True, though the books have a good bit more of Moody than the films.

Perhaps animals weren't included in the Stone's sphere of influence.

That's actually a very good question. Also, why not Tonks, since she and Harry seemed to be rather close during OotP and HBP?

I suppose it all comes down to Rowling's choice as a writer. If she really included everyone (Dobby, anyone?), she would have had a much harder time making that scene work. It's much better with the few she wrote. Still, there are at least a few people that one might expect to have shown up in that scene.

Still, there are at least a few people that one might expect to have shown up in that scene.

I don't know, I didn't really expect anyone else to show up when I first read it and I still don't. This is going to be a bit of a ramble, so bear with me. The one thing Harry was missing throughout his life was a stable parental figure. James, Lily, Sirius, and Remus all had the opportunity to fill that role but in the end were unable to due to circumstances that were mostly beyond their control. Harry doesn't seem to trust people who have authority of him because most of them either abused the position or let him down in someway, but these four still represented the idea of the relationship he wanted and these four were the only ones who at least tried to fill that role while they were living. Other than the Weasleys of course but Arthur and Molly weren't dead.

I read "Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone" for the first time round about the time the film of it came out, to find out what all the fuss was about - I didn't want to see the film until I'd read the book. Then I got hooked, and read "Chamber Of Secrets", "Prisoner Of Azkaban" and "Goblet Of Fire" all in the space of two weeks. After that I read books 5, 6 and 7 as soon as they were published. I thought that from "Philosopher's Stone" to "Goblet Of Fire" they got steadily better and better, but "Order Of The Phoenix" was quite a disappointment. Apart from the length, there were scenes that I felt I'd seen in the earlier books a few times - Harry playing another Quidditch match that ends up in yet another punch-up with Draco. Also, there were plot threads that held promise of being important and then proved to be pretty trivial: What was the reason for Hagrid's absence? He'd gone off to find his brother. Big deal. "Half Blood Prince" was better, though I guessed that Dumbledore and Snape had conspired together to bring about Dumbledore's death at the end of that book. "Deathly Hallows" I liked too, but I wished we'd seen a bit more of the immediate aftermath of Voldemort's death - what happened to the Death Eaters? What happened to people like Umbridge? What did Harry, Ron and Hermione do immediately after leaving school?

One thing that annoyed me with the film of "Philosopher's Stone" was the Americanising of the dialogue, such as substituting "bathroom" for "toilets". Is "toilet" a particularly offensive word on the west side of the Pond?

What? No. Many Americans I've met online and some offline, regard the word "toilet" as something crude, but it's not in the UK and Australia and most places in the world. It's not an Americanism either. The word has French origins, then was used by the British. Don't you guys call it the "john"?

What? No. Many Americans I've met online and some offline, regard the word "toilet" as something crude, but it's not in the UK and Australia and most places in the world. It's not an Americanism either. The word has French origins, then was used by the British. Don't you guys call it the "john"?

Toilet isn't crude; not at all, it just doesn't refer to the entire room where one (for lack of a better word) "relieves themselves" . Instead, it refers to the actual plumbing implement.

We use the word "Bathroom," or "Restroom" most commonly. Canadians prefer to use the term "Washroom."

"John" is extremely slang, and is never used in polite conversation.

I was a bit disappointed that they had to change the entire name of the first book to appeal to American audiences. Scholastic didn't think that American children would want to read a book about Philosophy, and so our book is called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

Might have been less of an uproar from American Christians if they left the title the same too.
Yes, sorry about that. "Bathroom" and "Restroom" sound familiar. I'm very glad to hear most people don't use the word "John".

I LOVE Harry Potter! Probably one of my all time favorite book series! I've read them up to about four times now. I have seven favorite characters: Fred, George, Ginny, Luna, Neville, McGonagal, and Bellatrix Lestrange.

Has anyone seen A Very Potter Musical? Its on youtube and if you love Harry Potter you should definetly watch it as long as you don't mind a lot of swearing. Its probably the funniest video I have ever watched. Reply to this if anyone does watch it, or pm me and tell me what you thought!

