Movie mistakes

[GrangerHermione]

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

See, here's the thing about Levicorpus: the fact that the OotP movie used it isn't a mistake, just a change from the book. The fact that it's used verbally could be considered as either; however, here's a line from the "Gringotts" chapter of 'Deathly Hallows':

She raised her wand, pointed it at Harry, and whispered, "Levicorpus".

So the mistake is actually Rowling's.

It's probably a mistake, but maybe Rowling had Hermione use "Levicorpus" verbally so that the readers could know what spell she has used. If she had used it non-verbally everyone would wonder what spell she had used. But . . . you could probably recognize the spell from its effect. I don't know. I personally agree with you . . . I think it's a mistake.

[myr613657]

I just watched the fifth film over again for the 10th+ time and I just noticed a huge mistake in the scene with Voldermort and Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Harry tried to disarm Voldermort, but Voldermort disarmed him first. This of course didn't happen in the book so it's just a movie error. But doesn't that make a problem for the last film considering that Wand ownership comes into play in a huge way?

[LoonyMagic]

Originally Posted by myr613657

I just watched the fifth film over again for the 10th+ time and I just noticed a huge mistake in the scene with Voldermort and Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Harry tried to disarm Voldermort, but Voldermort disarmed him first. This of course didn't happen in the book so it's just a movie error. But doesn't that make a problem for the last film considering that Wand ownership comes into play in a huge way?

I've never noticed that before (probably because I've only watch OotP about 3 times). I don't think it will matter much to the other movies as I don't think many people will remember this.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by myr613657

I just watched the fifth film over again for the 10th+ time and I just noticed a huge mistake in the scene with Voldermort and Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Harry tried to disarm Voldermort, but Voldermort disarmed him first. This of course didn't happen in the book so it's just a movie error. But doesn't that make a problem for the last film considering that Wand ownership comes into play in a huge way?

The movies, though, vary considerably from the books. Even so, I'm not sure I understand your point about Voldy disarming Harry in OotP at the Ministry. Dumbledore still has the elder wand at this point, so Harry being disarmed means little. They will have to be careful after the Malfoy Manor scene in DH, but otherwise I don't see a problem.

[myr613657]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

The movies, though, vary considerably from the books. Even so, I'm not sure I understand your point about Voldy disarming Harry in OotP at the Ministry. Dumbledore still has the elder wand at this point, so Harry being disarmed means little. They will have to be careful after the Malfoy Manor scene in DH, but otherwise I don't see a problem.

Let me explain a bit better. I was thinking of the last book before the Elder Wand came into play, actually. Say for example, if in the book, Harry had been disarmed by Voldermort as in the film in the Ministry of Magic-OotP, then Harry's wand should not be able to work properly against Voldermort. So that is why I think this is such a big mistake in the film since so much of how wand ownership comes into play in the last book. Since we have the same director for the last films as for OotP it's going to be interesting to see how he handles this for the last films.

Originally Posted by LoonyMagic

I've never noticed that before (probably because I've only watch OotP about 3 times). I don't think it will matter much to the other movies as I don't think many people will remember this.

I'm hoping your right LoonyMagic. Although, I have a lot of friends who are fans of the films & have never sadly read the books. I can only hope it doesn't become confusing by the end of the films for them by the final film.

I believe this is a big problem in starting a film series based on a beloved book series that is not fully complete before you start filming. IMO, it's like putting the horse before the cart. But I guess it really doesn't matter, and I have to keep in mind that the films are only a summary of the real story.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by myr613657

Let me explain a bit better. I was thinking of the last book before the Elder Wand came into play, actually. Say for example, if in the book, Harry had been disarmed by Voldermort as in the film in the Ministry of Magic-OotP, then Harry's wand should not be able to work properly against Voldermort. So that is why I think this is such a big mistake in the film since so much of how wand ownership comes into play in the last book. Since we have the same director for the last films as for OotP it's going to be interesting to see how he handles this for the last films.

