Confused about Harry Potter 3 - Spoliers.

B

~Brittney

New member
After watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban I am a bit confused. The whole of first part was regarding Cyruis Black after Harry to kill him so that Voldemor could return. Then when we got to the scene where he was with the teacher and just about to kill him. Why doesn't he kill him and why do they suddenly become frienRAB. I thought he wanted Harry dead so that Voldemor could come back?

Did I miss something?
 
I think you must have done! I haven't seen the film yet, but from reading the books a few times, Sirius was actually Harry's father's best friend and is actually looking out for him, but was framed to look like he was out to kill Harry.

I'm sure someone else can explain better and more fully how they show it in the film, but hopefully that's cleared it up a little for you.
 
Voldemort wasn't actually in the book/film at all - he returns in the fourth book/film.

Sirius Black is Harry's godfather and the best friend of his father James (as said above). He was accused of the murder of 16 people and blamed for Voldemort and the Death Eaters finding James, Lily and Harry when they were under the Fidelius charm - Sirius was meant to be their secret keeper.

Sirius actually, at the last minute, turned over this responsibility to another friend, Peter Pettigrew (Scabbers the rat), and he was the one that led Voldemort to Godric's Hollow where the Potters were murdered.

Hope that this makes the movie easier for you to understand...might be worth reading the books.
 
Yeah, the film is pretty much made for the book readers I think as it is quite ambiguous. The whole way through Sirius (note spellling, cool try though) was trying to get to Scabbers (ie.peter) and not harry, though it did appeal logically he was trying to kill harry.

read!
 
There are plot holes in the movie that I can't be bothered going into, but if you read the books it's easy enough to interpret what is going on. Personally, I'd rather they'd cut the shrunken head, Harry in Titanic style flight, and Hermione's rewritten personality, and concentrated a bit more on actual content, but there you go. (And by the way, no, this isn't a call for a return to the stodgy faux-Dickens style of the first two! Would just like the continuity to have been improved upon, and a bit more depth!)

Ps - is it true that the Dursleys aren't going to be in the next one? They're my favourite bit!
 
They need not be if you think about it.

Pony how do you think Hermiones character changed? (apart from ewesome relationship developing with ron!)
 
Movie Hermione has become a fourth rate Buffy - she's popular, makes jokes about how her hair looks, and does extreme athletic heroics in a pink hoodie while getting swung about by a whomping willow! Whereas in the books she's a smug, unpopular swot who nevertheless has a brave heart and a moral compass that's better developed than most of the adults! It really annoys me! (And I agree about the ewsomeness of the Ron stuff)!
 
I do agree with you, don't get me wrong. I just didn't see how she was portrayed as 'popular'. But I know what you mean, she wasnt portrayed as 'unpopular' either.

As for the hair joke, ANY girl would do that!


Doesnt it annoy anyone how they never actually make it clear that Gryfindor lose a match of Quidditch? Its just 'no ones blaming you harry.'what the hell does that mean to anyone who hasnt read them? this is huge deal in the book.
 
Harry Potter... if only they'd given the role to Nicholas Hoult (from About a Boy) rather than the wooden Radcliffe... although Hoult is a bit younger so that's probably why :(
 
I have no idea, but they are in the book. Surly they'd need to be as they are there when the Weasleys arrive to take him to the Quidditch World Cup. They should be there IMO.
 
Well, the Goblet of Fire is a massive book, they have to get rid of something to fit even some of the most important events in the film and the last rumour I heard obn the subject was that the Dursleys wouldn't be in it. Not sure if that's true though, I haven't really kept up-to-date with the film rumours.

And if you think about it, the Dursleys hardly contribute to the oveall plot of the book, so I'd think they are very likely to go...
 
I've hate to read the chapters with the Dursleys in, I also hate them in the movies. They make sure that other countries think that every family in the UK is like them!
 
From the information that I've read about HP4 the film, the Dursleys are indeed cut because they are such a minor part of the storyline, and they'll pick up at the start of the Quidditch World Cup sequences, and from there presumably in to the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts.
 
Why? Almost every single character in Harry Potter is British.... Without a doubt every character that goes to or is connected to Hogwarts is British....

Don't be so irrational.... I mean... Does every other country think that children in the UK, adopted by their uncle and aunt after losing their parents, gets locked in a cupboard under the stairs?!?!
 
I used to work with the mother of the twins. They are getting a little old to be playing them now... so if they are needed at any point expect them to be recast!
 
Back
Top