Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban discussion

Astha wrote: "Rachel Paige wrote: "Astha wrote: "Actually there are usually very less.. But there was one grave fault in the first one itself. To save the philosopher's stone, all the measures put up were those ..."

I mean, Dumbledore walked through in like, four seconds, just judging on timing if things. If he can get through that fast, so could others.
The keys? Seriously, Accio Old Key! Done.
Devils's snare is deadly but childish
I don't really have any problems with the chess set.
All that, and the stone isn't even there. Yeesh.

Rachel Paige wrote: "Found one!
In book one, Snape's potion puzzle.
Upon finding which potion will take you forward. It goes like this:

"Got it," she said. "The smallest bottle will getbus through the black fire-towar..."

Uhh, it is an enchanted bottle. It just refills itself for the next person to complete the challenge. Or do you think Snape would go to the trouble of manually refilling it every single day? I know I would not if I could do spells!

Somerandom wrote: "Rachel Paige wrote: "Found one!
In book one, Snape's potion puzzle.
Upon finding which potion will take you forward. It goes like this:

"Got it," she said. "The smallest bottle will getbus through..."

I think we can conaider this closed now. The bottle must refill, not a mistake

harry potter cant see thestrals until Order of the Pheonix, but he saw his parents die when he was a baby...

Rose wrote: "harry potter cant see thestrals until Order of the Pheonix, but he saw his parents die when he was a baby..."

Yes, but he was only able to see them after he had dealt with seeing Cedric die. He can only remember a scream, from when his parents died so he might not have been able to completely process what he witnessed. That and he was an infant. Therefore making him unable to see them until Order of the Phoenix.

Astha wrote: "Actually there are usually very less.. But there was one grave fault in the first one itself. To save the philosopher's stone, all the measures put up were those that could be easily taken care of ..."

Lol, that made me laugh. I guess it was too easy but I always think if Dumbledore really didn't want anyone to get to the stone he would have made the obstacles impossible. For instance if none of the keys had been the right one, or if all of Snape's potions had been poison. It always strikes me as weird that the teachers even made it possible to get to the stone. I mean, do they want it to be stolen?!

Daisy wrote: "Astha wrote: "Actually there are usually very less.. But there was one grave fault in the first one itself. To save the philosopher's stone, all the measures put up were those that could be easily ..."

Well if you're protecting something, chances are you'd have to physically see it in order to know where it is. It's like bank safes. Sure they're hard to get into, but they're never made impossible to get into. Why? Well because that itself is impractical for those guarding it.

Although I agree that it was a bit too easy for Harry and his friends to get to the Philosopher's stone. So it's either purposely made that way by a sly Dumbledore or just a plot convenience and common trope used in literature aimed at the age range (10 -12)

Somerandom wrote: "Daisy wrote: "Astha wrote: "Actually there are usually very less.. But there was one grave fault in the first one itself. To save the philosopher's stone, all the measures put up were those that co..."

It should be accessible to the guardians. But it should have been one, two or three. Not to Quirell and the first years. Surely Quirell was not half the wizard Dumbledore was! Every lock has a key, but the key shouldnt be as visibly noticeable either!

Ahamed515 wrote: "Boubakar wrote: "Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees ..."

Yes. All the people who say use a time turner to go back and kill Tom Riddle don't understand time travel. If Tom Riddle had been killed in the past, he'd never have attacked Harry's parents/become so evil therefore there would have been no reason for anyone to go back in time and kill him...."




I like that

I'm curently in the middle of a re-read of the whole series, and one thing that comes across is how few mistakes there are in such a large series of books written over the period of time. Everything fits together and nothing feels like it's been changed to fit something that was siad before

Absolutely. Rowling did an incredible job.

Ian wrote: "I'm curently in the middle of a re-read of the whole series, and one thing that comes across is how few mistakes there are in such a large series of books written over the period of time. Everythin..."

Absolutely! You can read the first book and see, even then, she knew the ending of the seventh and most things in between. She did some serious planning and it paid off big time!

how about....the whole ending?

Umm... I didn't catch many mistakes. I mean the book was wonderful and it did not have a bad beginning, body, and it had a good end so...

Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "I posted this question last year on a another discussion but I want to hear what you guys think


Okay you know how Thestrals pull the carriages that take you from the train station to..."

But in the end of the book they specifically says the carriages came and collected Harry and the company off to Train Satiation

Extract : "“Have you got a new headmaster yet?” said Harry
Krum shrugged. He held out his hand as Fleur had done, shook Harry's hand, and then Ron's. Ron looked as though he was suffering some sort of painful internal struggle. Krum had already started walking away when Ron burst out, “Can I have your autograph?”
Hermione turned away, smiling at the horseless carriages that were now trundling toward them up the drive, as Krum, looking surprised but gratified, signed a fragment of parchment for Ron."

Chanaka wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "I posted this question last year on a another discussion but I want to hear what you guys think


Okay you know how Thestrals pull the carriages that take you from the t..."

If you had read through the entire 272 posts, you would know that someone posted a JKR quote/ interview were she says that she thought a lot about that last part and said that Harry hadn't come to terms with Cedric's death. I personally know what that's like (sadly) and still can not except that he's gone forever.
Bty, I was joking about not reading all the posts.

Rachel Paige wrote: "Daisy wrote: "@ Julane message 230

I'm pretty sure this theory about Voldemort coming back as a ghost may have been addressed before. I can't really remember but I think the conclusion we came to ..."
There went that sequel idea.

B wrote: "What about grammar issues? I've found two so far, and theyre both the same issue. I think the first one is in the second or third book, where someone's talking about the Quidditch team and he says ..."

No grammar Nazis!

Ahamed515 wrote: "Daisy wrote: "Ahamed wrote: "But where does Voldemort get his wand? Where has he been keeping it ALL these years WITHOUT a body. By his own words he was "less than nothing" after the Potters' murde..."

What if Voldy and Peter stopped by the Potter house on their way through England?

In the sixth book Dumbledore says that all items from Fred and George's shop is banned. However Ginny is allowed to take her pigmy puff Arnold which she bought from their shop.

Ayah wrote: "there's also the ages of Fred and George are they a year older the Harry and them.

Cause I remember reading about Fred and George having there OWLs and I think I remember harry and them being in ..."

Fred and George are not a year older, they are two years older.

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the MOVIE) in the scene where Harry is invisible in Hogsmade and throws a snowball at Draco, Draco flinches before the snowball hits him!

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that me..."

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that me..."

Basilisk poison can even kill horcrux's, but it was not instantaneous. If a phoenix had cried on the horcrux on the one in book 7, theoretically it could have saved it.

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that me..."

J.K Rowling repsonded to this question. She said that for the horcrux in Harry to be destroyed, Harry would have to die. He didn't die in the chamber because Fawkes healed him, so the horcrux was not destroyed.

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that me..."

I noticed this too, but the only thing I could think of was that the phoenix tears saved not only harry but the horcrux inside him as well. The phoenix got to him before any real damage could have been done. Its not the best reason but its the only one I could think of

This discussion is so interesting! How did you guys find all those mistakes? I bet you guys are all super smart. :D

In the movie The Sorcerers Stone, Hermione runs all the way across the Quidditch Field in about 20 seconds.

Kylee wrote: "In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the MOVIE) in the scene where Harry is invisible in Hogsmade and throws a snowball at Draco, Draco flinches before the snowball hits him!"

Maybe because he sees it coming. The snowball isn't invisible like Harry.

True

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcr..."

I'm pretty sure Hermione actually explained this in the 7th book. It was that the only way to destroy a horcrux is to use something that won't let it repair itself. And then she said that phoenix tears are one of the only ways to heal basilisk venom, and the horcrux wouldn't actually have access to that, so.......

Lydhia wrote: "Kylee wrote: "In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the MOVIE) in the scene where Harry is invisible in Hogsmade and throws a snowball at Draco, Draco flinches before the snowball hits him!"..."

I thought about that, but he was looking at Hermione and Ron the whole time.

Kylee wrote: "In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the MOVIE) in the scene where Harry is invisible in Hogsmade and throws a snowball at Draco, Draco flinches before the snowball hits him!"

