For a long time, what I thought about the Harry Potter books – and the Harry Potter franchise generally – could be summed up with this ever-so-slightly-very-amusing YouTube video.
Now just in case you can’t be arsed watching that – something I very much understand – here’s a brief summary: the first three novels were well-crafted, well-edited books that happened to be about magic kids going to magic school. Otherwise, it was a reasonably simple tale of kids having fun, growing up, learning things, beating bad guys, all that stuff… but with magic.
After that, however, it felt that Ms. Rowling was given free rein to write more and more and more in each book, leaving the poor little Potter-loving tykes with back pain from all the weighty tomes thumping around their backpacks.
On top of this, there were the plot holes caused by all the “magic”. If “magic” could do so much in this wonderful wizarding world, including regrowing bones and the like, why doesn’t it fix Harry’s eyesight, or Hagrid’s weight problem, or Ron’s hair colour? If there was a spell for instant death, was there a spell for making loo seats always go back down? Or always remembering people’s names at parties? Or always having a pen when you think of something genuinely quite clever?
It all seemed quite arbitrary to me, but with some rules here and there it was a nifty way of creating a fascinating and compelling world for kids to dream of. Plus, it allowed Rowling to create an overarching uber-plot that would eventually leave millions of adults and children alike running to their local Waterstones to buy and read books about wand-waggling adolescents. This, by and large, is a good thing.
Then, I stopped reading the books. I think it was after Phoenix, and I just… stopped. I think I got bored, embarrassed, or discovered that women existed, and Harry Potter suddenly disappeared into a puff of “WTF!?!” and cheap, industrially produced cider.
Anyway, years later, I started watching the movies through. They were fun, they were enjoyable, they were good family cinema. And now I’ve watched the final film, those feelings I had back in the day have returned – how does any of this shit make any sense? Even with the plot hole cure-all balm of “magic and shit”? Does anyone else find certain things totally nonsensical?
So to get the ball rolling, here are some basic examples of things that really confuse me about Rowling’s magical wonderland:
• If Voldemort is a supremely evil nasty person, why does he only pick on Britain? Couldn’t he bother the magical population of Ecuador every once in a while? Why us? Is it the teeth? Or the fact that all muggle Londoners can fly if they happen to have an umbrella?
• While we’re talking foreign folk, why didn’t the Frenchy froggy Frenchmen from Beauxbatons come and help at the final battle? And the absurdly Russian-acting people from the Durmstrang Institute? What were up to, sewing?
• And how come there’s an educational monopoly in the UK? Is it Hogwarts or bust? Surely a splinter group would have emerged, founding their own school elsewhere? A Oxford and a Cambridge? Where’s the accountability, people?
• Why – in the movies at least – is the great hall so damn small? How can a whole school, with four houses, and seven years, all fit in there? The whole population of the school goes up and down throughout the films and the books – and Rowling has admitted this snafu, I know – but doesn’t this wind anyone else up?
• And Ron “remembering” Parseltongue? Either Ron is a massive creep or he’s just one lucky bastard when it comes to remembering (and making) hissing noises.
• And if people like Nearly Headless Nick get to become a ghost, why not Dumbledore? If the proviso is "unfinished business", then he definitely should get a shot at the whole haunting-the-land-of-the-living thing. I know Sir Nick has some vague rules about who gets to be one or not, but why not Dumbles? He’s a mega-good wizard who eventually appears in a limbolike netherworld inside Harry's brain... why not just ghost him and be done with it?
• And how is Voldemort – king chief lord emperor of being an evil bastard and a generally super magic-wielding person – not able to tell that Snape was really a goodie all that time? Or is he just bad at reading people / playing poker?
• Plus, Hagrid is meant to be a half giant – his mum is a giant, his dad a human. How the crap is that supposed to work? And not just mechanically?
• And we're aware we keep seeing St. Pancras, not King's Cross, right? Just thought I'd double check that.
But anyway, these are just a few questions that puzzled me during the Potter cinematic experience. And yes, as I say, I’m far from being anything near a Potter expert, but I am a moviegoer, one that has seen all the Potter movies a couple of times now… and still these questions spring to mind – and I know there are plenty more out there.
So my question to you guys is: what are you favourite Potter plot holes? Or, as some (weird people) might say, "Pott-holes"? Let us know what else Potter-related makes your head scratch in the comment box below and then we can have one of those debate things. Lovely stuff.
sawnofftales Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 12:14
Why have the magic community never used electricity? They still send messages via owl instead of email or text, they write with quill and parchment instead of i-pads, they communicate through fire rather than a mobile phone. They were even confused by escalators!
trainedasninja Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 12:38
The Biggest one I have is why does Dumbledore not assist Harry! Why does he not stop Quirrel? Why does he not kill the Basilisk? Why does he always inconviently make himself away just before the climax. Im guessing its something about him upholding some type of prophecy that means he cannot intervene or something....but still!
DMeister Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 12:43
As massive fan of the series, both book and film, I think you raise mostly some fair points. A couple of friends of mine started the series before me and were very much into it but then moved onto other things and never came back. I never did and I still love this series but even I have to admit that the film series later on can only really be fully appreciated and, I guess, understood by book readers.
I think some of the 'issues' raised here are just silly and seem desperate to criticise the series. Sorry but issues such as "how come there’s an educational monopoly in the UK?!" to me demonstrate too little imagination and too much literal thinking; would Hogwarts really be as wonderful and mysterious if it was surrounded by other local schools? Really?
However the blog does make some legitimate issues as well; such as how does half human/giant work? why does the school seem so small in the great hall and the number of students?. Some fair issues to be sure but in all honesty though, if you're the type, like me, who got caught up in the magic and wonder of this series and love it to death; who's really thinking about these things? And tbh do I particular care? No.
I think some points as well come down to whether you have read the books like how can Snape fool Voldemort? It was mentioned in the books that Snape is very gifted at Occlumency, a keeping your mind secure ability (literally speaking of course; he's a bloody good liar). The point with ghosts was raised in book 5 where Nick told Harry that few choose to remain as ghosts and to do so have to leave certain traces or imprints etc.
Generally I thought the blog above was fair with generally balanced praise and criticism which tbh I don't think I've hardly seen.
TheAmazingOctopus Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 12:45
Why did Harry, Ron and Hermione have to wear the locket in The Deathly Hallows if they could've conjured up some impenitrable case to keep it in? Not to mention that they had an invisibility spell which cut down on the amount of people who would've attacked them in order to get the locket.
murta1993 Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 13:38
so they can grow new bones, but not even get rid off Harry's scar? i mean, they somehow move it across his forehead enough times to insinuate that they can do something to it, so why not grow more skin over it?
Drew_231 Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 14:02
My biggest problem was always the first point. As soon as Rowling indroduced other schools from around the world, she elevated the V threat to worldwide. So why then do no other wizards apart from the English ones do anything to stop Voldemrt. Surely there are gifted wizards in America, Germany, Asia. If they all got together its hard to imagine how much of a threat V and his gaggle of fiends could actually be
scruff_7 Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 14:11
Ron's family are said to be poor but why can't they just magic themselves things that they can't afford?
bnicholson50 Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 14:48
1. The "magic" world being light years behind the "Muggle" tech world. We accept such anomalies because the modern world continues to be facinated by "ancient ways" of doing things (Alternative Medicine, Astrology, etc).
2. The main plotholes people come up with are often "why not use magic to blah blah"? This is common within fantasy worlds where external forces are at the command of it's characters. If you use this method than plotholes will abound in HP, Star Wars and LOTR alike
3. If you like this train of thought then you are probably a fan of "Deus ex Machina". In which case I would direct you towards Spielbergs "War of the Worlds". Enjoy!