Thanks, I understand what you're saying. For those who haven't read the books, they probably won't make the connection. But the fim makers may have a way to get around it. For one thing, Harry took the wand back during the battle between Dumbledore & Voldy. Also, here's what Ollivander told Harry in DH (bolding is mine):

DH, page 493, U.S. edition "Hawthorn and unicorn hair. Ten inches precisely. Reasonably springy. This was the wand of Draco Malfoy." "Was?" repeated Harry. "Isn't it still his?" "Perhaps not, if you took it ---" "---I did ---" "---then it may be yours. Of course, the manner of taking matters. Much also depends upon the wand itself. In general, however, where a wand has been won, its allegiance will change."

Ollivander also says that the wand must have an affinity with its new owner, and that the laws governing wand ownership are subtle and complex. Remember that the wand that Ron recovered from the DE wouldn't work well at all for Harry, and Bella's wand didn't work that well for Hermione. So it's not always a simple matter. Also, JKR has said the Elder Wand is the least sentimental, caring only about who has won it by force of some kind.

So that would seem to give them a bit of room to work around it.

[myr613657]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Thanks, I understand what you're saying. For those who haven't read the books, they probably won't make the connection. But the fim makers may have a way to get around it. For one thing, Harry took the wand back during the battle between Dumbledore & Voldy. Also, here's what Ollivander told Harry in DH (bolding is mine):



Ollivander also says that the wand must have an affinity with its new owner, and that the laws governing wand ownership are subtle and complex. Remember that the wand that Ron recovered from the DE wouldn't work well at all for Harry, and Bella's wand didn't work that well for Hermione. So it's not always a simple matter. Also, JKR has said the Elder Wand is the least sentimental, caring only about who has won it by force of some kind.

So that would seem to give them a bit of room to work around it.

I totally agree with you with what you said above about the wands and I think that is why it doesn't really matter that the film deviated from the book on this matter because of what Ollivander said about the wands complexities.

And you are absolutely right that Harry in the film did pick up his wand before Voldermort had a chance to take possession of it. So apparently ownership doesn’t just depend on act of disarming but in the taking the possession of it in order to create a bond. And it also explains why Draco was the Elder Wand’s owner even though he never took possession of it after he disarmed Professor Dumbledore. Because the magical rules for Elder Wand seem to be solely towards an allegiance to the winner, instead of a kinship bond. And as we know it was this misunderstanding of the rule of wand possession that ultimately led to Voldermort's demise.

Thanks HedwigOwl for your input on this subject. I now better understand wand ownership.

[MissCapria]

It bugs me that Harry's scar always moves!

It's like magic . . .

[songkat]

I've wondered about this: In SS, just after the sorting, Harry takes a seat across the table from Percy, next to Ron. But right after that, during the same dinner meal while Harry is asking Percy who Snape is, Harry's on the same side of the table next to Percy.

[Alicks]

Originally Posted by myr613657

I just watched the fifth film over again for the 10th+ time and I just noticed a huge mistake in the scene with Voldermort and Harry in the Ministry of Magic. Harry tried to disarm Voldermort, but Voldermort disarmed him first. This of course didn't happen in the book so it's just a movie error. But doesn't that make a problem for the last film considering that Wand ownership comes into play in a huge way?

I honestly doubt that anyone would remember that tiny unimportant (at the time) moment after 4 years. its a long time

[crookshanks15]

Originally Posted by IenjoyAcidPops

See, here's the thing about Levicorpus: the fact that the OotP movie used it isn't a mistake, just a change from the book. The fact that it's used verbally could be considered as either; however, here's a line from the "Gringotts" chapter of 'Deathly Hallows':

She raised her wand, pointed it at Harry, and whispered, "Levicorpus".

So the mistake is actually Rowling's.