Has anyone heard about myHogwarts.com? Its this new social networking site for Harry Potter! Its being introduced at the HPEF Ascendio convention in Orlando, Florida on Friday July 13, 2012! Very soon (like a few hours or something) after it is introduced, it will be open to the public! From everything I've heard, its going to be awesome! I can't wait to join!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hadn't heard of that, Lucy the Lioness! I did read a bit about the Ascendio convention, but must have missed this. I'll totally be joining!

I saw it on twitter from I want to say Leaky news (@LeakyNews). Oh, and USA won the 2012 Quiditch tournament too!

A Very Potter Musical and A Very Potter Sequel are both very enjoyable (the former is better written and more memorable but the latter has far better props and presentation). The productions have a reasonable amount of mild to moderate language though, so they're not appropriate for most kids (probably a PG-13 equivalent).

And by the way, I loved a Harry Potter Musical. Darren Criss did an AMAZING job as Harry Potter, especially when you consider that he wrote many of the songs in the musical.

Of course it strays a bit from the main plot of the book. . . but it's parody. . . who cares?

Yes, I even think Darren Criss is a much better Harry Potter than Daniel Radcliffe. Also, who can forget Ron Weasley and his Red Vines?

Wifester has been bringing home HP DVD's from the library and now we've watched all of them but the last one (Deathly Hallow pt. 2). Some observations...

- For a time there I was really beginning to think Dobby, previously seen in #2 (Chamber of Secrets) was something of a throwaway character. Glad to see he's back in the penultimate film, even though he really sorely irritated me in #2.

- My, oh my, how this series has gotten dark! There's people croaking left and right!

-

- Ron is still my favorite character

- I feel intense loathing for two characters, and Voldemort isn't one of them. First is Bellatrix LeStrange, who needs to be choked. And then Delores Umbridge, who needs to be choked twice. And then maybe a third time just to make sure.

- I'm having trouble buying that Snape is totally a bad guy now, despite

- One of the very few things I've disliked about the films thus far is Draco Malfoy's limited and stereotypical performances of a bully. Wifester and I have been watching him develop and I'm seeing him have what I'm perceiving as a crisis of conscience. I hope I'm right too, because it'd be a total waste for him to go completely bad like Daddy Malfoy with his BIGGIE Smalls cane.

- Speaking of Lucius Malfoy, I knew I'd seen him someplace before. He plays evil British Colonel Tavington in The Patriot. In fact I think it'd be kind of funny if someone switched up some of his diabolical lines from that movie and switched around to one of the HP flicks just to see what it'd sound like.

- Neville Longbottom got TALL! He's like...HUGE!

More observations forthcoming with the completion of the final film hopefully later this week!

It's been more than 48 hours since the last post in this thread, so I feel no shame in double posting .

Dad and I were talking today, and he asked the following question, to which I couldn't give a decent answer.

In the scene in Deathly Hallows, where Harry sees all of those who had sacrificed so much for him, we see Harry's Mom and Dad, Lupin and Sirius, all of which were brought back by the Resurrection Stone.

The question is. . . why do you think that Snape was absent from this meeting. Was it merely because he couldn't stand the three marauders who were present, or was it because he still blamed Harry for Lily's death, or was it some other reason?

No, it wasn't because Harry disliked Snape. Of all people in the world he most sorely missed his parents had to be it. Both Sirius and Lupin count as his father's dearest friends, because both had been unjustly blamed for their deaths, and also because Sirius as Harry's Godfather and Lupin as Harry's mentor were particularly close to him.

Although Dumbledore turns up later at Kings Cross, having some explaining to do, I note that the Resurrection Stone did not bring him forth either. Don't forget either that Dumbledore had had his own painful experience with that Resurrection Stone, and that where Snape was concerned, that Harry might need some time to process fully the information he had learned about this inscrutable teacher and his relationship to his own family members.

Yes, I never felt Ginny's chemistry with our lead. It was a little better in the book but I think he and Luna should've hooked up. She was far more interesting a character but perhaps too wild for him.