4. The fact that a hero wields an unseen power should not alow the character to avoid His/Her Journey. The problems faced by the hero must challenge them to become a "master of two worlds". Hence the reason HP cannot solve all his conflicts with wizardry, Luke Skywalker cannot use the force for every difficulty and Gandalf cannot use his magic for all and sundry
5. My main issues with HP arise when Rowling goes ahead and breaks her own rules. Ron speaking parseltongue is the most blatent example of this and there are many more.
6. If you continue to ask questions about every minute detail of the saga then you are a fanboy/fangirl. This is a terminal illness of the nerd variety. Don't worry, it is quite common.
pauljthomas Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 16:49
Why does Voldemort only ever attack at the end of the school year? and fortunately Harry has always learned just enough skills in that year to defeat him. Maybe if he decided to surprise Harry on a parents evening just before the Halloween break things would have been different.
Why isn't Hogwarts OFSTED inspected? ;o)
All their items can be bought from 1 concealed dingy little High Street, surely John Lewis can jump on the bandwagon?
You can see I'm taking this seriously ;o)
thereisnodarkside Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 17:01
What was the point in all the obstacles to the Philosopher's Stone when Dumbledore had made it literally impossible for Voldemort to get it from the Mirror of Erised.
roogieman Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 18:12
How come they only learn magic at Hogwarts? Sure being a wizard is great and everything, but Hogwarts is going to produce pupils who can't spell or do basic arithmetic. Surely the odd Maths lesson wouldn't go a miss.
Since the born-into-magic people (i.e the Weasleys, the Malfoys) all seem to have had no interaction with Muggles- does this mean there are magical primary schools? or do magical folk sit around annoying their parents until the Hogwarts letter comes?
Salazar Slytherin built a secret room in the school, then put a giant snake into it. The other Hogwarts founders must of been f*cking blind.
Another problem I have with Salazar Slytherin, he was clearly a bit of a dong (what with the hating non-magicals and hiding a snake int he school to kill children) yet they still kept a house named after him. This would like school houses being called Churchill, Drake, Ghandi and Hitler.
Why don't they populate Quidditch teams exclusively with Seekers? If getting the snitch wins the game?
How is the Ministry of Magic funded?! Magic tax?
5huggyhugh Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 18:16
If the wizarding community is so small, i always wondered why they were all so clueless about the muggle world since we are pretty much everywhere.
djdarrenjames Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 18:18
I am not a massive HP fan, never read the books but I am a massive fantasy fan however loving LOTR and playing RPG's. I've always found the films too childish and have a serious problem with Rowlings character and item names (Lupin = Werewolf, Black = Evil, Lestrange = Strange et al.) The whole series is riddled with Deus Ex Machina when Rowling can't think of a decent way to tie up a plot or thread so invents a Macguffin to deal with it. The one plot hole that gets me every time (and pretty much turned me off the other films) was when in (chamber of secrets?) they came accross the big chess board and Weasley had to 'Ride' the piece as it was sacrificed - "Its the only way!" No it isnt! all the other peices have been moving just fine without needing 'riders' the whole game. My own preferences aside, I do however have respect for Rowling for creating a series that is unparalleled with bringing joy to millions worldwide so kudos for that.
djdarrenjames Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 18:20
... don't get me started on Quidditch...
nijama312 Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 18:32
In Philosophers Stone there are "all flavours" jelly beans which include ear wax and bogey flavours, does this mean there is one that tastes like Ron Weasley's Anus?
Tracy Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 19:30
For me it was always the Goblet of Fire and the cup as portkey to get him to Voldemort. Why wait that flipping long when the portkey could have been anything Harry touched AT ANY TIME?
Robocock Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 20:02
In book Seven, saying "Voldermort" summons death eaters. Why not get smart, and say his name, in really dangerous places, so people apparate there. Like, saying it during a skydive.
Drone Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 20:29
Some of your points are valid if you haven't read the books. But some are rather daft; humerous attmepts at journo-blogging or no. The questions you can answer without having read the books,particularly the controversial Ron-speaking-Parseltongue thing :
- Harry spoke Parseltongue to open the Horcrux locket. That partcicular event given the preceedings would have been engraved on Ron's memory, and within a few days of events.
- I would imagine the 'foreign folk' didn't assist in the final battle because... you know... they were in France and Russia at the time. And I'm sure they had 'Voldemort to attack Hogwarts' marked on all their calendars huh?
- Maybe Hogwarts is the only educational institute in Brtain because there is simply no demand for another, nor the numbers to justfy it?
- I would imagine Voldemort's wrath is directed primarily at Britain because he's British, he created a legion of followers in Britain, his nemesis is British, the Horcruxes were incepted in Britain, Dumbledore is in Britain and so on and blah blah. Did Hitler think, "I have this great idea forworld domination - I know, I'll go to America, start the Nazi party and take it from there."
@TheAmazongOctopus - so they don't lose it? "Hey Frodo, just put the One ring in your pocket, it'll besafe as houses. Or better still put it in this box."
@Drew_231 - Why do you assume they are doing nothing? They will no doubt be remaining in their own countries in case Voldemort attacks. Once again, it isn't like voldemort sent them an email with his '2011 attacks planned' diary.
crazymoviesdude Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 21:25
@Drone - Clearly, you're a fan, I love the films if not the books too, and I could do the same sort of explaining away for stuff I'm a massive fan of, but I think we all know that just like most other fiction, Rowling isn't perfect, and as such, she has left a lot of holes. It's reasonable for you to try and explain them, and some of them you did using knowledge from the books, but some were just you guessing.
It's perfectly fine for you to ignore all the errors because the good outweighs the bad for you, that's what we all do with our favourites, but the errors do exist to others, like in all other fiction, and you can't say they don't.
RandyChimp Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 22:45
Why not use a time turner, go back to when voldemort was a kid and just drown him or something? Seems bleak to kill a kid, but the bad guys do it all the time in these books, and to be honest, it'd save more lives that way. Harry would still have parents, he'd grow up happy and get to have sex with Ginny for his seventh year instead of arguing with her brother in a tent.
kpenga Posted on Thursday July 14, 2011, 23:29
if everybody knows that jason isaacs is a dick and works for voldemort, why not arrest him when he goes to hogwarts to pay school fees?
if the magic hat can tell who the bad guys are, why still teach them all those dangerous magic tricks?
if brendan gleeson actually dr who was manipulating the tournament, why help harry? he could just, I dont know, give him some poison
how come helena bonham carter, whos is a murder, can walk into a bank without been bothered?
and why david yates played the hagrid carrying harry as a dramatic moment if we all knew that he wasn't dead?
rcameron Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 00:19
At kpenga. I don't know if you haven't read the books, but a lot of your issues are explained in them.
Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs) claimed that he was under the imperius curse, like many others, which made him 'work for Voldemort'. Therefore, even though people suspected he was lying, they left him alone.
The Sorting Hat can't tell bad guys. It can tell certain qualities a person has and bases its choice of house on those qualities.
Mad-eye Moody/ Barty Crouch Jr (Brendan Gleeson) didn't simply poison Harry because Voldemort wanted Harry's blood to make him stronger when he rose again.
Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) could simply walk into a bank[I presume you're talking about the time during book 7] because at that time Voldemort controlled the Ministry of Magic and so she could do whatever she wanted to without fear of being arrested.
