posted
I'm not surprised they're being cut, I just don't know what they are going to replace the wedding with at this point. After all, movie viewers have never seen Bill at all (if they haven't read the books). They don't know that he and Fleur have been seeing each other since book 5 and so a wedding for the two of them at the beginning of the next film doesn't seem like it would work well. It just seems to me, that considering the statement that was made when it was decided to make Deathly Hallows into two films, that that's a long scene to cut out. Particularly since they stated that they couldn't figure out what to cut.
Scenes at the Burrow such as Harry's birthday and the wedding, make up nearly 100 pages of the text. This seems like a lot to cut out, particularly since they stated that the reason the book is being divided into two films is because they couldn't decide what to cut out (I could totally help with that, there is a lot of unnecessary wandering around in the book, that could go). Some of it can probably be moved to somewhere else. But, if it is to follow the book even a little, they can't move it to Grimmauld Place because the trio spends their time there alone and because Snape can still get in.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they do, I think it'd be a great choice. While Tonks is secondary, and so is Lupin, the latter especially was a 'main secondary' or whatever the term is for an entire film. Same can't be remotely said for Bill or Fleur.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They already treated Tonks and Lupin as a couple at Christmas though they left her out on the train.
Since Tonks works for the ministry it will even make more sense that some of the people came and Kingsley's message. I'm not sure if they'll find a reason to have it at the Weasley's anyway.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been out of town for a week so I'm a bit behind all these posts, but I did watch the movie while I was gone and have an opinion.
My opinion is that I need to watch it again.
Like most of you, I read the book before watching the movie. In fact, I read it more than once (probably 3 times, but it's been a while). Therefore, no matter how hard I tried to go into the movie in acknowledgment of the fact that a screen adaptation can and will be different from the book (probably even should be), I had expectation...preconceived notions.
This was true of each of the first 5 movies as well, and also with each of the first 5 movies I had a better sense of how well they did after I REwatched it with a new set of expectations. The first two were better than I thought they were at first, though they still seem like choppily edited pictoral summaries of th book.
Most of the movies have had the problem of being a bit choppy and disconnected as they try in vain to fit as much of the books into the movies as possible. They seem to jump from scene to scene without proper segways. Some of the actings has been superior and some of it has not. The Weasley twins, for example, have not been to my liking, nor has Dumbledore.
But my biggest problem with the movies, even as they have dared to leave the exact content of the books behind in an attempt to create a better screen adaptation, is that I don't feel the movies can be fully understood without the books.
I'm not sure where the sixth movie will fall because, as I said, I need to rewatch it, but a few things stood out to me:
1. At the beginning, Harry is in a diner when Dumbledore finds him and takes him on the mission to get Slughorn. Dumbledore makes some comment about Harry taking risks all summer but does not explain this statement. In this case, not only does it not make sense if you haven't read the books, but it doesn't make sense if you have. I have no idea what Harry was supposed to have done all summer.
2. After visiting Slughorn (a rushed summary of the visit in the book which made little sense without having read it), Dumbledore randomly drpos Harry in a pond. Huh?
3. Following this is a nearly painful scene in which the entire Weasley family plus Hermoine go on about whether or not Harry has arrived. Not only is it stupid, but it doesn't make sense. Security is high in the wizarding world and Harry's arrival being unexpected is completely unbelievable.
4. The train ride to Hogwarts was actually well done. I rather liked that they didn't introduce the Slug clup right away and that Dumbledore asks Harry to let himself be collected. I also rather enjoyed Luna finding Harry under the invisibility cloak thanks to the nargles (or whatever).
5. We learned VERY little about Tom Riddle in this movie. This was the biggest part of the STORY of the sixth book, not just the biggest part of book six. The whole point of the story was that we learned about Voldemort's past in preparation for learning about the Horcruxes and how Voldemort needed to be destroyed. Yet all we saw was a short scene in which Dumbledore gets him at the orphanage and then the one in which Riddle asks Slughorn about the Horcruxes. Um...so now how do our heroes know anything at all that will help them find them? How do we know what kind of person our bad guy really is? We learned a lot of Riddle's character, how he killed at a very young age, and how he never really had any friends nor wanted any. All of these things were critical to the story and their absence left me feeling as if the movies were pointless eye candy.
6. Harry and Ginny made little sense. For all the painful references to the monster in Harry's chest in the book, I at least understood why he had finally come to like her. There was no catalyst in the movie. And that scene in the room of requirement...Ugh! Also, at the end Hermoine tells Harry that Ron is ok with he and Ginny getting together. Ummm...shouldn't Ron have been the one to say that?
