Lost in Adaptation: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

The Dom begins his Harry Potterathon by comparing the 1997 children's fantasy novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone with its 2001 film adaptation.

Intro
The Dom: Hello, Beautiful Watchers. Do you like the new threads? (gestures to his purple dress shirt, necktie, and vest) I figured now that I'm working full-time as a guy pretending I know stuff, I should try to look the part.

Okay, first things first: this book is called Harry Potter and the *Philosopher's* Stone; it is *not* called Harry Potter and the *Sorcerer's* Stone. A philosopher's stone is an established mythical item that appears multiple times in ancient folklore and legend and has a rich, complex history and some fascinating links to real-world inspirations. A *sorcerer's* stone is something a marketing company made up because -- and I'm not kidding -- they were worried that the Americans were so stupid, they would be confused about what a philosopher is. They were, in fact, so convinced of this stupidity, they went as far as to film parts of the film TWICE so they could change the name. The part of me that still feels a connection to where I was born (shows a map with an arrow pointing to North Carolina, along with the text "Don't ask") is deeply offended by this assumption; so I'm going to be referring to this book and this movie by their correct, non-insulting title throughout this review.

Oookay, now that *that's* out of the way, WELCOME, beautiful watchers, to the Harry Potterathon.

Poll
People Asked: 72

Saw the Film: 70

Read the Book: 69

The Dom: Published in 1997, this book represents the happy ending to a heartwarming tale of a young, impoverished single mother (shows J. K. Rowling) making it big after her talent as a novelist got discovered. The film rights were snapped up by Warner Bros. a few years later -- personally, I think it would have made more sense to wait until all the books had come out before doing the films so they knew where the whole thing was going; but (chuckles) no, noooo way were they gonna put off milking *this* cash cow, no sir!

The Dom (V.O.): Right, then. A few people have misinterpreted my past jabs at these movies (shows speech bubbles discussing how The Dom hates the Harry Potter movies in the Who Framed Roger Rabbit? review) as a sign that I'm not very into Harry Potter in general. This could not be more wrong; I fucking LOVE Harry Potter, like, hyper fanboy-level love. I never went quite as far as to go to any of the midnight releases, but I sure as hell got my copy the next day.

When the film adaption was announced, I could not have been more excited, oh poor, innocent, naïve child that I was. I kid you not, I was actually having *dreams* about going to see the film before it was released; that's how much I was looking forward to it. Never before -- and as of yet, never afterwards -- have I gone into a theater feeling more optimistic for enjoying a movie, and coming out? Well, not to be *overly* dramatic, but that really was *the* moment that The Dom, the hard-to-please adaptation critic, was born.

I just want to share a pair of fun facts about the Harry Potter universe that J. K. Rowling has announced since the books were completed -- you've probably heard them before, but just in case. The first is that she officially outed Dumbledore as being homosexual. I gotta say, I have so much respect for the fact that she didn't write in a big, awkward revelation of this in the books. There's absolutely no reason why a head teacher would talk about his sexual preferences to his students, so it just never comes up. She wasn't tempted to make this what defines him as a character -- he's not "the gay wizard"; he's just a wizard that happens to be gay! Deal with it.

The second is that she's revealed that, despite it being understandable to assume that the books were either set in the same years that they were released or were intentionally kept timeless, the official Harry Potter timeline actually starts in 1991, meaning Harry would just have been finishing his last year at Hogwarts when the first book came out. Seeing as the date is never confirmed in the books themselves, I won't be bringing it up in the comparison; but just remember, if you see anything that's not '90s tech, it really shouldn't be there.

The Dom: Before I get started on the film-related rant that I think you know is coming, here's my thoughts on the book.

The Dom (V.O.): All the Harry Potters resonated with me on multiple levels. For one thing, I've never related to a lead character so much. I was almost exactly the same age as him when the books were coming out, right down to us both being born in July. We both had to wear glasses from a young age, both had wildly unmanageable hair, and neither of us seemed to fit in in normal society. Also, for some reason, J. K. Rowling's writing style seemed to bypass my dyslexia, letting me read them with little to no effort at all -- it was very relaxing.

The Philosopher's Stone is the shortest of all the Harry Potter books, and that does leave the description of the school year feeling a little bit rushed -- though it still does an amazing job of setting up the world, setting up the characters, establishing the motivations, the friendships, the hatreds. It lays down so many little hints of important plot points yet to come.

