Harry Potter

Rambo IV works too. And it is not a character flaw, it is a narrative flaw, but hey, the movie Works!

You'e comparing HP with Rambo? What you are basically saying is that all the people who apprecate HP for what it is - a kid's adventure that can be enjoyed by adults too - are idiots, unlike yourseif of course. How can they not see its flaws? Probably because it has more going for it than the sum total of flaws it undoubtedly has.

either Hermonie had no idea about being herself, otherwise she would already know that she would use the time travel or or, if she knew, she would be rather dumb to not consider the use of something she just saw in pratice.

I already suggested that she suspected = charater flaw. I just can't see the problem with this. I've seen the film a few times - my kids watch it - and there is absolutely no problem with the flow of it. It is plausible and it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.

EDIT: now to speak for Science fiction. I do not think it is possible for anyone to go back that far. This is not because the time-turner does not allow it to be done, but because as people have eluded to, a person traveling through time has to go through the events up until the present without being seen. The reason they cannot be seen is evident in that if they were to be seen it would destroy the fabric of time. Unlike Terminator or a typical time-traveling device, there is no way to go back to the present, it has to be "re-lived". It seems plausible that the reason the ministry does now allow them to be used, and keeps them tightly secured in the ministry, is because of such things. Had the professor, or dumbledore, or hermione been caught using the time time-turners, they surely would've been arrested on-spot.

---

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.

Thanks Mathor - that's cleared it up for me. It's quite a few years since I read the book.

So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

You could write a book JBI - A brief history of Harry Potter by JK Hawking

So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...

I think Mathor's post clears it up. Rambo? Yes you can compare Rambo iv if you like, but I can't see the relevance. Now there is a film full of cliche and rubbish characterisaton. I presume you thought to compare it in terms of quality. How did you know it was inmy top ten films to turn off the tv for?

No, Mathor only says what happens in the book. It do not say anything about Hermonie not conecting her time-clone presence in the scene with the fact that she had to solve the problems (or help harry to solve) using the device. You are obviously mistaking: I am countering your argument to answer Mortal, not the book.

And You again misunderstand. I am using Rambo IV because it is a crap movie. Not because I am suggesting you like it, In fact I expect you dislike it a lot. But Rambo IV is full of Cliches ? Surprise, so is Harry Potter. Rubbish Characterisation? So is Harry Potter. (Granted, Rambo is worst) but basically: Rambo has flow, logic between scenes because telling a basic plot is simple. Not a great feat. Kids do it all the time. Players of Dungeons and Dragons do it all the time (and they often improvise). It works? Yeah, it is a basic thing, not something special. We would not be here criticising it (for good or bad or ugly) if I did not the basic. We all accept it. Defenses of HP in the basis that "it works" is just, what have you said? Rubbish criticism? Lets demmand a little more to receive the praise,right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

No, Mathor only says what happens in the book. It do not say anything about Hermonie not conecting her time-clone presence in the scene with the fact that she had to solve the problems (or help harry to solve) using the device. You are obviously mistaking: I am countering your argument to answer Mortal, not the book.

And You again misunderstand. I am using Rambo IV because it is a crap movie. Not because I am suggesting you like it, In fact I expect you dislike it a lot. But Rambo IV is full of Cliches ? Surprise, so is Harry Potter. Rubbish Characterisation? So is Harry Potter. (Granted, Rambo is worst) but basically: Rambo has flow, logic between scenes because telling a basic plot is simple. Not a great feat. Kids do it all the time. Players of Dungeons and Dragons do it all the time (and they often improvise). It works? Yeah, it is a basic thing, not something special. We would not be here criticising it (for good or bad or ugly) if I did not the basic. We all accept it. Defenses of HP in the basis that "it works" is just, what have you said? Rubbish criticism? Lets demmand a little more to receive the praise,right?

---

I am not speaking of the book, I am speaking of the movie. Just because you did not understand the plot of the movie does not make what I said untrue. Hermione sees herself walking, but feels it's best not to mention it. It's not as if she didn't know what it was, she sees herself and Harry walking, but she also knows she has a time-travel device and has already deduced the probability that she'd end up using it at some point.

i KNOW the movie is good because I trust the work of Alfonso Cuaron, a master director. As contrite as the Harry Potter novels can be (and most of the movies), the third movie is a gem of cinema.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

[COLOR="DarkRed"] Why am I bothering with this thread? Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.

