It's good evidence that it's been a while since I read the book that I have no idea what taboo you're referring to. >_>
The taboo put one the name. Whenever you say 'Voldemort', death eaters or snappers come running to maim you and get you back to school or dememtors or Umbridge. Which seems to be basically the same at this point. It is shown, they say the name, people come running, but it is not quite clear that it is the name and not just random crazy happenstances?
The taboo put one the name. Whenever you say 'Voldemort', death eaters or snappers come running to maim you and get you back to school or dememtors or Umbridge. Which seems to be basically the same at this point.
Snappers? Do you mean Snatchers? Or in the movie do they call them snappers?
Problem is I tend to blend in the Danish and English names for stuff sometimes. They are actually called snapper(s) in Danish, and I assume you are right about the snatcher part of it (I am away from my English copy). As long as I make a moderate amount of sense, it should be okay.
The taboo put one the name. Whenever you say 'Voldemort', death eaters or snappers come running to maim you and get you back to school or dememtors or Umbridge. Which seems to be basically the same at this point. It is shown, they say the name, people come running, but it is not quite clear that it is the name and not just random crazy happenstances?
Oh dude. I'd totally forgotten that. And yeahhh, the movie didn't make it particularly evident.
i hope everyone's seen it by now! it was a decent movie, i just felt like it was dragged out a lot. they were just sitting in the cold mostly or something of that nature. the naked scene was kind of weird.. well it wasn't really naked, but still. for a "children's" book, it may be too much. anyway, can't wait for the 2nd half!
i just felt like it was dragged out a lot. they were just sitting in the cold mostly or something of that nature.
Well, without the narration, that would be the plot for the book until the part where the movie end. More or less. It was said to be more "character building" than action, but I might be very sensitive to action, because I do think there was plenty. But it was 2 hours and 40 minuttes of mainly travelling and being angry teens.
but still. for a "children's" book, it may be too much.
Did notice the air quotes, but HP cannot be considered a children's book past 2nd, 3rd book tops. The movies have not been since the 2nd, really. The maturity has grown with the characters, and besides the dreaded happy ending, most of the 7th book is more of a young adult book, than even something for teens, even if many read it for their children, and it is quite easy to understand for all age groups. As for the nudity, I think the only people who would complain about it is parents to young kids, and those should not be watching the movie anyway (both he parents that would like to complain about some bare backs, and small children).
I think HP7 is not better than the last 6..i love Harry potter1 very much, cause potter is very cute at that time and everything in it was very new for us,those magic and scene in the movie
HP 1 (movie) was awesome. The quiditch matches and the chess match were really cool. It was stupid that Harry was really like 13 not 11 while playing in the movie.
I saw it yesterday. It seemed like they didn't use a lot of money for sets or props. The acting skill was no better and the whole thing was just a build up to the second half. 4/10