7. Harry slashes open Malfoy's chest and doesn't get in trouble? Huh?
8. The scene at the Weasley's over Christmas made no sense at all. I mean, having their house burn down wasn't all bad. It did add a poignant moment and remind us that we were at war. I certainly didn't mind that they left out family politics (Percy) and ministry politics (The minister of magic coming by) BUT....Belatrix taunts him into following her out into the wilderness where he is alone and vulnerable? All I could think was, "Harry, you're dead. Right here. It's over."
9. The scene at the cave was well done but everything that followed was not. There was no battle at Hogwarts and why not? That's just the sort of thing that i expected to see on film. Then Harry just waits stupidly while Snape kills Dumbledore? That's so un-Harry like. And Snape couldn't have been more obvious. There was real question in the book as to whose side he was really on, but not so in the movie.
10. I agree with whoever said the Half-Blood prince thing fell flat and was fairly insignificant, but I felt that way about the book too so it didn't bother me.
Wow. I guess I really did have some issues with it. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wedding at the Weasley's house is where they received word that the Ministry has fallen. It is also where Harry gets teed off (set off) by the lady who claims there are all kinds of scandals in Dumbldore's past. And remember that supernatural attic-dwelling creature that is made to impersonate a very ill Ron Weasley so the real Ron can run around with Harry without repercussions for his family, would likely have been killed in the torching of the Weasley "Burrow."
I know they have to change some things to shorten a novel into the script equivalent of a novelet or novella, but they are changing an awaful lot of things that affect future events.
By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses? Someone told me that. If it is true, then Joanna Rowling screwed up when she had Dumbledore cast an immobilus spell on Harry in the novel, and the way they did it in the movie--just having Harry hide out of sight--was actually more logically consistent. But they still had Draco Malfoy putting Harry under the immobilus spell while he was hiding in the invisibility cloak on the train.
I always wondered why Draco did not take the invisibility cloak for himself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the invisibility cloak does not also act as an anti-magic shield. I don't know where you got that idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses?
This was never my impression. The invisibility cloak simply renders the wearer truly invisible, meaning that any charms or spells intended to reveal said wearer would not work, such as summoning the cloak. I've never seen any reason that a well-aimed spell couldn't immobilize the wearer of an invisibility cloak.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is it not true that the invisibility cloak isn't invulnerable to any sort of magic, but it's not even with regards to all people effective as an invisibility cloak.`
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it a couple of days ago, and felt rather odd about it. I generally liked how scenes were put together, but I didn't really feel like those scenes were very well "stitched together" into a unified story. I understand the creators made a decision at some point that if you (the viewer) didn't know the background, they weren't going to waste time trying to bring you up to speed, but they may have gone a step too far- there are moments where the timing seems off, pauses go on a moment too long, things are said which should have been inferred or inferred when they should have been said. I never would have known from the scene at the Three Broomsticks, for example, that Harry was as broken up at seeing Ginny and her boyfriend together as he made out to Hermione. And Ron is just kind of all over the map- he's comic relief, he's someone whose life we're supposed to fear for, he's full of his own fame, he's kind've half-heartedly mooning over Hermione... And in place of some time to fill out some of these details and emotions, we get all these long drawn-out sequences of Malfoy going into the Room of Requirement. I like what the actor did with Draco's increasing sense of anguish and isolation, but by the third trip to the "closet", I was muttering is this really how you want to spend your time?
One answer I do have: the creators cut out the battle in the last segment of HBP because they thought the audiences would find it redundant with the battle in _Hallows_.
All in all, I'm not sorry I saw the movie at all; it was enjoyable for the spectacle and for the actors who have come to embody their characters so well. But I'd be very curious to see the DVD for what was cut from the theatrical release.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, the invisibility cloak does not also act as an anti-magic shield. I don't know where you got that idea.
Allow me to elucidate your understanding on how Ron got that idea.
From Ron's post,
"By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses? Someone told me that."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, as I think about it, I do think I would deem a pretty good movie on its own terms (though the scenes feel a bit disjointed at times and there's perhaps too much awkward pauses), but it's still hard for me to get past some of the story changes.
As to the reasoning of the directors about not including the fight scene at the end: it still doesn't cut it for me.