I fucking love this book to bits; I really do. I read it countless times over the years, though this was my first time doing so specifically with the intention to analyze it. If I was forced to find fault with it, I'd say that there are a *lot* of plotholes, just...so many, a lot, a *lot*, a LOOOOOT of plotholes. I don't have the time or the inclination to go into it now; but even with this universe having the ultimate "get-out clause" -- i.e. "A wizard did it." -- if you actually think about it for just a few minutes, there's just *sooo* much stuff about the story and the H.P. world in general that just does *not* hold up to scrutiny *at all*. And I don't really give a fuck; the rest of it is so good, it gets a lot of leeway with me.

Okay, well, here's my thoughts on the film -- please bear in mind I'm going to be sticking with the *theatrical* releases throughout this whole thing. The score is really good -- I...just wanted to say something positive before I started ranting. No matter my feelings on the rest of it, I have to admit the soundtrack is just superb; everything about this tune screams "magic, mystery, adventure, Harry Potter". Kudos on that one, guys; credit where credit's due. However...

The Dom: Uggggggggh, the child acting, the CHILD ACTING, it's just so bad!!

The Dom (V.O.): I know genuinely talented child actors are rare; but they exist, dammit! Why didn't they find some?! If you've been paying attention in episodes past, you'll know that most films that are adapting a book about children will try to bump the age of the characters up a few years, and then hire an even older actor to play them (shows a listing of the increasing ages of Annabeth Chase in the Lightning Thief book and film, and of her actress in the latter). This wasn't really an option with Harry Potter, as his age is dictated by his school year and they knew an older cast would start to look very suspicious by film seven. The end result is a bunch of kids *barely old enough to read* trying to memorize lines, with *limited success*.

Okay, get ready to grab your pitchforks and torches, Beautiful Watchers, because, in my opinion, the absolute weakest link in this film is...Emma Watson. (sighs) It feels so wrong criticizing someone who was my desktop wallpaper for several years (shows a picture of Emma Watson with the text "'I'll be your most Beautiful Watcher' - Emma Watson (In The Dom's mind)"); but gosh darn it, she enunciates every word she says like she's only just learnt the language -- I swear you can actually see her stopping mid-sentence to remember what she's gonna say next! If I had to pick the *least* annoying performance, I'd probably go with young Tom Felton here playing Draco Malfoy. Of course, the *downside* of this was that I found myself wishing I was seeing more of one of the characters I'm supposed to HATE just because it gave me a break from the rest of the cast.

And, yes, I know they get better; the acting gets better, and the films get better. That's always the first thing anyone says to me whenever I complain about this movie, "They get better." -- which I'm very glad to hear, but do you know what?! It doesn't make THIS film any better! Yes, Daniel Radcliffe would go on to become a halfway respectable movie star; but in this film, he's just a kid who can't *act*! Yes, Emma Watson would go on to become an inspiring feminist icon; but in this film, she's just a kid who can't *act*! Yes, Rupert Grint would go on to...uhhhhh, own an ice cream truck; but in this film, he's just a *kid* who CAN'T ACT!! The impression I get when I'm watching this film is that I've somehow been roped into going to a school play that my friend's kid is in, only I can't remember which kid is his; so I'm left watching prepubescent strangers squeak their lines and occasionally adopt surprised expressions when they *remember* they're supposed to be acting! ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!! (pause) Oh, and the CGI really fucking sucks in this film.

The Dom: Right, then. Now that I've successfully enraged fans everywhere, let's start the comparison. As usual, you have my solemn oath that this film's failings as a *film* will not impact my opinion of it as an adaptation.

What They Didn't Change
The Dom (V.O.): From the survey results, I can see that I don't need to contextualize anything here; so I'm just gonna jump straight into the details. No matter what my final judgment of this adaptation ends up being, I'm willing to go on the record now saying there *are* some parts of the book that they really nailed, things like the cartoonishly mean-spirited nature of Harry's Muggle relatives. The steadily building assault of letters isn't bad; in particular, the part where they come flying down the chimney is straight out of the book.

I think they did an excellent job of recreating the wonder Harry and the audience feel at first seeing Diagon Alley; it was presented as a sudden O.D. of magical culture after a fairly slow buildup in both the book and the film. The curious connection between Harry and Voldemort's wands -- I'm glad they remembered to include this, considering future events. If you thought that perhaps you'd caught the film out in a plothole because Hagrid disappeared, even though he'd been banned from learning magic years *before* he would have learned how to Disapparate, theeeeen you are correct; but it's a plothole that was in the book as well: Hagrid vanishes while Harry's blinking this one time in the first book, and then he never has this ability again.

