Yes, because we can assume that J.K Rowling was definitely trying to include social commentary in her series of children's books.

She didn't pay enough attention to keep shit like the magic system consistent or the world itself coherent. It's bad to the point that the #1 most reviewed story is a terribly written attempt at making Harry Potter make sense. Assuming that she means anything other than exactly what she's saying on the page is a pretty massive leap in logic.

 

Really, you can't see the many differences in the situations? Harry is highly sheltered and spends most of his time not at school isolated from the magical world. He has to stay at the Dursley's to renew the charms. Harry has to get a guardians signature from the Dursley's to even visit Hogsmeade. You think they're going to give their consent to him playing Quidditch? For that matter do you think Dumbledore's going to permit it?

Krum is also 17 at the time of the Quidditch Cup/Triwizard Tournament. Krums an adult wizard. Harry's 14. That's not a reasonable explanation for why Krum is on a national team and Harry isn't?

 

I was originally wondering about Ron's starry eyed hero worship in the movie when they were in the key chamber. I haven't read SS in 10 years and honestly forgot all about that quote. I knew that the dive was amazing, even though they replaced it with the window catch which in my opinion is less stellar than a 50 foot dive going faster than gravity and pulling up right before impact with the earth.
I was just wondering about Ron's choice of words. Something like "you're amazing on a broom" or "you fly like you were meant to have wings" or something along those lines would have worked. The line about being the youngest Seeker is what got to me, not Harry's ability on a broomstick. Yes, Harry is a terrific flier, but he only got on the squad because the rules were bent due to Gryffindor's desperation. Which I still maintain is kind of weak that no one in the House wanted to be the Seeker before Harry got there and asked to hold a tryout. Talent on a broom is one thing, but knowledge of the game and tactics as well as strategy for the other teams comes into play as well. I'm also unconvinced that Harry, who according to Hermione has absolutely horrific eyesight, was the best suited to search for an elusive ball the size of a walnut flying around a football sized pitch, with absolutely no competition.

Yes I know it was an odd thing to nitpick about, but like I said, it just entered my head and I wanted it answered. Which it was. Thank you.


And by the way, I joined DLP two months before you did Snarf, so I'm hardly a new member. Just because I don't post every day or post in real life topics that much doesn't mean I'm a noob to the site. It's in the top three visited sites in my history.

 

Worst. Line. Ever.

Pretty sure I'd hit the X if I saw this in a fanfiction.

 

Who say that no other first years didn't want to be on the House team? Hell, Draco makes a huge deal of it in Madame Malkin's. The point is, either none of them got beyond asking, due to being first years, or they simply weren't as good on a broom as Harry - you still seem to be missing the point that Harry isn't just really, really good, he is the best flyer the very old, Quidditch obsessed McGonagall has seen in decades, and he's never touched a broom before. If you like, think of it like this: Harry's talent with a broom is comparable to Dumbledore's talent with magic.

Yes, he does have horrible eyesight. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but:

a) that doesn't seem to matter at all for the vast majority of the books, in any situation, not just flying.

b) it doesn't matter because he wears glasses, those devilish devices specifically designed to aid eyesight. There's nothing to suggest that his eyesight is particularly bad when he's wearing them.

Also, IIRC, Hermione's comment about his eyesight is a throwaway gag in the first DH film, and therefore dubiously canon, but nevermind.

 

I didn't say just first years, I meant the entire house. All 50-60 of them.

(which brings me to another point about the Quidditch crowd visuals in the movies and having way more than 200 people in the stands, assuming every single student showed up, but i digress)

That was my point that there should have been more interest in the seeker position. Ron didn't join the team until 5th year. Why weren't there any upperclassmen interested in the position? Would it have killed JKR to put in a tryout and give Harry some legitimate competition? But no, he just walks on and we learn the rules of Quidditch at the same time Harry does, after he's on the team.

 

Fair enough, bit of an assumption on my part - but this happened quite early in the year, don't forget. I think it's even the first week, actually. So when you have someone fucking godly on a broom who is very happy to be on the team, if anyone else did want a tryout, Wood probably just told them the position was filled, end of.

EDIT: Wrote this before your edit, but I think my point still stands.

 

Wasn´t Charlie Weasley the Seeker for Gryffindor before Harry ? He graduated in 1991 and was Quidditch Captain until his graduation. But that would mean A: my facts are incorrect or B: he did not play as Seeker in his last year or C: he was shitty Seeker ?