---

Glad you're enjoying the fun. However, I want to correct you. I've only really addressed JBI's criticisms (and he was jesting). I haven't responded to Mortalterror's complaints about the movie, nor any of Jcamillo's so-called "points."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.

---

Oh, I completely agree. His analysis and familiarity with the text is far in excess of my own. I would not dare to refute his contentions on my own, and so I have not attempted to critique anything he says but merely confined my remarks to my own anecdotal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

---

No real time elapses when she's time travelling, so she won't age any faster. For instance, when Dumbledore sends her and Harry three hours back in time to rescue Sirius, he announces that it's five minutes to midnight. And it's still five minutes to midnight when they get back, even though they've been travelling in the past for three hours. I assume that only real time counts for aging, not revisited time.

Edit: Perhaps when she turns the timeturner to go back in time three hours, she becomes three hours younger, and then ages at the normal pace until she reaches the age she started out with at the end of the three hours. Well, why not? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

You could write a book JBI - A brief history of Harry Potter by JK Hawking

---

yep - how typical of jk rowling to get the physics of time travel wrong..

now lets all get really angry and pummel our keyboards :flare:

WHY? JK? WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TIME TRAVEL REALISTIC? I MEAN SHE WOULD BE 1/3 OLDER.. 1 WHOLE 3RD I TELLS YOU! IT'S FLAWED! THE WHOLE NOVEL IS FLAWED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I am not speaking of the book, I am speaking of the movie. Just because you did not understand the plot of the movie does not make what I said untrue. Hermione sees herself walking, but feels it's best not to mention it. It's not as if she didn't know what it was, she sees herself and Harry walking, but she also knows she has a time-travel device and has already deduced the probability that she'd end up using it at some point.

i KNOW the movie is good because I trust the work of Alfonso Cuaron, a master director. As contrite as the Harry Potter novels can be (and most of the movies), the third movie is a gem of cinema.

---

What is there to not understand? Let me say again, I am not saying anything different from the scenes your or anyone else is descripting (and yeah, I wrote book in a harshness, but It is not necessary to edit the posts, since it is already done, right?), just pointing the explanation that Hermonie does not investigate what she saw because she knows about her timetravel clone is far fetched. In the movie she does not say it at all. And it is Dumbledore and not Hermnonie that suggests the use of time traveling device - if she already knew about it she would not first urge Dumbledore to change things and that the trio could testify. It was necessary Dumbledore to give tips for her to consider the use (and even when and where she should go, something that should be obvious if she saw herself).
This implies that either Mortal is right about the sunden lack of curiosity of the trio (by the way, it is not Hermonie that moves them away from the pumpkin field, so it was not a decision taken by her reasoning either) or that Hermonie (if saw herself) is a bit... slow. You can pick which one.
Of course, JK Rowling had no blame here. The book is slightly different, isnt?

But hey, if you think Harry Potter is a prroduct of a master and reflects it, there is very little I can do except talk about a time when a Master director was Stanley Kubrick and a master film was Clockwork Orange... But maybe I am a dimwit like Harold Bloom.
Now I would come back to read Chesterton, someone should.

I'm not going to comment about this whole debate, but I just want to say my opinion on the aging while using the time-turner. Hermione only used the time-turner for almost a year, and she didn't use it all the time, she only re-lived a couple of hours each day. So okay, in the end she has aged a bit faster than her fellow students, but really, can you honestly say you could see the difference? "Hermione, you look two whole months older than you should be! :eek:"

:D

lol @ the rambo comparison! ;) I'm kinda split on HP - it doesn't hold any huge significant appeal to me, but I appreciate it for turning younger people onto books again. I mean not just Rowling's books, but even other's outside of that scope. Found an article on Infloox that basically explains how Rowling used a scene from "The Iliad" by Homer (yeah seriously!) as the basis for Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire. Maybe once kids know about stuff like that, it would turn them onto other books and authors as well. I think I just went off on a total tangent here :)