The traditional across-the-lake approach to Hogwarts the first-years take in enchanted boats; the way the hat put Malfoy in Slytherin after barely touching him; Snape's monologue about how great potions are; the concept of the Mirror of Erised, how Harry found it, Ron's interactions with it, Dumbledore's explanation of it, and how it was used as part of the defenses for the Philosopher's Stone; the basic concept of the game of quidditch, including the four balls involved and the insane scoring system; the manner in which Harry's natural talent as a broomstick flyer got recognized by the school and earned him a place on the quidditch team; every adult's complete dismissal of the children's warnings of foul play -- because...well, they're three eleven-year-olds accusing a teacher they don't like of a crime; who *would* listen to them? -- the last-minute victory that Dumbledore gives Gryffindor.

The film just knocks it out of the park with its depiction of Hagrid. His look is spot-on, including not only his impressive height, but also his startling broadness and the black *mass* of his hair and beard. Maggie Smith's portrayal of Professor McGonagall was also really good, despite her possibly being a little too old for the role. They stuck to her being strict as fuck and not someone you *ever* want to mess with, but with the *occasional* moment of showing she does really care about her house, really. Overall, storyline-wise, I'd say it's condensed to high heaven, *but* -- and it pains me to say this because of my issues with the film -- it's still much, much better than your average adaptation at remaining loyal to the plot of the book.

Let's see if I can stay as fair-minded while looking at...

What They Changed
The Dom (V.O.): I think the best way to explain why this film annoys me so much is to say that it's not so much the sheer *volume* of changes as the nature of the changes they did make. "Condensed" really is the first word that springs to mind; this was achieved by either combining multiple events into one or cutting stuff out altogether -- which, obviously, I'll come back to later.

Tone-wise, I couldn't help but feel that the movie was going for a much more...goofy theme than the book. For example, they added in the exact same joke about a spell exploding and putting soot on someone's face *twice*! There's also film-only stuff like the glass reappearing and trapping Dudley in the snake tank, Hagrid mistaking Dudley for Harry, and Ron talking about Professor McGonagall 'cause he didn't realize that she was the cat in the room -- oh, the wacky comedy.

While I mentioned that the Dursleys' *behavior* was true to the book, physically, only Vernon comes close to his book counterpart. Petunia is meant to be tall and very thin with an unusually long neck, and her son? Holy shit, that kid is nowhere near fat enough to be Dudley -- in the book, that little shithead was *massive*, we're talking *morbidly* obese.

In the second book, Harry notes that Ron's family house, the Burrow, doesn't look like it's very structurally sound, but then instantly realizes that it doesn't *have* to be by Muggle standards because it's probably held up by magic. The film took this concept and really ran with it; everything in Diagon Alley has to be mismatched and misshapen with parts of the building jutting out at odd angles. This style of architecture is applied to Gringotts as well, which I think is taking it just a little too far; if the pillars were meant to be wonky in the book, I'm pretty sure J. K. Rowling would have said so.

In the book, you get to the famous Platform 9 3/4 by walking through the metal barrier between Platforms 9 and 10. Problem is, in reality, there *isn't* a metal barrier between those platforms (text appears reading "In fact, they're not even in the same building as the rest of the station."). There's a series of large brick arches that serve as support pillars for the roofs, so the film settled for having them running into one of those instead. This seems reasonable at first until you realize that this film was fine with magic spells, centaurs, ghosts, and flying broomsticks, but apparently decided an architecturally inaccurate London train station would be pushing the suspension of disbelief a little too far.

The scene where Neville is injured on his broomstick is *ridiculously* more action-packed in the film. In the book, he just floats up a ways and then falls off. In the film, they had him flying *all over* the fucking place, hitting walls and bouncing off statues. I get that they wanted to make it more exciting for the audience; but unfortunately, due to the very, *very* dated nature of the CGI used in the film, the whole thing just seems a bit...embarrassing now.

A small change that opens up a film-only plothole is that Quirrell is already wearing his purple turban when he meets Harry in the Leaky Cauldron, suggesting he's already sharing his body with Lord Voldemort at this point. In the book, this doesn't happen until *after* he failed to get the Stone before it was taken out of Gringotts. The problem I have with this is that you can clearly see that he avoids shaking hands with Harry, suggesting he knows about the protection magic, but then still seems surprised by it later. This could so *easily* have been avoided by them following the book's example and simply adding the turban *later*!