That's a movie mistake, not a mistake by JKR. They rehearse scenes for hours before they do actual takes that go on screen. They probably couldn't get a take where the actor didn't flinch (a natural reaction given he knew exactly when the snowball was supposed to be thrown at him) so they just pushed forward. And that's hardly a mistake anyway more like an extreme nitpick. What about one of the crew being visible in the dueling scene from Chamber of Secrets? Now that's a movie mistake.

Honestly if you want to nitpick movies to death (and you can do that to every movie in existence) I suggest looking at Cinema Sins on Youtube.

The only mistake that actually got to me was that Molly Weasley always told Bill to cut his hair, and in the seventh one, she cuts Charlie's hair as if he's been breaking the rules the whole time. Bill walks free complete with ponytail because of this error! Besides that, I don't think the time-travel thing counts as a paradox.
(It's not possible; I reason there IS no original time string. It's a loop, so it feeds itself. Just like a prophecy, the prophecy causes people who hear it to alter their course of action, accidentally completing the prophecy. It's ironic, but I guess there's no other way.)

It was probably already mentioned, but at the end of the Goblet of Fire, Harry couldn't see the thestrals on the "horseless" carriages even though he should have.

This is rlly old now but these things have always annoyed me;

In HP POA they create a paradox . They go back in time to change stuff which means that past them wouldn't need to go back in time to change anything because they would have already changed it but then it would stop because they wouldn't have changed it in the first place. (Watch doctor who if u don't understand)

Also:

Harry watched his mum die when he was a baby so why couldn't he see the thestralls before cedric?

I feel like im really stepid and I feel like I must have missed something so please explain it to me if u know where I'm wrong . Thanks

Dixie Byfield wrote: "This is rlly old now but these things have always annoyed me;

In HP POA they create a paradox . They go back in time to change stuff which means that past them wouldn't need to go back in time to..."

Well time travel is always going to cause paradoxes. That's just inescapable.
As for the Thestrals, I think you have to actually comprehend what death means. I doubt a baby could do so.
He killed Quirrel in PS, but maybe because his death was so unnatural it didn't affect his ability to see them.

In POA, Dumbledore tells Hermione that it's "five minutes till midnight." He then preceeds to suggest turning the Time Turner 3 times in order to save Sirius and Buckbeak. However, once she and Harry go back the 3 turns ("We've gone back in time . . . three hours back...") I spotted an issue. Here is the passage with the issue: "[Harry] was standing next to Hermione in the deserted entrance hall and a stream of golden sunlight was falling across the paved floor from the open front doors."
If they had gone back in time 3 hours from 11:55pm, it would be 8:55pm, and there wouldn't be sun streaming in anywhere. Even in June (the month this all took place), it gets dark by 8:55pm. Even if the sun was not quite set yet, it wouldn't be streaming in...it just wouldn't be pitch black outside yet.
Anyway, I ran across that rereading POA today and had to have some fun ranting. Lol

I'll comment about something that isn't clear to me, not a mistake. I know this books were written to be read by children; So J.K. Rowling doesn't writes about 'Adults Topics', but there is a problem of logic that I would like somebody to clarify.

If Rubeus Hagrid is a semi giant because his parents were a wizard ( Sr. Hagrid) and a giant (Fridwulfa), considering that Hagrid mentions his father was short, even compared with other humans and the stature of Fridwulfa is not specified, but the average for a giant is around 15 meters. How could they... 'create' Hagrid?

I used to ignore the issue, I thought kids could be created magically instead of biologically and maybe that was a simple good answer. But now I realize that Hagrid inherited the genes of both parents because he manifested an average size between his mother and his father, and this obey to genetics law, it means, BIOLOGY.

Fridwulfa abandoned them because to giants it is a shame to have short children. After that, she has another child with a giant and obviously, the second son was a giant. Another proof of the prescence of biology; different parents, different genes.

What do you think about it? I would like someone to answer or just to hear it's opinion because I've thinking about this since I discovered where the babies came from...

Thank you, sorry if my english is wrong, I'm a Spanish speaker

No matter what I think the first Harry would always have a future harry saving him. That's just how the paradox works. Once a future version goes back then there never really was a time without him.