Just because two battles take place in the same location doesn't make it redundant; there's still differences in scale and circumstance and what is going on emotionally. And since Deathly Hallows is going to be split into two movies, there will still be some time before audiences see another battle at Hogwarts.
My brother also pointed out that the changes at the end kind of make the presence of the deatheaters at Hogwarts unnecessary to the plot. Since they're not really causing distractions or chaos (yeah, one guard get's knocked out and some glass get's shattered, all after Dumbledore's already dead) why did Draco need to get them in there. Both he (the chosen assassin) and Snape (the back-up) were already in, and in the movie the only response to the intrusion of deatheaters is one guard who proves useless. The movie plays up the mystery of what Draco is up to, as if it's essential to the plot (in the book it really is), but in the movie's ending, the presence of deatheaters seems superfluous and Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
With the exception of Kingsley, I think Aurors in general end up looking like pushovers in the books. They seemed to be mowed down with relative ease in the novels, while causing almost no damage to the enemy in return.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
With the exception of Kingsley, I think Aurors in general end up looking like pushovers in the books. They seemed to be mowed down with relative ease in the novels, while causing almost no damage to the enemy in return.
Possibly because Fudge wanted them that way.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
We're given no insight whatsoever into the intricacies of Auror training, or what role, if any, Fudge would have in the process. Besides, Fudge was a pushover, Scrimgoeur was in charge of the Aurors before Fudge was removed, and he didn't really seem like there was a concerted effort to weaken them. And I'd be hesitant to call him weak as well, given that he was killed rather than imperiused when the ministry fell.
But even skilled witches and wizards like Mad Eye and Tonks were Aurors, and still died without so much as denting the enemy ranks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed the part where Snape says "DO NOT CALL ME A COWARD!" Also when Harry wins the Quidditch Cup and comes back to the common room and kisses Ginny.
Oh well.. Can't have everything.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Blade, what is wrong with you? That was very rude. I don't have a problem with you. You trying to create one?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "cloak is impervious to curses" thing comes from the "original" children's story, in which it is strongly implied that the cloak has such powers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you mean in The Tales of Beedle the Bard? It is available now from Amazon. The author is J.K. Rowling. Anyone who has a copy, please feel free to let us all know.
By the way, don't wizards/witches have to be able to SEE the person at whom they are trying to cast spells/curses? Maybe not. But I notice they do not seem to be able to cast spells/curses around corners or through solid obstacles. You can even duck out of the way, if you are quick enough.
Well, of course the story works better if the cloak does not block spells/curses.
Black Blade, the person who told me the cloak does block spells and curses claimed this was pointed out in the seventh novel (HP&DH). I have not looked to verify this for myself, though I do have a copy. (Give me a break--it is 759 pages!) I just wondered if anyone else remembered off the top of their head if this were true.
Maybe I should go check some of the Rowling fan sites to see if there is any discussion of this.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the seventh novel, the characters retell the story in Beedle the Bard. I own a copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard, and I'm pretty sure that the cloak is said to block enchantments.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what I found in Wicki, which, we all know, is so authoritative ( ):
quote:The Cloak of Invisibility is especially powerful. It is resistant to jinxes, hexes, and other spells which would normally damage or otherwise render a normal Invisibility Cloak ineffective. For example, just before the Battle of Hogwarts in 1998, while Harry, Ron, and Hermione were huddled under it, a Death Eaters' summoning charm had no effect on removing the Cloak of Invisibility. Also it has remained completely effective throughout its long existence, many times that of other cloaks, which lose their power over time.
(I have no clue what they mean by the 1998 date.)
However, in the next paragraph, it says:
quote:While it shields the wearer from sight and cannot be harmed by any class of spell aimed at it, the Cloak does not act as a shield against spells, curses, or hexes, as Harry is affected by the Full Body-Bind Curse curse twice while under the Cloak in Half-Blood Prince.
This seems to be saying the cloak only protects ITSELF from all spells, but is not a shield to those within it. Which does not make a whole lot of sense.
quote: I have no clue what they mean by the 1998 date.)
I believe that's the year these events happen. The series started with the year being 1991 I think.
But yes that was always my impression as well, the cloak itself cannot be the target but the person below it can. Although that shows an error in the movie where Luna lifts the cloak from Harry with her wand.
quote: By the way, don't wizards/witches have to be able to SEE the person at whom they are trying to cast spells/curses? Maybe not. But I notice they do not seem to be able to cast spells/curses around corners or through solid obstacles. You can even duck out of the way, if you are quick enough.