I think its a mistake. Levicorpus is a Prince spell. It was used often years ago, and so now the movies cant be like "OMG my dad used this on snape in that memory, he is the only one to use it! He must be the HBP!" and that whole scene. Im sorry this is probably stupid of me saying that. But I really was irrked by this. I was like hold up, this is snapes spell! It just makes it unsignificant.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by songkat

I've wondered about this: In SS, just after the sorting, Harry takes a seat across the table from Percy, next to Ron. But right after that, during the same dinner meal while Harry is asking Percy who Snape is, Harry's on the same side of the table next to Percy.

You are quite right. After he is Sorted, Harry sits next to Ron, on the right side - Hermione sits next to Percy on the left. However, in the next clip, Harry has wedged himself in between Hermione and Percy. Good catch - I can rarely find such inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by GrangerHermione

It's probably a mistake, but maybe Rowling had Hermione use "Levicorpus" verbally so that the readers could know what spell she has used. If she had used it non-verbally everyone would wonder what spell she had used. But . . . you could probably recognize the spell from its effect. I don't know. I personally agree with you . . . I think it's a mistake.

I believe the reader would have understood the spell was Levicorpus! after reading that Harry's was hoisted in the air by his leg. While I think it is a mistake, we do not truly know that a nonverbal spell always has to be nonverbal - it may only strengthen it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Levicorpus and Liberacorpus are the only two spells explicitly stated to be used nonverbally. Meanwhile, I would have used Wingardium Leviosa! in that situation, to prevent Harry from hitting some of the treasure.

[Marina]

I also noticed that in GoF, after the clan land where they should via portkey (at the Quidditch World Cup), did anyone notice that the twins were not there? I mean, when they're walking up that wee hill and you see the tents, you can see them; but just after everyone lets go of the Portkey (straight after Arthur says "let go!"), the twins are not there!

[GrangerHermione]

Originally Posted by Marina

I also noticed that in GoF, after the clan land where they should via portkey (at the Quidditch World Cup), did anyone notice that the twins were not there? I mean, when they're walking up that wee hill and you see the tents, you can see them; but just after everyone lets go of the Portkey (straight after Arthur says "let go!"), the twins are not there!

Really? I'll have to watch that over again!

[Marina]

Oh wait-never mind, they are there-just hard to catch. I also saw someone claiming that somewhere else-but were, apparently, incorrect.

[songkat]

I noticed something else in OOP - during the detention session for members of the DA, one of the Weasley twins appears to dip his quill into the inkwell...but they weren't using ink!

[Marina]

Originally Posted by songkat

I noticed something else in OOP - during the detention session for members of the DA, one of the Weasley twins appears to dip his quill into the inkwell...but they weren't using ink!

I went back to watch that scene; had to watch it twice before noticing the twin dipping his quill into that tiny inkwell. It was hard to tell at first, as I hadn't noticed it before.
There is a user on YouTube whom has a compilation of different HP movie mistakes. One observation s/he made was that when the camera is overlooking the time traveled Hermione and Harry running to Hagrid's hut, was that they moved "un-naturally fast". There's a shot on this video on youtube of the scene at about 2:19 of Harry and Hermione running towards Hagrid's hut.

[PureBloodGirl]

They did not put the part of the Weasly Twins leaving school so I think they shouldn't have left that part out. I consider that a mistake.

[Marina]

Originally Posted by PureBloodGirl

They did not put the part of the Weasly Twins leaving school so I think they shouldn't have left that part out. I consider that a mistake.

But how so?

[gertiekeddle]

Originally Posted by PureBloodGirl

They did not put the part of the Weasly Twins leaving school so I think they shouldn't have left that part out. I consider that a mistake.

Actually it's in included in OotP movie, but this thread is not about the 'mistakes' made withthe adaption from books to movies, but about film mistakes. Like consistency mistakes as described here:

Originally Posted by DeathlyH - using as example quote

Yay, brand new OotP mistake I just caught on DVD: When Harry and the others are sitting at the Gryffindor table talking in the Great Hall, there's this blonde kid with long hair sitting next to Ron. A couple minutes later, at the scene when Trelawney is sacked, the same kid is standing next to them again, but this time he has brown and yellow Hufflepuff robes.