DH Related Question

aaron

I saw this while reading Deathly Hallows, decided not to point it out, and recently stumbled upon it again while reading the Empire article. The question is:

In the Seven Potters scene, why does everybody change into Harry when he could just change into somebody else?

As I understand it, it was posed by Dan Radcliffe and David Yates, and they sat on set for a while trying to think of an answer, but never found one. Is there a legitimate reason JK Rowling did this? I understand the scene is so much cooler with 7 Harry's, but is this just a plot hole or does this have some significance?

Lastly, does anyone have a legit answer to the question? I might've just missed something.

Richard

OMFG i never noticed that!!!!!!! Ok now i need an answer for this.
R:,/

[Deleted User]

who else would have the need to FLY out of privet drive the dumbest deatheater ALIVE would know its Harry

aaron

That's irrelevant. They wouldn't know who was Harry. I mean, I guess if there were Seven Harrys it would still go the same way. Still, the non-taken option is easier on them.

Richard

Well i was thinking and what if the DE just kill them all,if they cant find hp maybe voldy would tell them to kill them all but i doubt it.......hp couldve transformed into mr weasly and i think he could have.......i have no answer
R:,(

decarus

I think it is weird that they were all able to get into the house fine, so like you said why not just turn into someone else and leave.

I also never understood why they didn't just walk to the edge of the protections and disapparate. I know they said something about not giving the Ministry an excuse to arrest Harry, but the thing is Harry used magic when the death eaters attack and they didn't arrest him. Also the Ministry couldn't get Harry once he was moved, so that doesn't seem like an issue.

This is just one of those things i think.

Richard

Yeah.....oh well.
R:,/

aaron

If you look closely, there are actually TONS of mini plot holes in the books and movies. Why did Harry never get arrested for performing "Lumos Maxima" in the POA movie? Common one. Nobody knows.

Nick

just because there are doesnt mean you should point them out

aaron

Why not? Maybe some can be answered.

decarus

Though when i read the book at the time i didn't think that this was a bad idea to change everyone into Harry. Maybe it was just the best idea they could think of at the time. Maybe the disapparation place was really far away. The Dursleys had to drive there. I almost wonder if Harry would have been safer if they had put him in the car with the Dursleys and had him disapparate with them though i guess we don't really know if they had any trouble or not.

Nick

i think only jk rowling knows the answer

decarus

I agree there are a lot of plot holes and the books and inconsistencies in the films. I think some of that has to do with the books not being finished when the films started coming out. None of them are too glaring.

With Harry using the spell. As far as the films go i think it is assumed that it is only a crime to use magic in front of a muggle and not to use it outside of school. I know Harry says to Hagrid i thought we weren't supposed to use magic outside of school, but they were talking about doing magic to Dudley so that would break the spell in front of a muggle rule.

Richard

Im gonna think about this.....till i find an answer.
R:,/

Nick

ONLY JK KNOWS THE ANSWER

decarus

The strangest to me has always been how dangerous the school is in general both in the books and in the films. Students get attacked or injured or almost die way too often and it is only in PoA when Lucius is trying to get Dumbledore out that the parents complain and that is because Lucius threatens them. I just think that doesn't quite make sense to me, but it isn't too bad.

Even the simple things like making the draft of living death. What if someone touched it and died? It just seems like an insane sort of assignment, though Slughorn did say that only one student was ever able to make an acceptable batch before Harry.

Richard

Ill get an answer....
R:,/

Pensieve Seeker

[quote=aaron]If you look closely, there are actually TONS of mini plot holes in the books and movies. Why did Harry never get arrested for performing "Lumos Maxima" in the POA movie? Common one. Nobody knows. [/quote]
I'm willing to let it slide because, imo, it works better cinematically than Harry under the covers with a flashlight writing an essay about Wendelin the Weird with his quill on a piece of parchment.

decarus

Well that isn't magic in front of a muggle, so i don't think that is illegal according to the films.