Not sure about the David Yates moment,that's his decision. Presumably because it's still dramatic for Hagrid and all of the people who see him, as they don't know Harry isn't dead.
MartyKnight Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 01:18
What I don't get is this:
1) Voldemort put parts of his soul into seven objects, right? So he's wandering around with an eighth of it left, in him... This doesn't seem to bother him in the slightest. He can still walk & fly & talk, & generally saunter around being one of the MOST POWERFUL WIZARDS EVER!
With only an EIGHTH of a soul.
Yet, if a Dementor takes out the whole thing, POOF! You're a vegetable!?
2) And why IN GOD'S NAME would you keep a death veil in a room?! What's it even used for?? TAKE THE VEIL DOWN, SURELY?!?
kpenga Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 03:50
about jason isaacs: after the one where gary oldman dies, everybody knew he was with voldemort. they could at least call him for a PTA meeting
the hat says "ok you're a asshole". that could at least be used as a eliminatory process. I mean, you dont want to teach all that voodo to just anybody who signs up right?
brendan gleeson: ok, not poison. but maybe some roofies would do the job, right?
good point about helena's bank account. although they could have broke her bank details before he took power.
livewire Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 09:00
whilst there are gaping plot holes it is a great series and should just be taken at face value for what it is. good entertainment. be it the books or the films.
it's like saying how come the dukes of hazzard can screech tyres on grass
how come the bad guy locked up the a team in a cave with more building materials than B&Q
devinc1 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 09:23
A few plot holes from the first three keep coming to my mind are:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Neither Ron (who grew up in the wizarding world) or Hermione (who is super-book-smart) knew who Nicholas Flamel was. Really? A guy figures out how to LIVE FOREVER and he somehow remains an obscure figure in the wizarding world. Again, this guy figured out how to LIVE FOREVER! That's kind of a big deal. I'm pretty sure he'd be common knowledge and Hermione would not need to spend hours upon hours of research before figuring out who he was.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Ok, Hermione get's petrified by the basilisk while holding a piece of paper about the basilisk in her hand...and none of the adults who find her frozen body notice this detail. They don't inspect her at all. Wizarding CSI teams suck!
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: Introducing the time-turner device just opens up a whole can of worms. Ok, time travel is dangerous, potentially incredibly catastrophically destructive, and yet they're going to put it in the hands of a thirteen year old school girl because she gets good grades!? We do like to honor responsible students who do well at school but we still don't trust them with weapons of mass destruction.
And building off of that: - If a schoolgirl can get access to a time travel device, how in the world can a demonic super-genius like Voldermort not get his hands on this? - Wait, they're willing to risk the space-time continuum so Hermione can squeeze more classes into her schedule but they won't use it to stop Voldermort from resurrecting in GofF or to prevent the murder of Cedric Diggory?
devinc1 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 09:30
Oh, one other thing: I really like the whole bit (can't remember if it read like this in the book or if it's just the movie dialogue) where Harry refuses to kill Wormtail but thinks it'll be better for him to go to Azkaban with the dementors. So let me get this moral stance right: it's wrong to kill a bad person, but it's ok to have them locked for life in a prison where they'll be psychologically and emotionally tortured and their souls slowly, painfully drained out by demonic nightmare creatures. Is that latter option really considered the more humane of the two choices?
emanjake Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 10:06
I want a much more basic plothole filled. It has nothing to do with the implications of magic (i.e. if they've got X, why don't they use it for Y?) which seems to be majority of gripes on this thread. C'mon guys: name any fantasy universe that has total internal consistency. As long as they don't blatantly break their own main rules, I can live this kind of thing.
What I want to know is why, in HP and the Half Blooded Prince, Dumbledore tasks Harry with finding out Slughorn's secret about what he told Tom Riddle all those years ago. Harry succeeds and tells Dumbledore about the Horcruxes, who then acts like he's known all about them along! Not only has he hunted down and destroyed one in the last 6 months, he knows exactly where the next one is! Huh??
henryj2112 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 10:30
It may be inconsistent, but who cares? Most fantasy things are in some way shape or form. I'm a massive comic fan, and if I started to ask loads of questions it'd sap my enjoyment.
The books were great, but the films have never done it for me personally. It would have been better as an HBO series or something similar where they could properly explain everything.
kaymojo Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 10:33
Just last night I finished re-reading the books in anticipation of watching the last film. I LOVE the books whilst I’m reading them; I think they’re exciting and compelling and really can’t put them down. But once I’d finished them all I couldn’t help but pour a huge bucket of scorn over some of the crazy story threads. My two main problems are (with the books, I’ve not watched all the films so can’t say how these points are addressed in them): 1) Harry is the only known person ever to have survived the killing curse, which was because his mother gave her life selflessly to save Harry. This happens also at the end when Harry ‘gives his life’ to save all the others and Voldemort apparently can’t kill any of them in the great hall at the end...really? Are you telling me that in the whole history of magic, no-one has ever before given their life to save someone else’s?! That Harry's mum is the very first person to have done this?! Hmm... 2) The boring final battle with Harry and Voldemort circling each other for about half an hour at the end whilst Harry goes on and on about load of tedious wandlore. a) Stand still, all the circling is just annoying b) Urm, what the heckity heck is all that nonsense about the Elder wand ownership!? So the Elder wand has to be won in battle to truly be ‘mastered’ by a wizard apparently. But when Griddlewald stole it from Gregorovich, that wasn’t him defeating Gregorovich, he just nicked it and jumped out a window. So why did the ownership pass to him and then to Dumbledore? And as for Harry being the wand’s true master after he disarmed Draco in a scene which didn’t have the Elder wand involved at all, this seems highly unlikely and a very tenuous jump! What a load of gubbins!
Maybe I have just completely misunderstood what is happening in the last book, but surely there could have been a less farfetched way of finishing the series off?...
baron85 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 11:21
As a fan I have to defend the series. Most of those plot holes are actually explained in the books, or not really 'holes' as such (I interpretted the Wizarding War as a civil war, not an international war etc) just different points of view.
The main bit that I have a major problem with is Ron & Hermione going down to the Chamber of Secrets to get Basilisk Fangs. I'm sorry, but I don't buy Ron "remembering" parseltongue, and least of all I don't understand how they got out (considering they had to get Fawkes to fly them out in CoS). Also, it's been ages since I read CoS but I seem to remember there being a bit of a maze of pipes to navigate . . . so how did they do that?
That point just seems like lazy writing to fill a plot hole to me.
con31773 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 12:14
Did'nt hermionie have something that could reverse time through out the third film and it never seemed to come up again? Just saying there may have been a few times were it could be useful. Dobbies death, Harry touching the port key in number four and dumbledours death being just a few :/ Plus if Voldemort is pissing off all the British muggles why doesnt the government sort him out, his best attibute is that he knows a spell to kill someone. Im pretty sure we have that, exept we call them guns, and they do a better job...
The900MidNightBee Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 12:43
My mother was always concerned by Dumbeldore cancelling the end of year examinations in the first book. What those in there final year though? What happens to them was always her worry...
white mage Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 12:45
Some thoughts: Why is it only Harry who defeats Voldermort time after time when there are adults more experianced in magic than him at Hogwarts? Are pure bloods home schooled before they go to Hogwarts? If pure bloods have nothing to do with the muggle world, where do they get their clothes from? becouse Diagon Alley just sell robes
isabird Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 13:07
I love the books dearly and none of what is mentioned in the blog or comments really bothers me, as I can come up with a reasonable explanation for each that satisfies me. However there is one thing about the movies that seriously gives me the s**ts. Big time..