Okay, another potentially unpopular opinion incoming: I'm afraid to say I was disappointed by the film's portrayal of Albus Dumbledore. Looks-wise, I had no complaints; but it was the way he spoke and moved that really put me off. If I was given the task of describing Book Dumbledore to an outsider, I'd start by saying that he may *look* like an old wizard, but he speaks and moves like a much, much younger man in really good shape. He's always doing juvenile-looking things like jumping around, sitting on desks, or plonking himself down on the floor next to Harry. I know it would be difficult to find an actor that could meet those requirements, but I think it was a huge mistake to just settle for "old man" Dumbledore.

One of the many issues I take with the way this film was adapted were the scenes where they kept just enough of the book's dialogue to make no fucking sense. Examples of these include when Dumbledore says that he assumes that Harry has figured out what the mirror does, then goes right on to *explain* what it does without Harry's line from the book where he guesses slightly wrong; and, even more amusingly, when Firenze the centaur tells Harry that "this is where I leave you"...even though he hadn't actually *taken* him anywhere, like he did in the book.

Okay, this has got to be the biggest film-only head-scratcher: in the book, after Hagrid and Harry do their Diagon Alley stuff, Harry goes back to live with the Dursleys for a bit before heading to King's Cross; in the film, Hagrid takes him there directly. Think about this: Harry Potter's birthday is at the end of July; the Hogwarts term doesn't start until the beginning of September. WHAT the BLOODY HELL were Film Hagrid and Film Harry DOING for a whole fucking MONTH?!! Where were they living, and why? They both already had *homes* to go to; Hagrid probably had shit to do, what with him being groundskeeper and all and, oh, I don't know, HAVING THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE IN HIS POCKET!

A-ha! That rant conveniently leads me to the scene that was the final straw for me when I first saw this film -- yes, it was *this* early on. In the book, Harry, having never been to King's Cross before, didn't notice there was anything strange about the platform number until Uncle Vernon pointed it out. In the film, he takes one look at his ticket and starts yammering away: (speaking as Harry) "But, Hagrid, this says '9 3/4', but there *is* no 9 3/4...is theeere?!?" (speaking normally) I just felt if they were gonna be that blatant about it, they might as well have had Radcliffe just look right at the camera and wink at the audience.

(The Dom sighs and points, as footage of the goofily over-the-top Bloody Baron plays)

Hogwarts Student: Look, it's the Bloody Baron!

The Dom: No. No, that is *not* the Bloody Baron.

The Dom (V.O.): This is a straight-up stupid change. In the book, the Slytherin House ghost is a thing of *pure nightmares*, covered in chains and blood and *so* intimidating, even the other *ghosts* were terrified of him. The film, however, apparently thought that Tim Curry's Captain Hook was a better option. The Baron's appearance and backstory is actually semi-important in the end of the seventh book -- which, admittedly, the filmmakers wouldn't have known because it hadn't been written yet; but that's not the bloody point. You shouldn't *need* to have a reason *not* to change things!

In the book, Hermione saves Harry and Ron from the Devil's Snare by blasting magical fire at it. In the film, apparently, all they had to do was relax; and it would let them go. She only had to blast *light* at it because Ron was being too ridiculously *stupid* to listen to her and Harry. I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but this film actually managed to take *the* most plothole-ridden part of the book and make it make *even less sense*, as this change meant the Herbology teacher at Hogwarts thought that the best way to defend the Philosopher's Stone was to guard it with a plant you can bypass by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Okay, pay attention to this one, Beautiful Watchers, because this may seem like a small pair of changes, but they have consequences you may not have considered. In the book, the protection magic bestowed upon Harry by his dying mother burned Quirrell's hands whenever they made *any* physical contact. In the film, this doesn't happen when he touches Harry, only when *Harry* touches *him* -- that's the *first* change to remember. The second is that the *effect* of this magic is much more extreme in the film; instead of just searing pain and burns, like in the book, Quirrell's hands full-on disintegrate. Harry sees this, and then he intentionally grabs Quirrell's face! In the films, Harry Potter MURDERS a man in his first year! Now, once again for the cheap seats, the FILM changed it so that HARRY POTTER, AGED 11, KILLS a man! Yes, Quirrell dies in the book as well, but that's a combination of self-inflicted burns trying to attack Harry and Voldemort sapping his life energy and abandoning him because the jig was up and Dumbledore was arriving. (speaking as Hagrid) You're a cold-blooded killer, Harry.