I don't believe this is entirely accurate. For instance in GOF Harry summons his broom from the castle, no way he could have seen that. But I do imagine some spells do require line of sight, especially some curses and hexes.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Black Blade, what is wrong with you? That was very rude. I don't have a problem with you. You trying to create one?
Certainly not, were I actively seeking for enemies on this forum there are many candidates more qualified than you. Your reply to Ron in my gut felt kinda mean, so rather than just call you mean, I quoted where Ron got his incorrect idea from.
I figured it was a neutral enough response that if you were not intending to be mean it would just roll off.
edit: If I completely missed your intention than I apologize, would there have been a better way to communicate the source of Ron's confusion?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This seems to be saying the cloak only protects ITSELF from all spells, but is not a shield to those within it. Which does not make a whole lot of sense.
Not necessarily; the best chainmail coat in the world isn't going to do its wearer much good if he or she is dipped in acid. Or exposed to poison gas. Though the chainmail itself will probably be fine.
It's a bit weird to argue about the way magic works, but there is a certain odd justice to a design that basically says: "I make you invisible. That's it. And I survive long enough to be passed to the next holder, if you're so foolish that being invisible isn't enough to keep you from harm."
In a way, protecting the wearer from all spells would almost make invisibility redundant, or an afterthought.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trent, thanks for explaining about the date. Was Rowling really doing that?
Did Luna lift the cloak by magic using her wand, or physically use her wand to remove it? I don't recall that scene that clearly now.
By the way, I do not mind the movie changing it so Luna finds Harry left on the train rather than Tonks. She actually spotted him by seeing the "nargles" hoving over him like gnats. Nargles DO exist! Luna is my favorite character. I think she is just delightful. Maybe bizarre at times, but really sweet. And she is bizarre mainly because she believes in her father, who appears to be someone who does not always verify his facts. Although he seems to have been right about the nargles.
I still find it inexplicable that Draco Malfoy did not take the Cloak of Invisibility for himself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see how someone could misunderstand the cloak's powers.
Dumbledore, pg. 716 of my version: "Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to protect and shield others as well as its owner."
I agree that the cloak is primarily and maybe only for invisibility, but certainly there are other lines like Dumbledore's which would leave room for such a question. It's not a ridiculous question at all.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thinking back, one of the biggest issues that I have with this movie is that Harry's distrust of Snape is not portrayed. At all. Throughout the book, Harry is extremely distrustful of Snape. More than once he questions Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore's face, and is told that Snape is trustworthy. In the movie, the only place where it is even intimated that Harry doesn't trust Snape (don't confuse trust with dislike here, he hates him just like always) is during the scene at the Burrow where Remus defends him. And Harry agrees pretty quickly there that it is possible that Snape is doing what was asked of him by Dumbledore and as a spy.
Snape's ultimate betrayal was completely lost from the movie as well. In the book, we find out right before Harry goes with Dumbledore to retrieve the locket that Snape is the one who gave the prophecy to Voldemort. This is never even hinted at in the film. Harry would NOT have listened to Snape's gesture of silence in the book because despite what Dumbledore said, Harry believed him to be in league with Voldemort and this was emphasized by the revelation of the delivery of the prophecy.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the perceived betrayal feeling regarding Snape was lost-and most of it could've been saved, I think, had the kept more true to the last confrontation between Potter and Snape, but for whatever reason they didn't. I really don't understand why they didn't-it would've added less than three minutes, tops, I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry suggests on at least two occasions in this movie that Snape is not to be trusted, and he gets shot down. That seems like plenty.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When is the second? I've seen the movie twice and only recall the scene at the Burrow. And, as I said, he was way to accepting of Remus' possible explanation of his actions.