James and Lily Potter supposedly were born in 1960 and died in 1981, a year after Harry was born. They died at 21. So WHY. WHY are they portrayed in the movie as being the same age as Lupin, Sirius and Wormtail who at the time of the final film, which took place in 1998, would have been around 38? THAT annoys me.
crazymoviesdude Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 13:47
@isabird - That's a good point. I just read that the actors that played them are now 53 and 44. I wouldn't call it a plot hole, but it's certainly a big chunk of stupidity on the part of the film makers.
cinemonster Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 14:32
2 plot holes for me.
1. why is there a church in godric's hollow (subsequently, why are harry's parents buried in a church graveyard?)
2. when harry buries dobby, where does he get the spade from? they can't have had it in the house, wizard's dig with magic...
loafroaster Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 16:55
If it's so flippin easy to disguise yourself as someone else, why hasn't anyone come up with a way to detect imposters?
ashdinosaur Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 19:25
Okay, I know a lot of kids hate reading now, but there will always be kids that have no problem enjoying a 700+ page book, and to suggest that children simply won't want to read a book that long is utterly ludicrous.
And I disagree with the assertion that the books got worse after the first three, as Order of the Phoenix is my personal favourite, but I did find Deathly Hallows rather dire.
I don't mind the plot holes - I can imagine my way out of several of them and sometimes that can be lots of fun in itself.
p.s. nice bigotry there with "Hagrid's weight problem" and "Ron's hair colour."
ashdinosaur Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 19:27
@white mage Um, because of the prophecy?
skeletonjack Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 19:42
In Azkaban they go back in time to save Buckbeak. Why not just go back and kill Tom Riddle, hey problem solved!
subcircus Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 20:08
I think human history tells us why none of the other Wizarding nations got involved with the battle with Voldy. It took a direct attack on the US for them to involve themselves in WW2 or Afghanistan. And they are not the only ones, history is replete with countries ignoring foreign wars until they affect them directly. The characters in Harry Potter may be magical but they are still as human as us muggles and therefore prone to an attitude of 'well, he's not attacking us, it's Britain's problem'. I'm sure if Voldy had succeeded in taking over the UK and then turned his attention to the rest of the world then they might have finally pulled their fingers out!
Harboe77 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 20:16
@28 Dumbledore knew or at least had a suspicion about the horcruxes, but he did not know how many there were. With the memory they now knew that there were 7 to be found.
To kill Voldemort as a child the time turner would be turned 621,000 times, how long wouldn't that take? And even if they did, would the world be a better place? Who knows? It is over 50 years.
treeofboredom1 Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 23:08
Where are Harry's grandparents? James' parents are actually mentioned when Sirius says they took him in at sixteen. If Harry's parents died at 21 then surely they'd still be alive and not that old. Something pretty tragic must have happened to them, if they are dead, and is probably worth a mention in one of the books??
CormacH Posted on Friday July 15, 2011, 23:10
I loved the books, didn't really like the films at all, but that's just a personal opinion. Now, to me, it seems like you have simply written an article to just bitch about why you don't like Harry Potter, which doesn't really seem fair, at least try and be equal in your writings.
Take for example the third paragraph about magic and why it can't fix everything. If there was a spell for instant death, was there a spell for making loo seats always go back down? Or always remembering people’s names at parties? Or always having a pen when you think of something genuinely quite clever?"
It isn't magic that makes bones regrow it is potions, anything a muggle, with the knowhow, could brew themselves, if we are to examine it closely. Maybe Harry has just decided not to use it, maybe they haven't discovered the right potion yet. The thing about Hagrid's weight and ron's hair is just stupid, I won't even answer that. There could well be spells for loo seats, peoples names and you could just bring a pen with you.
I am in no way saying HP is perfect, there are plenty of plotholes in it, some of which have been pointed out, but you yourself have only actually pointed out 1 plothole, that's ron being able to speak parseltongue, which is incredibly stupid. If you are going to poke fun at HP at least get some good arguments.
As someone mentioned above, and which is the biggest of all to me, why did JK Rowling bring in time travel? It just opened up so many questions and made all of Harry's efforts unnecessary. She should have just left it out and come up with some other story for tyhe third book.
InnerSpirit500 Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 01:32
I'm a huge fan of the books and films and have read all the comments here and was amazing that with all the time turner comments nobody point out the way that harry did the partonus to save himself. Yes it works the second time because Harry went back in time. But the first run through Harry should have had the demontor's kiss.
Been a while since i've read the books but in the films there's a bit with the pumpkins when the throw stones and later when Hermione howls to distract lupin. Great the second time but how does or should those events effect the first linear run through of time. there should not be more than one harry, ron and hermione until they go back in time. So no stones, howling and no patronus to save Harry's life.
Harry knew he could do it because he remember seeing himself do it...WTF?
Moon_Man Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 10:26
As someone whohas only watched the movies I don't think it is a defines to say it's explained in the book. A film needs to stand on it's own and make coherent sense otherwise it's sloppy film making. Though I appreciate that the source material is important and JKs ideas predominate. My main annoyance with the last movie was this:
1. Why if the snake is a horcrux is it taken into battle and left to wonder around on it's own , whilst all the other horcruxes were hidden away. Just seems stupid to me!
2. Where was the rest of the castles defended apart from the statues ? Why wasn't there internal magical barriers to defend the school?
3. Where's the wizard armies to defend the school instead of leaving it to 11-17 yr olds and a handful of teachers
Marymoo Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 11:26
Yes, Hagrid's parents forming a relationship if his father was a normal-sized adult is difficult to visualise but, actually, I don't care, given that far more interesting things occur to counter-balance the mistakes.
Rowling has admitted some that she's made - i.e. confusing Lupin and James Potter for who made it as prefect - but they don't really alter the plot. In terms of supposed bigger 'pott-holes', most of them being suggested seem to form around either the books not having been read or a lack of imagination. Come on, use it, it won't hurt!
I for one have always enjoyed thinking of my own answers to complications with the plot, that relate to what has already been described. You ask, for example, why Dumbledore doesn't come back as a ghost, and acknowledge that it's already been mentioned in the books. You have to choose, you have to be of the disposition. Nearly Headless Nick expresses regret that he had the desire to 'live on' after death - in that light, can you really imagine Dumbledore choosing to remain as a ghost?
On the point of spells that haven't been invented- true, Rowling isn't explicit in the books about how one creates a spell, though we see the effects of the spell 'Sectumsempra' that Snape created as a student, and its counter-curse. No, there wouldn't seem to be a spell that works in the same way as laser eye surgery but, would you say of the 'muggle' world, that we have invented everything yet, that there's nothing more to be invented? Obviously not.
The overall point of my rant, I suppose, is that the so-called holes suggested by the blogger himself and many others are mostly actually explained to some degree in the book or, up for you to judge as a reader as you see fit - no author wants to produce a book that doesn't stimulate questions. I have never read a book hoping that I'll be spoon-fed answers to every question I can possibly think of. The plot would suffer with too much explanation and baggage. USE YOUR IMAGINATION!!
TheStage Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 12:05
If Arthur Weasley is so obsessed with muggles, collects batteries, and even works in the muggle artefact department at the ministry, why can't he light matches or pronounce 'electricity'? And why does Ron say in the first book that his dad has a second cousin who's an accountant, but they 'never talk about him'? Surely Arthur would be inviting him round for dinner every Sunday.
Hogwarts is in Scotland. Why do the whole student population and their parents have to travel all the way to Kings Cross every September, just to get on a train and chug all the way back to Hogsmeade?