The Dom (pointing off-screen with his thumb): Azkaban.

The Dom (V.O.): For the sake of fairness, I probably should mention that there were a few changes or embellishments that the film introduced that I actually feel *improved* things a little bit. The unique look of all the wands is a good example of this. The descriptions of the wands in the book never goes beyond the type of wood, what's in its core, and its length; so it's not unfair to assume they're all just plain-looking short sticks. The film's choice to include a variety of different shapes and features, too, is a very clever addition, in my opinion. There's also small things like the Chocolate Frogs briefly becoming animated when you open them and the gang actually TRYING to walk across the chess board before playing the game.

Right, enough grudging compliments. Let's take a gander at...

What They Left Out Altogether
The Dom (V.O.): Brace yourselves; *this* is the section where I'm gonna get *really* mad. The film starts with Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Hagrid dropping Harry off at the Dursleys'; but that's only the *end* of the first chapter of the book. The rest of it is dedicated to describing a day in the life of Vernon Dursley. It's a particularly unusual day for him because the Wizarding World is very close to giving itself away because it's celebrating the downfall of Lord Voldemort. The Dursleys' screen time is whittled down yet more because they skipped over all the *other* places they tried to hide before they went to the cabin out to sea.

While it's true that Ron was the first wizard to *befriend* Harry, it's actually Fred and George who were the first of the Weasleys to approach him and recognize him from his scar. Believe it or not, there's actually two musical numbers in the book: the Sorting Hat sings a song about himself and the nature of the different houses, and Dumbledore insists that everyone sing the Hogwarts School Song. Although the hat would go on to make other performances in later books, the School Song never featured again, suggesting either J. K. Rowling changed her mind about it or the staff at Hogwarts eventually worked up the courage to tell Dumbledore that no one *liked* the bloody thing except for him.

Harry ends up missing the last game of quidditch against Ravenclaw due to his injuries; but the film also cut out the *victorious* match against Hufflepuff that they played earlier in the year, where Snape volunteered to referee and is *extremely* unfair and douchey about it. It's later revealed that attempting to give his own house an unfair advantage was only a bonus for him on this, and he had another motive for doing so; but I'll swing back to that later.

My personal least favorite omission is all the stuff that's based around the Norbert story arc. The film condenses it all down into a *single* event: Norbert's egg is revealed; he hatches; it's discovered; and he's *gone* by the next bloody scene, apparently confiscated and sent away. In the book, most of these things took place over a matter of *weeks*; and Norbert actually grows quite big before Hagrid's willing to admit he can't keep him forever.

On top of all that, even though the film doesn't specifically mention this, in the Wizarding World, it's *highly* illegal to trade in dragon eggs or own one without proper oversight due to their extremely dangerous nature; so the kids had to figure out a way of getting rid of him without anyone knowing that Hagrid *had* him in the first place. They eventually enlist the help of Ron's older brother Charlie, who *does*, in fact, have a license to handle dragons. Charlie gets some of his friends to smuggle the dragon out of the school for them; it was on their way back from meeting *these* guys that the gang are caught outside their dormitories at night and given detention. Even if it's not illegal to own a dragon in this film's universe -- and I'm not entirely convinced that's the case -- the authorities still apparently discovered that a groundskeeper had brought a *fire-breathing monster* into a school full of *children* and took *no* disciplinary procedures against him whatsoever! They even let *him* oversee the punishment of the students who are a party to it! I call bullshit.

The Dom: Sorry, Hagrid old boy, but (points off-screen with his thumb) Azkaban!

The Dom (V.O.): The film also skipped over Harry becoming a social pariah at Hogwarts for a few months because of the 150 points McGonagall took from Gryffindor in addition to their detentions. Another disappointing absence was Peeves the poltergeist, a ghost that liked to perform mischief around the school. He took the piss out of pretty much everyone, the only exceptions being Dumbledore, who he at least showed a modicum of respect to; and the Bloody Baron, who he was shit-scared of.

The film also decides not to bother with the midnight duel. In an attempt to get Harry expelled, Malfoy goads him into accepting a challenge to a wizard's spell fight in the trophy room at midnight, then tips off Filch the caretaker that there would be students out of bed. Hermione tags along while trying to talk some sense into them; and Neville comes, too, because he got trapped outside the common room because he forgot the bloody password. Getting wise to the trap just before it's sprung, the kids leg it away from Filch; and *that's* the reason they ended up going through the forbidden door in the third floor corridor. The film tries to substitute this with the kids being caught on a staircase as it changes position and being deposited outside the door -- this might understandably leave you wondering why the FUCK they didn't just GO BACK DOWN THE SODDING STAIRCASE!! There's *no* reason for them to go through that door in the film *or* for them to feel inclined to run away from Mrs. Norris in the middle of the day!