 

I thought it was the HOUSE cup that Slytherin won for seven years, not the Quidditch cup. Otherwise Charlie Weasley could hardly be described as legendary to the point of playing for the National Squad if Slytherin won the cup every year that he was on the team. Champions are the ones that get called up after all. I've always assumed that Gryffindor won the quidditch cup with Charlie, but Snape and all his Slytherin bias made sure that they won the house cup, and that the Quidditch team was utter shit without Charlie/Harry for at least a year to make that statement plausible.

 

Yeah, I thought it was the House Cup as well. Still, it's clear Gryffindor sucked after Charlie left.

While Secs' explanation makes sense, I personally like to think Charlie dropped out of school, because he was offered a position on the Dragon Reservation. He probably would have stayed untill he was 17, but that means he still would have left in his Sixth Year. Of course there isn't actually any evidence for this, but it would make his character a bit more interesting. And the Weasleys don't seem to be that great at finishing school.

 

alternatively, couldn't Charlie catch the snitch in all three games, yet lose the games because the team sucked? Or perhaps the Slytherin team in those years won the Quidditch Cup by amassing enough points in total to offset the Gryffindor victories?

 

First explanation doubtful, the Quidditch World Cup result (the seeker catching the snitch but losing due to his teams poor chasing) was while possible, something of a fluke that hadn't been seen that often and stunned the crowd. If it happened a lot in Hogwarts games it shouldn't have come to as big of a surprise to everyone but the Twins, who were simply hedging their bets.

Second option possible but again the team would have said something to that effect that while Charlie was amazing they never won because the Slytherins were just that good. Besides if the Slytherin's were good enough to offset the points like that they would have flattened the Griffyindors every year, not just the year or so without Charlie.

It's far more plausible that we were talking about the house cup, and that while Gryffindor owned the pitch thanks to Charlie, Snape was there making sure his precious Death Eaters in training got extra points and the other houses got owned.

 

Okay, Padfoot, all of your problems that have anything to do with movie quotes or issues should not even be brought up. What Ron says or what the Quidditch pitch looked like truly means nothing to me, and it should mean nothing to anyone else.

You don't talk Lord of the Rings lore and quote the movies. You quote the books. The same is true with Harry Potter. The only thing you have to remember about Harry Potter that is different than LotR is that Rowling occasionally sucked at common sense, so there are plot holes.

Anyways, an eleven-year-old trying to cheer his friend on would focus on a title or position rather than a more obtuse description of ability. To a child, being a doctor is what makes you good at fixing people, rather than the more correct other way around. To Ron, the best thing to say would indeed be 'You're the youngest seeker in a century!' It's how children think. Children wouldn't give similes such as 'you fly like you have wings!'

When it comes to the house cup, we all need to remember that Rowling has a hard on for the number seven and its uses in magic. If Harry hadn't gotten those points at the end of his first year, then and only then would the Slytherins have won the house cup for the seventh time. If they had? DOOOOOOOOMMMM

She didn't care about the ages and dates like we want her to have. She cared about pushing in as many archetypes as she could. Charlie was meant to be someone for Ron to compare himself to, and then to act as a foil connecting Ron, Harry, and Ron's jealousy. No one was supposed to care about making sure the dates line up right.

We do though, and you can watch her get all flustered. It's funny. What's just as funny is that we care so much about nitpicking canon when we spend the vast majority of our time fucking it to hell with time travel, manipulative Dumbledore, and cock-whore werewolf Harry. Just let it go already.

 

This is the General discussion sub forum. Which is used to discuss HP related topics, canon books and spoiler alert, movies

You may not consider them canon, but this thread, while seemingly nit picky was answering a question I had about a decision that was made in the movie. Don't like it? Don't comment on it. The thread is winding down so I doubt it will continue that much anyways.

 

It's not his personal canon. It's just not canon. This is basic fucking sense.

 

Pretty sure the movies can be considered a form of canon.

 

Pretty sure they can't, since they are adapted without any real consultation from the author.

Books are canon, movies are not.

 

Consultation or not, they bought the copyrights which the author sold. The definition of canon is less concrete than you might think. I think (although I'm not sure), it has to do with what the majority of the fanbase considers authentic source material which may or may not include the movies (I'm pretty sure some fans consider them part of it).