If the Weasleys are so poor, why doesn't Molly get a job, or at least make some money on the side by submitting recipes to Witch Weekly or something? And if she's such a great mother, why does she always forget that Ron hates corned beef sandwiches and maroon jumpers?
I adore the books and think the films are okay, but they're full of holes and discrepancies - those are just a couple of minor ones that bug me.
PipWinstonThomas Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 12:30
or.....we can all just sit back enjoy the good fun books and stop picking holes like douches :D
trainedasninja Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 13:15
Its goblet of fire for me. The bad guys need to get Harry to the Graveyard for Voldemort to come back (fair enough). Why then do they conceive such a rediculous and elaborate plan to force Harry to to take part in the Tournament which he could die in!! just to make him use the portkey (the cup) to the graveyard. Why didnt they just steathly put a portkey in his room and save the trouble.
glegs Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 13:51
I sometimes feel as if I am on of a very small group of people on Earth who hate Harry Potter, and this article and all its comments gave me hope to realize I am not. Also, every person pointing out plot holes has been very clever about it and put up good points, although the one person I read (I got bored after a while of reading every single comment so there might be more) who was defending Harry Potter just did what the original article is joking about; used magic for an excuse. Also, that user (Drone) said "Did Hitler think, "I have this great idea forworld domination - I know, I'll go to America, start the Nazi party and take it from there.", and Hitler did sort of do that seeing as he was Austrian, so, you lose.
strawberriesncream Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 14:44
Not so much a plot hole, this could be explained by saying wizards are massive dicks but it's always annoyed me. Wizards have the ability to cure all number of ailments and grow back bones and fix teeth. So why do they never help muggles. all the people who've lost limbs or live in agony (or even those who need braces) wizards just allow to suffer. It annoys me that they have the means to help but never do and this is even assuming they don't have the spell or potion to cure cancer (which they probably do since no ones parents seemed to die of anything other than evil magic battles). All the wizards never help the majority of the population and instead just make fun of muggles with their "simple" electricity, therefore wizards are just a bunch of arrogant, bigoted c*nts
baron85 Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 17:36
@CormacH - very good post and points raised.
I suppose time-travel always opens up a can of worms. It is explicitally stated in the books about how restricted time-turners are due to the dire implications they can have (although, they will apparently trust a 13-year-old girl with it?! . . . maybe Dumbledore foresaw a need for it). I don't think Rowling sets out the rules of her time-travel clearly enough.
However, it seems like her time only has only one continuum line, and if one has a reason to go back, any changes to return to the past *cannot* remove that reason for turning back time otherwise the imperative to use time-travel in the first-place disappears. It's not like Back to the Future or the Butterfly Effect where changing the past can create a completely new continuum.
Hence, in PoA they go back in time to give themselves a chance to bust Sirius out of the cell and save Buckbeak BUT this does not change the continuity as it has already introduced earlier in the book, and the imperative to turn back time remains. However, if someone went back to kill Tom Riddle at birth it would remove the imperative to turn back time.
Not completely watertight, but it keeps me happy.
On a broader note, does anyone else find it irritating when so-called "plot holes" are highlighted which are less about contradictions which undermine the fluidity of the plot, but rather a difference of opinion about how one character or another should behave? I mean this for all films and books. Maybe Voldemort just made a massive mistake in letting his snake / horcrux into battle. Perhaps the heroine in a horror film just went upstairs and hid in the cupboard in blind panic. Just because you disagree about a particular person's behaviour, doesn't qualify it as a plot-hole. I'm sure we all know a few people in real life who behave completely irrationally!
Although with that in mind . . . why did nobody ever think to mention to Harry where his parent's graves were for seven years?
the ageless stranger Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 18:37
Why is Harry Potter the hero of this series when he doesn't actually do any of the pivotal stuff? I admit I've only seen the films, haven't read the books so maybe it's explained better or the films left out some details (or I just missed it), but Harry really doesn't change the course of events the way a hero should. One example, in Deathy Hallows part 1, after getting the sword out of the lake, he immediatly hands it to Ron and tells him to destroy the horcrux. Why not do it yourself Harry? Also, throughout that film, Hermione is constantly the one casting the useful spells.
Then at the end of part 2, big final battle between Harry and Voldemort, they're shooting laser beams at each other and it's Neville who kills the snake, which makes Voldemort's wand crap out, and he blows away like paper. I though they could have at least had Harry deliver the killing blow, but no....
meado93 Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 20:26
Having read all the books, and then seen the films, i really struggle to see how any viewer who hasnt read the books will ever be able to understand whats actually going on, seeing as big bits of explanation are missing from the films.
Personally my biggest plot hole problem is with the last film where harry is using a cracked mirror to see dumbledores brother, but if you havent read the books you wont know where the mirror came from, which in the books is given to harry in the PofA by sirius, with an explanation of how it works. The film makers would have been better to leave it out, instead they keep it in, and explain it off with deux ex machina, which i feel would leave the people who havent read the books even more confused.
Fight knight Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 20:30
at the start of deathly hallows, everyone is turned ino harry whom is being hunted, when surely it would have been much easier to turn harry into someone else who isnt being hunted!
kittyp Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 20:38
In answer to the question 'when do they learn maths and english' - they don't start at Hogwarts til 11. I presume up until then they are at the mercy of the state school system.
BelfastBoy Posted on Saturday July 16, 2011, 22:25
Damn right! GoF is my favourite book and yet there's a truly gigantic plot hole that dominates it for me. Barty Crouch Jnr - who by all accounts is mentally deranged - spends AN ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR in disguise as Mad Eye Moody, presumably teaching classes all that time while somehow maintaining his disguise and staying in character, even when surrounded by at least some adult teachers who know him implicitly? Quite an achievement given that polyjuice potion doesn't last more than an hour at a time! Surely, given that's he's constantly close to Harry and is indeed helping him through the Triwizard Tournament, Barty could've just portkeyed Harry away from Hogwarts at pretty much any given time? Is there any reason why Voldemort's resurrection had to wait until the end of the school year / Triwizard Tournament? Harry and Cedric also had plenty of opportunity to escape from Pettigrew in the graveyard before the latter was killed as well.
I could go on, but I won't! Rowling is all too fond of deus ex machina, but the books are so entertaining and rich in characters and detail that it seems to churlish to analyse them too deeply. Here's a few more random examples:
- In Deathly Hallows, the trio are trapped miles underground in Gringotts vaults, surrounded by enemies on all sides...so let's just conveniently have a dragon there to bust them out! - I'm prety sure it's mentioned somewhere in Chamber of Secrets that polyjuice potion takes several weeks to brew properly. This doesn't seem to be a problem in any other books though. - 'TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE' - 'I AM LORD VOLDEMORT'! Oh please! - Are we really supposed to believe that Pettigrew lived as a rat for 13 years?! - I can never really accept the notion that the wizarding world is so totally ignorant of muggle customs and lifestyles. There's so few genuine pureblood families that the vast majority of witches and wizards must come from at least half muggle backgrounds.
shopachocaholic Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 00:15
I feel a lot of people have forgotten that these books began as rather-risky series of children's books and it is just possible that J. K. Rowling hadn't completely defined every aspect of her magical world when she began. And once decisions were made, they mostly had to be supported.
There are very few children's series that bear the scrutiny of the HP series- I personally think it's a miracle that so few plot holes have been identified in such a well-read and -discussed series. I know I'd love to be able to write, but I don't have the capability to fill the plot holes I'd create with such well-defined ideology as Rowling. I suggest we remember this is, first and foremost, a kid's series that adults have hijacked. And if the films don't provide the answers you expect- read the damn books! You're missing out and shouldn't complain about plotholes in the series until you've actually read them!
