movies aren't that old."
*facepalm*

And a lot of comments that night made me want to scream "READ A BOOK, WOULD YA??"


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Goblet of Fire is my least favorite of the movies. I don't really care for the director's style as much.


----------



## kindlegrl81 (Jan 19, 2010)

IMO 1 and 2 were alright.  3,4 and 5 were horrible . 6,7P1 and 7P2 were great.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

kindlegrl81 said:


> IMO 1 and 2 were alright. 3,4 and 5 were horrible . 6,7P1 and 7P2 were great.


The 5th might actually be my favorite. Go figure.


----------



## Jordan Parkes (Jul 16, 2011)

The first three books had a lot of charm for me whereas I didn't enjoy the ending books so much. The deathly hallows seemed very anticlimactic to me. It's great it will soon be on readers soon though. The movies I think did a near perfect job casting the characters though, each of them looked just like what I imagined them to look like in my mind. The sixth book and movie were terrible in my opinion.


----------



## B Regan Asher (Jun 14, 2011)

We're off to see the last movie tomorrow.  Everything I've heard is that it's supposed to be the best of the films.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2011)

For no particular reason:


----------



## kaotickitten (Jan 9, 2011)

I am just glad that after month of speculation we are finaly getting them in ereader form.  Funny how alot of people called as to when. As in after all the movies have been released.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> For no particular reason:


The twins totally got shafted in the movie.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2011)

So much better than the movies. Books are usually a better medium to capture long periods of time (like a school year) since it might take you days or weeks to finish a novel. I really liked the series, and they're more complete than the movies.


----------



## B Regan Asher (Jun 14, 2011)

Yes, the books were better than the movies but I just saw the final movie today and I must say it was very well done.  A good ending to the series.


----------



## jen meyers (Jul 28, 2011)

The books are amazing. I'm in total awe of Rowling after reading them all. I have yet to see the movies. Someday I'll plan a HP movie marathon. Maybe when my kids are old enough to watch them. That would be fun.

Luckily for you, October isn't _that _far away!


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

samanthawarren said:


> The twins totally got shafted in the movie.


So true. I did like that bit when they asked each other if they were okay, but I think those were their only lines. I know they did a lot of filming so it seems like they were mostly edited out. The twins were such an integral part of the books, it seems a shame to see them reduced to sound bytes.


----------



## Joseph_Evans (Jul 24, 2011)

I'm not sure what there is to say about the Harry Potter books that hasn't already been said, but they are phenomenal.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> So true. I did like that bit when they asked each other if they were okay, but I think those were their only lines. I know they did a lot of filming so it seems like they were mostly edited out. The twins were such an integral part of the books, it seems a shame to see them reduced to sound bytes.


Potential spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the books or watched the last movie:


Spoiler



I totally agree. I think the scene in the movie of the battle respite would have been more powerful if they had fleshed out a few of the characters in the previous movies (such as the relationship between Tonk and Lupin, and the twins). As it was, I think the only people crying during that part were the ones who had read the books.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

samanthawarren said:


> Potential spoiler for anyone who hasn't read the books or watched the last movie:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



The only indication we had of the Remus/Tonks ship in the previous movies was her calling him sweetheart just before the attack on The Burrow. Did you notice at one point, George was kind of rolling around in anguish presumably because Fred had just been killed? Lasted less than 10 seconds.

You're right. Did anyone but us readers know that was Fred lying on the floor of the Great Hall? It wasn't until Ron threw himself on the body that anyone who hadn't read the books would know it was a Weasley lying there. You couldn't see it was Fred at all or even that it was one of the twins. I can usually tell them apart, but it was too dark.



Usually after watching one of the movies, my daughter has to call me to find out what happened. She's never read the books despite the fact I got her the first four.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. I think that scene was the biggest fail of the movie.


----------

