Originally posted by Impediment
Before this threads gets too heated, we should all be clear about BFR. Battle field removal is something that I need to amend in the rules.Who can clearly define BFR and how it applies to this match?
Match: Superman Vs Wolverine
Setting: In a boxing ring in San Diego
Rules: To the death
BFR = Superman punches Logan to Quebec.
Originally posted by ares834
No it's not, at least not in the books. As it requires the user to spin in a circle as or at least neophytes like Potter have to.
Yet Fred and George are shown doing it instantly in the movies. They literally pop up behind Molly.
Apparating is shown at different speeds in the films, sometimes there is a lag, sometimes it is instant. In this fight, you can bet your ass Harry will be doing it instantly. That, or he half apparate. In the films, death eaters are shown half apparating while intangible and invisible.
Originally posted by Casper Whitey
Yet Fred and George are shown doing it instantly in the movies. They literally pop up behind Molly.Apparating is shown at different speeds in the films, sometimes there is a lag, sometimes it is instant. In this fight, you can bet your ass Harry will be doing it instantly. That, or he half apparate. In the films, death eaters are shown half apparating while intangible and invisible.
That they appeared instantly does not mean that the apparated instantly. Even if they had to hop on one foot for 5 minutes before apparating they could still appear instantly. The question is of how quickly they can disappear, as in perform apparition. In the books, it is clearly said that they need to turn around to apparate, therefore it is not instant.
Harry never performed half-apparition in the movies.
Originally posted by Nephthys
That they appeared instantly does not mean that the apparated instantly. Even if they had to hop on one foot for 5 minutes before apparating they could still [b]appear instantly. The question is of how quickly they can disappear, as in perform apparition. In the books, it is clearly said that they need to turn around to apparate, therefore it is not instant.Harry never performed half-apparition in the movies. [/B]
Do I really need to post a link?
Why would they? I am talking about in a debate like this one, mind you.
Think about it, if one were to quote a Potter feat from one of the movies, but Potter was never said to have done anything that powerful in the books, would you really say "Sorry, can't use that feat here, books>>>>>movies?"
That's stupid.
Originally posted by AuraAngelIt's a moot point. Books list powers and feats that trump what is in the Potter movies. Book Potter>>>>Movie Potter.
If the movies contradict the abilities or something like that then yes, the book takes precedent.Not that it matters. The Luke in the video is EU Luke and he lolstomps like mad.
Another question: If Potter is shown apparating in the movies, but he was never said to apparate in the books, you really expect someone arguing for Potter to accept that Potter using apparition cannot be used here?
Originally posted by ares834
No. That's not similar at all. Apparating in the books works differently than it does in the movies. Therefore, since the books have precedence, apparating works like it does in the books.
Nah, if I realize a movie feat that's more powerful than it was in the book, it stands.
You're saying that the original Potter media (books) trump the movies, yes?
That's how it goes in all the forums. The original media the character appeared in takes precedence.
However, as has been said, this is only in the case of contradictions. If they get extra powers in the movie then they get the powers. However, if they are explicitly said not to be able to do something in the book, they can't do it. Even if they could in the movie.