Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85242 35212

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Entertainment > Media Centre
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


death of harry potter?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Leknaat
Evil


Member 137

Level 34.72

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2006, 04:05 AM #1 of 39
Thank you. I was wondering if anyone else noticed that little bit of "ownership." Unless, of course, she decides to sell those rights..

*snicker*

Right. Harry Potter is a cash cow for the woman--she wouldn't lose the rights.

But, since I'm not a fan of Harry Potter (I've only seen the first movie)--WAS the Philospher's Stone REALLY destroyed as mentioned it would be in the movie. Or was it hidden again? The Stone is the only way Voldemort could do any damage to Harry.

Remember--Rowling said she wrote the last chapter in 1990 or so, and what if she got the idea of how to end the series while writing the first book?

"Hey. They're searching for the Philosopher's Stone. I think I may be able to use that in the last book. Yeah....I'll let people think it's been destroyed, then turn around and bring it back in the last book."

Because here's my question:

If the stone could have been destroyed--why didn't they do it in the first place, instead of just guarding the thing?!

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Leknaat
Evil


Member 137

Level 34.72

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2006, 11:37 PM #2 of 39
Originally Posted by DarkLink2135
Leknaat - The stone gets destroyed in the first book. Chapter 17, Dumbledore says "As for the stone, it has been destroyed."
But do they SHOW it being destroyed? That's my question. Seriously. if they could have destroyed it before, why didn't they? They just hid it, and wasn't it by accident that people learned that it still existed? (Maybe it's the fact I just re-read "DaVinci Code," or perhaps I've seen this plot device used too many times.)

Quote:
There's another thing that irks me, why on earth was the US version of the book renamed to "The Sorceror's Stone"?
Because "Philosopher's Stone" sounds more like a stone detailing certain philosophical debates. And since most kids in the target age-group probably wouldn't know the story behind the "Philosopher's Stone," it was changed to "Sorcerer" since that's what Harry is.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Leknaat
Evil


Member 137

Level 34.72

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2006, 04:27 AM #3 of 39
Originally Posted by CloudNine
It was changed because it was throught that no one in the United States would understand exactly what the Philosopher's Stone was.
Yeah. No one but us dumb Video Game and Anime geeks......

Or maybe some of us who paid attention in school......

What? There are Americans who know what the Philosopher's Stone is?!

We're shocking Britain, folks......

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Reply


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Entertainment > Media Centre > death of harry potter?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.