Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix SPOILERS!!!

[kingpaul]

Why does Black keep a slave?

Most house elves (Dobby and Winky being 2 exceptions that I'm aware of) are bound to a family or institution. It is the nature of the masters that dictates how they are treated. Kreacher is bound to the Black family, and Sirius dislikes him because of the connection to the Black family. He doesn't get rid of him because Kreacher knows to much about the Order.

 

[Elf Witch]

What bugged me was that the teachers seemed to ignore the fact their students were being *tortured*. Minor children being tortured I might add... One of those teachers couldn't have taken a few pictures and called a parent? Or maybe a child welfare agency of some kind? Were they so worried about losing their teaching positions that they could ignore physical torture of minors? I was appalled and disgusted...

On another note... did Black leave the house to Harry?

Why does Black keep a slave?

A lot of wizards keep house elves as slaves even Hogwarts has them that is how the feasts get made.

The reason why the house elf is in the Black's home is that his family has served the Blacks a long time and he is vry loyal to Black's mother. In the book the house elf goes around mumbling so everyone can hear about mudblood. blood traitors and such being in the house and how poor madam if she was alove would be upset.

But they can't free him because he knows to much and they worry about him going to the Dark Lord and telling what he knows.

 

[Hijinks]

What bugged me was that the teachers seemed to ignore the fact their students were being *tortured*. Minor children being tortured I might add

I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.

In the book, it's only Harry that is tortured with the evil quill.

I didn't get why they changed that for the movie other than to give Fred & George a reason to leave.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.

In the book, it's only Harry that is tortured with the evil quill.

I didn't get why they changed that for the movie other than to give Fred & George a reason to leave.

I'm reasonably sure Fred and/or George also gets it in the book.

 

[Mark Chance]

I don't believe anyone told a teacher about it.

The torturer was confronted about it by Maggie Smith. There's also that pesky problem of all of those students walking around with bloody wounds on their hands. Who'd notice that?

 

[joshhg]

I'm reasonably sure Fred and/or George also gets it in the book.

Actually, the only other person who is shown to receive the punishment in the book is Lee, a friend of Fred and George. I believe that is was suggested that she reserved this punishment for those who especially irked her.

Also, the punishment can't be overturned by any other teacher, only the headmaster, and harsher punishment may be more common across the lake. Dumbledore couldn't say anything, or one of those decrees would have just popped up.

 

[Steel_Wind]

And they had to leave a lot out (so I've heard, never read the books) so not only did nothing happen, but not much made sense either.

Exactly so.

I have read the books, though it's been a while since OOTP. Of all the movies, why on earth do they make the shortest movie of the longest book? WTF? Who, pray, decided that was a good move?

I cannot imagine this movie making sense to someone who has not read the book. Hell - I've read the book - and the movie barely made sense.

This one easily wins the worst of the five so far. My fave is still PoA, followed by #1, #2, #4 and now this, a distant on the horizon 5th.

The astonishing thing is that they rehired this director for Half Blood Prince. My hopes for the next film are vanishingly small.

And Luna Lovegood was a lot of fun.

Luna was very good, agreed. Though her role in OOTP through her father's magazine as the counterweight to the Daily Prophet was left out. Then again, it seemed like virtually everything was left out of this movie. A half hour more of film really WAS necessary.

Also, while Luna came off very well, I rather thought she was too pretty. On film, she seemed like a natural love interest, while in the book, she was described as a plain jane loopy outcast that I always pictured far more as looking like the ghost in the bathroom in Chamber of Secrets.

Quibbles with her comeliness aside, she absolutely nailed the role.

Anyways, I have come to enjoy this series of movies, but I'm not going to excuse a sub-standard hatchet job just because I like the overall brand. This was a poor Potter film. Compared to Prisoner of Azkaban, it doesn't even rate.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I was quite pleased with the fight at the Ministry of Magic. It was the best magic-combat I've ever seen in a movie.

The rest of the movie was quite good too. It's too bad that they had to cut stuff out, but the movie was 2:10 as it was.

It was visually compelling, yes, but it was also the worst thing they did in terms of betraying the book and - indeed - betraying what they had spent 12 minutes of screen time on earlier.

The sacrifice of the competency of Dumbldore's Army on the altar of tension and tempo betrayed a major theme in the book - and even in the series.

The kids were depicted as being mastered by the Death Eaters as if the Death Eaters were only toying with them. The kids' spells were visually wussy and the kids were just taken by the Death Eaters with little more than a shrug.

The showy oooh scarey razmatazz happens only when the OOTP show up.

And thereby it depicts Dumbledore's Army - who were in the book pretty much holding their own - look like a bunch of babies. That's not the book. It's not Half-Blood Prince either - and my guess is that it will not be the scenes shown in Book 7 too.

That's a director and scriptwriter changing the material in the novel to distort one of the underlying themes in the book, the series, (and in the movie you were watching earlier) just for the tempo of the eye candy.

Bad call.

 

[Tetsubo]

The torturer was confronted about it by Maggie Smith. There's also that pesky problem of all of those students walking around with bloody wounds on their hands. Who'd notice that?

Exactly. Not to mention that at least ONE student might tell a teacher that they trusted.

I have to admit that this pushed a personal button of mine. As a survivor of childhood abuse I always thought no adults knew. But I eventually discovered that adults outside of my family knew about the abuse and did nothing.

I don't ignore that type of thing. I *remember*.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Exactly. Not to mention that at least ONE student might tell a teacher that they trusted.

I have to admit that this pushed a personal button of mine. As a survivor of childhood abuse I always thought no adults knew. But I eventually discovered that adults outside of my family knew about the abuse and did nothing.

I don't ignore that type of thing. I *remember*.

Two points, in no way trying to discount your personal experience, but simply trying to put the events in the context of that world.

1) A recurrent theme of the books is the children refusing to go to authority figures precisely when those figures might be able to help them. A corollary of that theme is the adults refusing to believe the children when it counts, though this theme has diminished as the series continues.

2) It seems that there's an ethos at Hogwarts that discourages teachers from interfering with one another's methods of discipline. Hagrid can bring the children to the haunted forest if he wants, Snape can publicly humiliate them, McGonnagall and have them clean cauldrons, and, if she wants, Umbridge can make them "write lines." While I understand the ethos, it makes me glad we live in a world where, in fact, these things don't happen.

PS. Although it does occur to me that there are some limits, since Flich does complain that Dumbledore won't let him bring back "the old punishments."