Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Discussion, philosophy, chat, all about the second Harry potter book!

hay sorry my thread isnt goin good aswell but i love the 2nd book theirs more action and yeh its gr8 my thread is called i have daniel radcliffes e-mail it is and people have to tell me why they want daniels email and i have toms and emmas and ruperts so im kinda lucky if i put it like that but yeh its boring on this site if pplz dont go in ya threads!

4/10 Bad plot, bad character development

This was actually my favorite HP book until I read Order of the Phoenix, now it's moved down to number two on my list but I still think it's an awesome book.

I liked this book......ahhhhhh BUT THE MOVIE...man they messed it up BIG TIME....there were SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many mistakes...just a few for example are:

1.) When Hermoine fixed Harry's glasses...in the book it was Mr. Weasley.

2.) When they asked Prof. McGonnagol about the chamber......in the book it was professor flitwick.......I THINK...IT might've been the history teacher.......

3.) THEY LEFT OUT PEEVES!!!

4.) In the book it was dumbledore who talked and gave them the lecture....in the movie it was mcconagol (after they had crashed the car into the whomping willow)

THERE ARE LOADS MORE MISTAKES TOO!!

ALSO THE MOVIE LEFT OUT A HUGE PART.....I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DID IT EITHER....but when harry used the floo powder to go to Diagon Alley he ended up down in Knockturn alley in a dark arts shop.......BUT in the book he had to hide and ended up hearing Lucious and the shopkeeper when Lucious had brought some of voldemort's dark magic stuff to the shop and he said that THERE WAS LOADS MORE IN HIS BASEMENT!!!!


AHHHHHH THAT WAS SOOOOOOOOO IMPORTANT AND THEY LEFT IT OUT!!!

I think that was just because they filmed that bit when Richard Harris was ill

hrmmm i never thought about that.......could have been a good reason.

they did film the part where harry has to hide in knockturn alley from draco and lucius BUT they cut it...its on the dvd or...the official website...or something its coool! check it out!

*something wicked this way comes!*

I thought that this movie was much better then the first one, even though it left out so many parts compared to the book.

yea.. the_ktlady is right they taped the scene and then removed it.. i say probably cause the movie was so long already..

I fou some of the mistakes.
1.Harry is happy to see dumbledore what happened to being unable to look him in the eye for feeling too guilty?
2.malfoy said . avada.... why would he kill harry in the middle of hogwarts DUH
3.The letter in hermiones hand was just laying there. why didn't they spot it beofre? theye didn't even have to struggle to get it
4. The weasly twins are great give them more lines
5.the bit at the end where every1 clapped for hagrid was soo corny ui nearly threw up.
6.Harry was saved by ron on his borthday the same day he was locked up. So much for 4 days how could they have been starving him when he was only there for a few hours
They missed out more in the 1st film tho so o well

About the second book.....now that we are on the topic lol JKR said that something small in the second book will be big in the sixth book any one got an idea???

Luna, i thought harry got locked up for his uncle's occasion? i didn't think it was his birthday??

OK book version:
Harrys birthday uncle vernon has vistitors round who he is hoping will place a large order into his firm grunnings. Dobby smashed pudding over sum ladys head and harry is locked up in his room. 4 days later ron and the weasley twins come to save him. They tell ther mum how he had been staved
Film: Same 1st bit, Harry is locked into his bedroom BUT ron comes to get him and says happy bithday meaning harry has only been their a few hours so when they tell mrs weasley about him being starved it doesn't make sense.

bumping...

bumping...

bumping...

Luna...I see. I thought you meant he got locked up ON his b-day. I know he was in there for his b-day...just locked up a few days before......

that's crummy!!!! Stupid Dursley's!

i'm a bit confused about the whole petrified thing coz they said that you can only die when you look directly at the Basilisk's eyes right? Moaning Myrtle died but she was wearing glasses. doesn't that mean that she wasn't really looking directly at the Basilisk's eyes coz of her glasses?

and what about Sir Nicholas, he died (again i guess).. how did they revive him? he couldn't have taken the mandrake stuff coz he can't really drink anything?

maybe someone can humor my questions.

bump

Is Peeves going to be in any of the movies? He's the best!

Anyway, I don't think glasses count b/c they just help you to see better. The reflection in the water and mirror were actual "reflections" and they didn't look directly at the Basilisk...but Myrtle did see it's eye, you don't get a reflection w/ glasses...

And as for Sir Nick...I wondered that myself...maybe they just poured it on him, 'cause it didn't really matter if he drank it b/c it would just run right through him....although they did have food at his Death Day party....maybe they can eat and drink, they just don't enjoy the same foods as the living...

never liked this book, thats why i'm kinnda mad we have to re-read it to find clues lol

I do think Chamber was the weakest of the books so far - its the one I've read the least amount of times.