In the novel, Hagrid is coerced into revealing who else is involved in protecting the Stone besides him and Dumbledore -- there was Professor Sprout, who provided the monster plant; Professor Flitwick, who charmed the keys; McGonagall, who transfigured the chess pieces; and Snape and Quirrell, both of whom had their contributions cut out of the film. Quirrell's was a troll, even bigger than the first one but, fortunately, already knocked out when the kids find it; and Snape's was a riddle and a bunch of potions you had to choose from. Taking these out of the film creates *major* problems. The issue of cutting out Snape's is simple enough: THE FILM BLOODY REFERENCED IT!!

Hagrid: Snape is one of the teachers *protectin'* the stone.

The Dom (V.O.): Why would you do that if you're not going to include it, you bumbling fools?

The issue of Quirrell's being left out is a little more complicated and tied into Severus Snape's absent story arc. I'm prepared to say that Snape's story in this is so slimmed down, it's pretty much left out altogether. His attempt to intimidate Quirrell has a lot more suspicious references to the Stone and its protection, making Harry assume he was trying to *force* Quirrell to reveal how to get past *his* contribution to the Stone's defense. Seeing as in the film, he *made* none, there could be no such reference; so Harry has no reason to make the connection between the Stone and Snape being a dick to Quirrell.

Another important Snape event left out is when Harry walks in on him getting medical treatment for a giant dog bite on his leg and hears him complaining about something having three heads. In the film, all he sees is some blood on Snape's leg and jumps to the conclusion that it *must* be from Fluffy biting him. All these cuts combine to make Harry's suspicion of Snape come across as more than a little convenient in the film. If you think about it, all he really had to go on there was A: He's a dick, and B: He was limping at some point. Fucking hell, Batman and Sherlock Holmes could learn from this little shit if that's all it took to make him think he'd solved the case.

Disappointingly, they skipped over the revelation at the end as to *why* Snape had been trying to keep Harry alive this whole time, even going as far as to referee a quidditch game so he could protect him from any more broom-shaking jinxes. This wasn't out of the goodness of his heart, but because Harry's father had once saved his life when they were young; and he *hated* being in the Potters' debt -- it added quite a lot of depth to the character. I know they do a better job of fleshing Snape out in later movies; but in this one, Alan Rickman's performance is the *only* thing that makes him memorable -- the *story* sure as fuck doesn't contribute anything.

They left out Hermione and Ron visiting Harry in the hospital wing at the end. More importantly, they also left out Hagrid breaking down in *tears* because he felt *so guilty* about having given away the secret of getting past Fluffy -- I guess he just didn't feel too bad about that in the film. The film also left out a bunch of hints of things yet to come that were cleverly worked into the book; Hagrid doesn't mention that the bike he was riding was lent to him by Sirius Black, and Harry doesn't ask Dumbledore why Voldemort had tried to kill him in the first place -- *ahem* prophecy *ahem*.

Ending on another of my pet peeves about this film, they left out Dumbledore explaining *why* Nicolas Flamel isn't too bothered about the concept of dying after the Philosopher's Stone was destroyed, i.e. because he was a very old, very wise man who had come to see that death was just a natural part of life and, to the well-organized mind, was simply the next big adventure. In the film, it's sort of left as...(speaking as Harry) "Doesn't that mean Flamel will die?" (speaking as Dumbledore) "Yes, yes he will." (pause, then speaking as Harry) "Wow, you really don't give a fuck, do you?" (speaking as Dumbledore) "He was a prick; I never liked him."

The Dom's Final Thoughts
The Dom: While I still maintain that this is a deeply, deeply *flawed* adaptation, I guess I'm gonna have to admit that perhaps my hatred for it over the years was uncalled for; my loathing for child acting, combined with my extreme love for the books, exacerbated my feelings towards what would otherwise have been understandable changes. If you were to put a wand to my head and demand to know an impartial assessment, I'd say that this adaptation was...above average; *but* there is *so* much room for improvement. I rather suspect the ideal compromise here is the time-honored parental cliché: (clears his throat) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I'm not angry; but I *am* disappointed.