HP bashing has become a lazy way of justifying your dislike of these stories. Why not just grow a pair and say you don't lIke them? I think us fans would respect that far more.
Pipkin3 Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 01:34
Lets be honest here. If there were no plot holes at all, then about 90% of literature and film would never exist. Or if they did, their characters would just sit doing nothing. Sometimes you have to have plot holes just so a plot and a character can exist.
jibjob82 Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 09:55
And what exactly have you written that has been successful? It's very easy to pull apart something when it's there in front of you but until you yourself have written something of worth your opinion just simply doesn't matter.
Harry Potter is successful not because of the magic storyline or the avenging the death of his mother storyline. They are what we call 'subplots' dear boy. That is the through line that holds everything together. What Harry Potter is about and why it is the most successful book and film series of all time is because of the characters but mostly because it is about love and death.
Harry Potter has continually lost the closest people to him throughout the series and if you are clever enough to pay attention it is about how he deals with it and learns to be strong. The climax is obviously about Harry being ready to confront death. Who gives a f*** about all the magic stuff then? It's just the fluff that keeps the kids hooked so she can give them the real message its actually about.
gwd80 Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 16:55
Harry Potter has always passed me by. I've read all the books but to see what all the fuss was about but they were all just nonsensical and full of clunky prose. All the suspension of disbelief required was draining - I get there was magic involved but even so, as everyone's been pointing out...well, it was just bollocks wasn't it?
And as somebody also said - Harry Potter is an useless hero. He does nothing! Hermione basically did all the work for him all the way through. All he did was not die as a baby - and that wasn't down to anything he actively did to cause it to happen.
It's just like the Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone goes along with it...it's a load of shit!
nuckley Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 18:15
How come they just let Harry fly an X-Wing against the Death Star when he's not even been out into space before about a week ago? There's no one better qualified?
Sorry. Wrong film.
How come Harry don't ask the Giant Eagles to fly them at least part of the way to Mordor? I mean, it's not like it's not a good cause? Are they really going to say "No"?
Sorry. Wrong film.
How come not one guard in the 20+ years Harry was in prison showed any interest in that poster on the wall covering up the hole he was digging.
Sorry. Wrong film.
I could go on 'hilarilously' in this vein for a while.
trainedasninja Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 20:51
Some people are getting abit defensive! A true fan wouldnt mind pointing out flaws because they like it for what it is. The books are that excellant however that plot holes are few and petty so identifying them shows a sign of someone who has given thought to the series. Not someone who doesnt like them.
TigerTedd Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 21:37
What always annoyed me since the first book was that Sorting Hat. If it can sort all the arseholes into one house, what is the point in that house. Harry's kid at the end is terrified of going into Slytherine, 19 years after. The hat is basically saying, whether you like it or not, you are going to be a bad guy, and if you're not a bad guy, everyone will think you are anyway, so tough luck. It's a bit harsh to give an 11 year old a label they will live with forever. And putting all the bad guys in one house, and then teaching them magic, is like the British government running it's own Taliban training camps, it's fairly idiotic, and I'd expect better from wizards.
Also, if you're picked to go in HufflePuff, you'd be quite annoyed, "You will be a bit chubby and largely ignored forever more".
So the whole house thing annoys me, although I'm not sure it's a plothole, just convenient writing, which annoys me even more than plot holes.
I'm not a fan of the series by the way, I think it's all a bit crap.
Oh, and 7 horcruxes. Plus 3 Deathly Hallows (which turned out to be a bit pointless). Why?! How many MacGuffins do you really need? Just cut to the chase already. The plot wouldn't have suffered if it was reduced to just 3 or 4. It's just an excuse to stretch out the story for another book or two.
I could rant all day, but I'm not going to, I'm just glad I've got those off my chest.
andybobbins87 Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 22:14
My personal fav is how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald the man who possessed the "unbeatable wand"...........
fug91 Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 22:19
I always thought the time turner worked a bit like winding a watch, if you try and turn it too far it either breaks or the resistance is too much to make it coil further, so the further back you go the harder it is to turn.
rynsolo Posted on Sunday July 17, 2011, 23:21
You're comment about the US not getting involved in WW2 until we were attacked is not only false, but insulting. The reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was that we were supplying Britain with military goods (guns, tanks, etc) for the war effort and had been for quite awhile before the attack.
George182 Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 00:34
I can't recall from the books - and I'm far too lazy to check - but how come in The Order of the Phoenix, Luna tells Harry that the reason only they can see the thestrals is that they have both seen death. Ron and Hermione both fail to see them at first, so how do they end up riding them to London later on in that same film?
Swailer Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 04:45
So the best british film saga ever closes and you decide to honour it by pointing out its worst flaws. Hmm
thatgingerscouser Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 04:55
I think there is a difference here between "shooting the horses" (a plot hole, which, if resolved, would destroy the whole story) and plot holes that could be "filled in" with a simple bit of exposition.
The exceptionally annoying thing about the time-turner plot hole is that it could SO EASILY be fixed!!
Here you go, JK: make the time-turner an incredibly ancient and unique magical artefact that Hermione gets hold of (finds in the Chamber of Secrets, perhaps?), keeps secret from the teachers in order to go to more lessons and is then comprehensively destroyed at the end of Book 3. There you go, plot hole gone. Magic!!
bigmeuprudeboy1 Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 09:33
blah blah blah.....I 'spose it her world so she can what she wants with it.. anyway the one thing that always bothered me was that if all their spells are in Latin, what language did they use BEFORE Latin came into use (say pre 700BC) erm....not that Im a pedant or anything
tejo Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 09:59
If Voldemort is a supremely evil nasty person who wants to kill Harry Potter, why doesn't he just shoot the little prick in the face with a shotgun? Maybe it's against the wizard-code, but who cares if you are really evil. It works better than all the overcomplicated plans.
Maybe he's Doctor Evils retarded cousin. (I can see the family resembles)
Blackadders Codpiece Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 10:05
I'm not taking this entirely seriously, but here's what I'd ask Jo Rowling if she was here:
1. If house elves are so magical and can apparate anywhere, why not send them out to kill a Deatheater or nine during the final battle?And how can elves do magic without wands?
2. If Kreacher hates Muggles so much and presumably is as magical as all of the other elves, why not just pop a cap in Hermione's a s s during their time in Sirius' house?
3. Why can't I find Hogawarts, Gringotts or Azkaban on Google Maps?
4. Diagon Alley appears to be in London. Bit of an ommission from the A-Z, isn't it?
5. Just where the smeg is Hogsmead supposed to be exactly?
6. Is butterbeer alcoholic or not? If so, why are schoolchildren drinking it? If not, why is it called 'beer'?
7. Where did Dumbledore get the Resurrection Stone from in order to add it to the snitch and give it to Harry in his will? And did Harry really throw it away in the forest afterwards? That had to have confused some forest creatures who tried to eat it.
8. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Snape is the ultimate double agent because he's got a bit of a crush on a blue-eyed dead woman? Bit of a stalker, no?
9. What happens to memories once they've been dumped in the pensieve, then? Are they lost forever, or can you come back to them? Bit of a bummer if you have a bad memory for details.
10. Approximately how many adults are magical, then? There seem to be several hundred death eaters attacking Hogwarts but about 9 adult good guys defending it.
