buuuut… i did like the 7th book. rowling seemed to realize that she had to make up for the last two crappy bestsellers. maybe she stopped reading the wildly popular fanfiction and comparing her own work to them, haha!

and, as for the HP5 movie, i was puzzled about the nose, too. i guessed that since voldemort split his soul seven ways (the horcruxes) to ensure that he wouldn’t be killed that easily, maybe his nose was included in one of them by mistake. =)

My favorite book was the third one. I thought that aside from Deathly Hallows, it was very well-written. And my favorite director among all the Potter films was Alfonso Cuaron, who, incidentally, directed the third film as well. I loved his take on the Whomping Willow shedding its leaves and such as indicative of the changing seasons, with a rather human-like personality. Also, the dementor scene during the last part of that film was almost poetic. But even so, I thought the fifth movie was good, expecially visually. The screenplay and Radcliffe’s acting really sucked, though.

Hmm… with regards to Voldemort’s nose, from my understanding, his soul, which was reduced to nothing more than mere wisps of essence, adopted a physical form that’s as human as he could muster at the time with whatever puny magic he retained, which was a fragile, infant-looking monstrosity. To regain his strength, he began feeding off of his pet snake’s “milkings”, hence the snake-like quality of his face and its flat nose’s slits for nostrils. But snake “milkings” could only maintain the life in his breath, and as his original body had died, he had to “create” a new physical form. Apparently, even in Rowling’s wizarding world, bringing the dead back to life is an impossible feat. This new form is devoid of ordianary human functions, and as such, need not have ordinary human features. That, and because he is the embodiment of pure evil. He’s actually even supposed to be “skeletal”…

Voldemort’s lack of nose is a statement against plastic surgery. Belo is evil.

to tonyrom in relation to this part of his comment:

“… I wanted to ask if you’ve read what’s available of the series of books; seems like you have, anyway. Or have you?

“A film adaptation should be able to stand alone, independent of its source, and it must be coherent even to those who have not read the book” …”

my stupid comment: wrong flow of thought. the quotation [”A film adaptation..”] does not support your assumption that she has read a single potter book. if a person stated: “A film adaptation should be able to stand alone, independent of its source, and it must be coherent even to those who have not read the book” does this mean that he/she has read whatever book that has been adapted into the silverscreens?obviously not, or… was it really obvious? what JZafra said about film standing alone, independent of its source is what should be in film adaptations so that those who have not yet encountered the source of the adaptation wouldn’t be asking too many questions, and not able to understand the whole film. it’s like a fact, the quotation. is it? i think it is. am i thinking? who knows?

my comments to witchqueen to this part of her comment will be put in brackets ([comments]):

>This movie sucks! [haven’t watched it yet, but i belive you]
>it offends and confuses those who have read the book [i disagree. if you have digested the book, you shouldn’t be confused. i’m a potter fan myself] and those who haven’t.[i agree]
>and to think the 5th harry potter book was the best i’ve read in the series![word!]
>all the best parts in the book were scrapped, merde.[ i don’t know what ‘merde’ is but about the scrapping part, it’s predictable.]
>david yates is no peter jackson.[that’s why his name is david yates and not peter jackson]
>the latter treated Lotr with reverence;while yates crapped on the 5th HP film.[whatever you say]

comment on “ Frumious Lord Schnozzless ”

just so you know, Voldemort has got no nose coz before he was transformed into his present physical form, he possessed a snake so that he would survive–voldemort needed a body to survive and snakes are the most compatible creature with him if my memory’s correct–thus carrying some features of the snake into his renewed look.

and back to witchqueen… what does blasphemy mean? har!

the eye of Sauron is not a glowing vagina! it’s blasphemy to say so!

I wanted to ask if you’ve read what’s available of the series of books; seems like you have, anyway. Or have you?

“A film adaptation should be able to stand alone, independent of its source, and it must be coherent even to those who have not read the book”

One of my thoughts; although it would’ve been better if it was staged as faithfully as it CAN with the book. I mean, they’ve produced a Fantasy, so how can some things, sometimes crucial to the grand plot, be omitted because of difficulty?

“At least with the Lord of the Rings movies, you need not have read Tolkien to know why Sauron looked like a glowing vagina.”

Very well put. Before you said it, I’ve never thought of Sauron’s Eye as a glowing vagina. Hahaha!