Pensieve Seeker

[quote=decarus]Even the simple things like making the draft of living death. What if someone touched it and died? It just seems like an insane sort of assignment, though Slughorn did say that only one student was ever able to make an acceptable batch before Harry. [/quote]
I thought the Draught of Living Death was actually a strong sleeping potion.

decarus

Maybe you are right. They just seem to do dangerous things at the school was my general point. In the film the leaf like dies and disappears.

dashape80

I've thought about this too Aaron, I just assumed it was a plot hole. Still, a ton of Harry's or no Harry . . . I'm sure the Death Eaters would still have tried to kill them all.

Richard

I need to know the answer!!!! Can someone ask jkr? Lol!
R:,)

decarus

It may be that there just wasn't a great way to get Harry out and this was the best idea they thought of even though it wasn't actually the best idea.

Richard

Omg i wont sleep tonight!! I keep thinking of an explanation
R:,/

Pensieve Seeker

Let's just say that Harry was polyjuiced as someone else. Who would that person be who wouldn't arouse any suspicion?

aaron

Well has anyone ever thought--perhaps when JK writes her books, at least the later ones, she knows they will be turned into movies, so she tweaks or changes things to make them fit a cinematic adaptation better? A 7 Potters is visually more enticing than Harry changing into someone else.

TheDoctor

No, I don't think she does. I think she even said she doesn't consider the movies at all while she's writing, just as it should be.

Richard

Maybe mr weasley?!?
R:,/

rabastan

because it was the final book and it was way cooler to have 7 potters and action since the begining of the book. bazzinga!

Richard

Yeah but it doesnt explain y hp didnt just transform into someone else.....
R:,/

Richard

Yeah but it doesnt explain y hp didnt just transform into someone else.....
R:,/

Nick

its a stupid question THAT HAS NO ANSWER!!!

Richard

Damn sorry for double posts guys....
R:,/

Nick

no problemo richard.....i think you and i are the only ones here

Richard

Lol yeah but pages arent loading fast enough!!! >:(
R:,(

Mamoun

I think it's not much of a plot hole but simply a silly decision by the characters of the story, the trio also makes plenty of stupid mistakes that would have prevented If they have done something else or looked for an alternative solution.

Richard

Yeah but they (order) had alot of time to think this through i mean they polyjuiced hp in the wedding so it would be obvious theyd polyjuice HIM instead of risking everyone.
R:,/

Nick

like ive said before its a redundant question with no firm answer. but it made for an awesome opening to the book and to reintroduce polyjuice potion as the trio use it frequently in DH

Mamoun

Yeah, plot hole or not, it's an awesome action scene.

Richard

Yeah it is. *sigh* i hope no one asks me this question lol!
R:,)

rabastan

well, rereading the book, it was dumbledore who set the idea of decoys

Dumbledore to Snape
'you must plant the idea of decoys - that, I think, ought to ensure Harry's safety. Try confunding Mundungus Fletcher.'

Snape to Mundungus
'You will suggest to the Order of the Phoenix, that they use decoys. Polyjuice potion. Identical Potters. It's the only thing that might work.'

The Prince's Tale, p552

Nick

bingo!!! we finally have the answer!!!! now we can lay this to rest

XWingardium_LeviosaX

Oh wow...the answer was so obvious and we didn't noticed lol. Oh well....

rabastan

and now thinking over this, it was snape not dumbledore. dumbledores said decoys, the polyjuice potion and identical potters was a snape thing lol

MicroFX

But it still doesnt answer why Harry, when that still puts him in plain sight decoy or not.

rabastan

^as you said, micofx, doesn't answer why harry. it isn't in the book.

Nick

because it isnt stated in the book there is NO ANSWER!!!

aaron

[quote=nicholasmanning]because it isnt stated in the book there is NO ANSWER!!! [/quote]
Well of course it's not in the book, there's no answer! That's why I asked! To see if somebody, anyone could give me a legitimate answer to the question! If it was in the book, why would I have asked?

[Deleted User]

teq8hywp9rhyw-09vuwe0gujeqw0agjWEPOGIHew[0gjiWRGJWRPHIJEW[HOJRWE[H0JB[0J[R0JIRW[PHIJERH


NICE GOIN U BROKE THE INTERNET

aaron

?