11. Why has George's ear completely healed in the final film? It was hacked off in the previous one.
12. Isn't the Room of Requirements just an enormously convenient plot device for when your power of writing down Huge Coincidences has run dry?
But seriously, I love the films.
Who cares about the holes.
Olga T Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 10:36
1. I was thinking why Dumbledore, this mighty mind after opening only one Horcrux and got a deathly desease and Harry together with his two teenage friends destroy them one by one without even breaking a nail? 2. They have some crazy rules of Accio spell... Sometimes it works, sometimes not.. First it was helping them to attract Horcruxes but when in the Lock room in the end it they had to search everything. I understood that magic didn't work in the bank, but what is wrong with this Horwarths chamber? 3. Why everybody but Harry and his friends wear some stupid magic clothes? 4. Where Hermione takes this cool Bellatrix-style dress to go to the bank? If it was magic, why did it stay after they dived into anti-magic liquid? But generally, in comparison with average number of questions of a standard Hollywood movie e.g. recent Transformers, HP ones are as logical as possible.
sparkerl01 Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 11:14
Hmmm my biggest problem why does love and friendship solve everything? but other than that I enjoy the films although they are massively over rated.
wayne302919 Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 11:22
Yeah, mine was always the goblet/portkey thing. The story would have been over in ten minutes with a well timed "Harry, would you pick up that piece of paper". Still a fab film though.
IntoTheWild Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 11:47
I really love the series, i've seen all the films but not read all the books (Forgive me if my point relies on having read the books) Kudos to J.K, cast and crew for creating something spectacular though.
Anyway, there are like, 2-3 actual valid plot holes worth mentioning amongst all of these comments. One that NO-ONE has really expanded on is the "Master of Death"
Loved the ideology behind it, it really added a depth and sense of history to the Wizarding World. But why this importance on "The Deathly Hallows/Master of Death" people signing books off with the symbol, Mr Lovegood wearing the chain with the symbol on etc etc etc
That was something i was looking forward to being explored some more!
"...all together they produce one "master of death" " Yeah... AND?!
trainedasninja Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 12:37
Only just thought of this, but brooms must be painful to ride surely....
12345chris Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 12:54
There were bits of the movies that made no sense, but were perfectly well explained in the books. The 'owl post' in first movie for instance, if I were voldemort, I'd simply send harry a breeze block or hand grenade, and let the owl drop it from a great height. Also the polyjuice potion voice change conundrum. For comedic effect in the second movie, ron and harry retain their own voices. Then when barty crouch junior spends a year in the body of mad eye moody, he takes on his voice. They then switch back, in the sixth movie, ron, harry and hermione keep their own voices. didnt ruin it for me, but i wish they'd choose one and stick with it.
Grimm Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 13:49
Those broomsticks were always an oddity and not entirely appropriate for a children's book/film. In the first film they were depicted as a plain ol' broom with the exception of Nimbus 2000 which is slightly thicker and more "aerodynamic". But no matter how thick or curvacious, in reality they would hurt like the worst wedgie. So, having probably noticed the problem, in later films they added a pair of metallic footholders to support the weight on your legs rather than your crotch. But still I think any professional Quidditch player will face the risk of developing either impotence or prostate cancer in his later years.
roogieman Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 14:18
So, they let Hagrid stay on as the Gamekeeper? Even though most people thought he released Slytherin's Monster?
Kiki81 Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 14:46
For me the biggest plot hole was (possible spoiler alert):
That it was never revealed to the Death Eaters that Voldermort wasn't a pureblood wizard. I was waiting in the last book for his big secret to be come out and have all the Death Eater team up against him or at least make it some sort of an issue. Seriously, all his followers stood behind him because they believed so much in pureblood wizards and no one ever knew that he himself wasn't one??? JK Rowling made this great revelation that Voldermort hated half-blood wizards but that he is one himself as well. And she never actually did anything else with that storyline. Unless I overlooked it somewhere.
MartyKnight Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 15:19
My problem was the TWINCEST! Angelina Johnson goes to the Yule Ball with Fred Weasley, but later married George?! That girl has a very specific taste in men.
Also, in a boarding school, with a few hundred teenagers all living together, why isn't there any sex-ed?! And if there is, who teaches it? McGonnagal? Snape? Or Flitwick?!
Bibinoir Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 16:00
Firstly about them using the time turners...all the time turners were destroyed in the order of phoenix
But for me what bothers me the most about the movie was that under age wizard aren't allowed to use magic outside of school but Harry uses magic like the opening scene of prisoner of azkaban were he were he used 'lumos' spell and I'm sure that Hermione fixed Harry's glasses in diagon alley in the second movie...rant over. but all said i am still a HUGE fan of the books and movies
TigerTedd Posted on Monday July 18, 2011, 19:47
@Into the Wild - That one really bugged me too. There seem to be a lot of plots that were introduced and then unfinished. All this big build up about the Deathly Hallows, and then he doesn't really do anything with them. And they could lead to some really great moments. Like I was all ready and waiting for Harry to become the master of death and cast some uber-spell that brought everyone Voldermort killed back to life. It would have totally killed the 'Harry comes to terms with death' overarching thread, but it would have looked cool on screen.
She doesn't follow through on the tease that Neville could actually be the real chosen one, either, on the the half-blood Voldermort, as Kiki81 pointed out.
It's like she comes up with an interesting idea in one book, but then looses interest in it before the end of the next book and drops it, never to be seen again.
C.C.C.P. Posted on Tuesday July 19, 2011, 12:34
I never got into Harry Potter. When I was a young teenager I was reading Philip Pullman and Dianna Wynne Jones. J.K.'s attempts at writing simply don't compare. I tried reading the first book shortly after it came out (after my little sister finished it) and facepalm'd so hard at the first chapter that I put the series down for several years - only resuming because I was told I couldn't keep mocking it in front of said sister until I read more.
The whole magical world is entirely arbitrary, poorly thought through and inconsistent. Much of decent modern fantasy has magic with coherent rules - such as in work by Robert Jordan, Jim Butcher, Brandon Sanderson or Patrick Rothfuss. Rowling fails here, utterly. And don't try to excuse its failing by implying that children's books should be held to a lower standard of quality - firstly don't insult the intelligence of kids that way and secondly plenty of other authors manage to write books which can appeal to more than the lowest common denominator.
Blackadders Codpiece Posted on Tuesday July 19, 2011, 15:34
C.C.C.P. - strong works, but I think that any analysis of literature can be only subjective.
I found His Dark Materials utterly humourless, dryer than a mouthful of the Sahara and groaning under the weight of Pullman's self-annointed gravitas. Hey ho.
I can only assume that Rowling is sobbing all the way to the bank.
Blackadders Codpiece Posted on Tuesday July 19, 2011, 15:35
Perhaps I should have written "strong words" in the first sentence. It being what I meant and all that.
VPchild Posted on Tuesday July 19, 2011, 21:12
My favourite film plot hole, I found in the last one.
Voldemort's disintegration - observed by no one as well as being a little to epic to be quite as awesome as it was in the book.
I could have gotten over the disintegration - which irritated me originally because I liked the idea of Voldemort's pathetic, inconsequential body being chucked in a back-room whilst the likes of Lupin, Tonks and Fred (*tear*) get the Wizard equivalent of a state funeral. BUT, if Voldemort is now ash, contaminating Scotland with flakes of creepy flesh and no one saw Harry kill him... where's the proof??? Why is everyone in the Great Hall so quick to believe that he's died when he's already come back from the dead once???
Merlin's Beard! I think I've just fallen into a rather large PLOT HOLE!