Regardless, they still left out a huge plot point. Severus Snape is the reason that Harry's parents are dead. He was the one who told the prophecy to Voldemort, causing Harry to be targeted and his parents to be killed. This is a huge betrayal for Harry, because by the end of the book he's been advised ad infinitum that Snape can be trusted. Despite the fact that he doesn't trust Snape, he does trust Dumbledore, and so tries to accept that he can trust Snape (he's relatively unsuccessful but he tries). The discovery that Snape gave up the prophecy and is the reason that he's a target is a huge motivating factor for him against Snape. It's also a betrayal by Dumbledore, who admits to Harry that he knew but didn't tell him.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it being impossible for that knowledge to come out in the the seventh movie. Somewhere along the way he is told or discovers Snape's involvement concenring the prophecy. This can be done even through a memory of Dumbledore that Harry is studying for clues about the Hocruxes or a journal of Dumbledore's left in Harry's possesion. Both these devises even can be used to fill the plot hole of Dumbledore and Harry never really talking about other possible objects that could be Hocruxes. Journals containing Dumbledore's guesses and musings or raw memories of his that the trio suss out.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but see, I kind of hate the idea of them having to add all these scenes or make changes to Book 7's story (though I know this is all hypothetical) to get all the plot points that already should have been accomplished in HP6.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a feeling that what will essentially happen is that the seventh movie, both parts, will be a visual representation of the most dramatic moments of the 7th book and that for actual understanding, you have to have read the book.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hasn't that been the general practice for nearly all the movies? I remember sitting in POA thinking "I feel sorry for those in the theatre who haven't read the book, becuase they must be so confused". Hitting the high points is common practice in the Harry Potter movies (beyond HBP) and in fact is the practice for many book-to-movie adaptations.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work at a summer camp, with kids aged mainly 8 to 12, and it seems that "watch" has now replaced "read" as the main verb associated with Harry Potter.
I don't like or dislike the movies..I find them entertaining but mostly I just ignore them. Harry Potter in my head is so real that I just don't need or care about anything else to do with it. But it feels very weird to think of so many kids whose only notion of Harry Potter is from the movies.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have a feeling that what will essentially happen is that the seventh movie, both parts, will be a visual representation of the most dramatic moments of the 7th book and that for actual understanding, you have to have read the book.
posted
Why did Lupin, Tonks, and Arthur suddenly forget how to turn into white columns of smoke during the Death Eater attack at Christmas? They seemed able enough in the previous movie. Rather than mess around with manipulating the wall of fire, they could have simply Apparated ten feet and caught Harry and Ginny within seconds.
If the wall of fire for some reason prevented Apparition, then they should have shown that, rather than me having to infer.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by manji: Why did Lupin, Tonks, and Arthur suddenly forget how to turn into white columns of smoke during the Death Eater attack at Christmas? They seemed able enough in the previous movie. Rather than mess around with manipulating the wall of fire, they could have simply Apparated ten feet and caught Harry and Ginny within seconds.
If the wall of fire for some reason prevented Apparition, then they should have shown that, rather than me having to infer.
The books were also very inconsistent in the magic system.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it would have made the scene pointless. Although some believe it was pointless to begin with.
Who is to say that they didn't apparate a few momentes after Ginny broke out after Harry? To answer why they didn't do that first off, it seemed that the flames had a mind of their own and were actively trying to attack Lupin and Tonks. They were swiping with theirs wands trying to hold the flames at bay which in turn allowed Ginny a moment to get through.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: That is weird, since only a few years ago Harry Potter was getting praise for encouraging kids to like reading again.
It seems to now be a whole generation ago...
Or maybe they're just too young.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one problem I'm seeing is that parents are introducing Harry Potter way too young. People are watching the movies with or reading the books to their first graders or even younger...some friends of mine have started reading them to their 4-year-old! (They say they're going to stop at book 2 for now.) The books are targeted at much older and more mature readers. Yes, they're for young adults but that is about 11-17, the age that Harry Potter is in the books. I can understand the eagerness of new parents to share something they love with their children, but when they're really too young to read the books all that's left is the movie. They are full of plenty of pretty action scenes that can entertain even a preschooler.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
Not exactly. They say writers should typically write a main character 2-3 years older than their intended audience. It's a subtle distinction, but there are definitely some published YA books that break this rule.
That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character. The last 4 books, in particular, I wouldn't think are suitable for a child younger than middle school.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tara: True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character. The last 4 books, in particular, I wouldn't think are suitable for a child younger than middle school.
Oh yeah, good point...I forgot about the fact that there were only 3 books back then. Not as many cold-blooded murders at that point.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many literary critics agree that the HP books turned significantly "darker" with Goblet of Fire.Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character.
Except that that was only feasible when the books were coming out one per year. Now, my eight-year-old would tear through them all in about two weeks. And I think it would be cruel to give him the first three and make him wait until he was twelve to read the rest. So I'll be giving him the entire series then. Or maybe a year later. The problem is that he has a sister eighteen months younger than he is, so they tend to read everything simultaneously. So I might make him wait until she's old enough. Hmm...food for thought.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