Electra2510 Posted on Wednesday July 20, 2011, 16:25
Okay perhaps I am joining the party a bit late here, but having read the books and seen the films there is always one that struck me... how come Snape didn't know that Peter Pettigrew (i.e Wormtail) wasn't a death eater before he betrayed the Potters to old flat nose?
If we are working on the premise that there aren't many wizards to the galleon, surely the bad'uns would know who each other is? Event if they don't have that many social engagements they would have met up once in a while at those roundtable strategy meetings that Voldermort seems so keen on?
Snape begs Dumbledore to protect Lily et al, but he doesn't think to point out that one of the good guys is actually a baddie once he has switched sides? What?!!! Maybe I'm missing something...
highwaycrossingfrog Posted on Thursday July 21, 2011, 19:44
I have a problem with the Dementors. Presumably, the wizards must have a way to control them in order to keep them as guards at Azkaban. They don't seem like the type of creature that would willingly take on a job as a prison guard, and I doubt they're there for the pay. They're described as being pretty much pure evil (which is, firstly, not the best qualification for an authority figure), and if there was no way to control them, I would think they'd like to get out of Azkaban a bit, maybe find some more nice, powerful wizards to drain. In the Prisoner of Azkaban, it's said that Dumbledore won't let them into the Hogwarts grounds, only patrol the borders. This suggests he has a degree of control over them. So why are they allowed to stay at Hogwarts when they keep atttacking Harry, and why is Dumbledore not able to stop them when they do?
Also, it seems like a Dementor would be a pretty good way to stop Voldemort. I can't imagine he has many happy memories to conjour a Patronus with. But I guess that would be a bit of a sucky denouement.
matty26 Posted on Friday July 22, 2011, 14:34
In Deathly Hallows Part 1, why doesn't Harry, Ron and Hermoine fight the snatchers when they're being chased by them in the woods right before they're taken to Lucius Malfoy's big house? Yes, they were outnumbered by the snatchers, but it's their 7th year at Hogwarts, so they had already survived 6 encounters with the darkest wizard of them all, Voldemort. Surely if you can trade spells with Voldemort on so many occassions, a few simple child snatchers (which just makes me think of the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) what chance do they have against Hogwarts 3 most powerful students? Nothing a few 'Expelliarmus's' and 'stuperfy's' wouldn't solve. However, if they were never caught, Dobby would still be alive. Make your own opinions on whether you believe that's a good thing...
_craig_144_ Posted on Sunday July 24, 2011, 00:34
#the ageless stranger
Do you actually know the story ? you couldn't be more wrong. When Neville kills nagini( The snake), thats the last of the horcruxs. Once that happened Voldemort becomes mortal. When harry and V are fighting and V loses is wand v's killing curse rebounds off harrys spell thus killing voldemort.
I wish people would read the books.And as for the person who wrote this article is not obvious how hagrid being a half giant......dad = human and his mother being Giant he would have gentics from both human and giant...duhhhh
Enjoy the film for what it is.
Cookiedough Posted on Sunday July 24, 2011, 19:30
All of this can be overcome by doing a small thing. I believe it's called 'suspending your disbelief'. I mean, if you can't do that with Harry Potter...Anyhoo, I'm about to contradict my statement, by saying the whole Marty-McFly-Harry-Potter-stag-patronus-thing confused me a bit, but I decided not to question it too deeply - where's the fun in that?
Wishsong214 Posted on Wednesday July 27, 2011, 05:11
Note to everyone who complains about the time travel concept: in HP, there is only one timeline. Buckbeak never died; they merely thought he had. If they tried to off Voldemort, it would be a guaranteed failure, as he is alive. In fact, their murder attempt might even drive Tom Riddle to be the world-hating sociopath that he was. It hurts to think about it, and has many questions (Harry can only save himself in Book 3 because he saved himself...ouch), but it works. The same concept is used in the first Terminator.
I really had no issues with plotholes until the seventh book. Ron's Parseltongue usage...oh God, JK, why?
oz_p Posted on Friday August 5, 2011, 10:30
I've never read a book or seen a whole film, why, cos it always came across as having been ripped off from LOTR and The Chronicales of Narnia etc, both of which appear to be superior in every way, just a shame they made such a hash of making the Chronicales into films!!
omnomnom Posted on Tuesday January 17, 2012, 07:43
if you own anothers wand when you dissarm them how can they practice dissarming spells and still have their wands as their own? and why dosent harry see thestral at the end of the 4th book? just some burning questions ive had but i love the books and can look past them because ITS A BOOK!
Glenn Quagmire Posted on Tuesday July 24, 2012, 22:57
Okay. This is a Massive plot hole in Book 5 The Order Of The Pheonix and it is my first comment so bear with me.
Harry falls asleep in the History of Magic OWL and sees the fake vision of voldemort torturing sirius. He and his friends then go to the trouble of trying to find out whether it was real or not by; 1.Making up the story about the gas leak to break into Umbridges office. 2.Getting caught by Umbridge herself. 3.Having to Lead her into the forest to a herd of wild and angry centaurs. 4.Getting a giant to chase them away. 5.Flying halfway across the country to the Ministry Of Magic and 6.Getting Sirius killed for real. STOP. REWIND. They could have just looked into the Magic Two-Way Mirror that Sirius gave Harry so many months before. Therefore Sirius wouldn't have been killed, It would have saved a lot of pages in the book, Harry would not have broken the mirror as a result of Sirius dying and he would be able to ask sirius for advice on how to destroy horcruxes and where voldemort might have hid the rest of them, Therefore saving another load of pages in Book 7. :D
SammyB100 Posted on Monday January 28, 2013, 02:38
Bird shit..... 1. What about all of the owls pooing on the wizards heads in the great hall. Is anyone bothered by this? Also owls are nocturnal so should not be flying around during the day - I spose they are "magic" owls but even then they need to poo somewhere usually they do it in midflight/close to landing. 2. The animals have no use - only the birds. The cat/rat/frog etc don't do anything so why don't they only have birds for the mail situation. Otherwise you need a useless animal plus a bird because you won't get your broomsticks otherwise.
Animatorpete Posted on Sunday April 7, 2013, 14:55
I have read all the books, so it's probably the lack of explanation in the films that is causing a lot of confusion.
Voldemort is English, and was raised in a Muggle orphanage. He's starting his rule in Britain first, then will move onto the rest of Europe.
The 'final battle' was simply the Order of the Phoenix and other people at Hogwarts defending the castle. Not the entire wizarding world v voldermort.
As for why there isn't another wizarding school in Britain, I guess people thought Hogwarts is enough, but good point.
There is mention in the book about why Dumbledore wouldn't have chosen to come back as a ghost. It is implied there is an afterlife, that the better thing is to move on, and it is cowardly not to.
Voldermort did not suspect Snape because he was too arrogant to believe he could be fooled. He believes he can mind read better than anyone else, and it didnt occur to him that Snape might be able to defend his mind.
Also, I'll mention this here: a worryingly high amount of people seem to think Harry came back from the dead in the 7th book / 8th film. Even the Wikipedia article on Harry Potter says this. He did not.
The book is clear: once you're dead, you're dead. No magic can undo this. Harry could not die while Voldemort was alive because Voldemort used Harry's mums blood, which contained magical protection.
So, when the killing curse was cast by Voldemort, both he and Harry collapsed, but did not die. In limbo it is unclear whether the ugly baby is Voldemort, or just the horcrux that was inside Harry. They then returned, the horcrux inside Harry having been removed by the killing curse.