What's up with Harry Potter gettin' freeky deeky?!

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by decepticonLaura

 

I made a cheap shot? The only thing I mentioned was the other boy looking on and the fact that children's entertainment rides the line between adult and children's entertainment.

I asked him if he could find the scene online somewhere so I could make an accurate opinion wasn't out of line. You going through the entire storyline had nothing to do with one scene of intimacy.

apologies. i found "I haven't seen any of the movies nor read any of the books, but from what you describe, it seems ultra freaky that the scene has the other boy looking on." quite cheap a shot.
i'm not saying your heart's not in the right place and certain not saying you're out of line
[where did that come from?]
but seriously, some advice for life; try not to follow a sentence like "i don't know anything about this"
with anything beginning with "but".
i guess what i am saying is do some research before judging.
not for me or any stupid person on the internet.
but for your own good.

also did you actually read what i wrote? my going through the entire storyline was in fact an absolute barebones explanation of that single scene. believe me, i cut it down from a lot more, still only describing the same scene.

oh and one more thing
a bildungsroman IS the line between children and adult entertainment, at least symbolically. the classic 'coming of age' story.
research ;3

This movie is rated PG-13, so not for the younger children. Not because of that scene though, that scene wasn't as bad as daytime soap operas.

www.mugglenet.com...

It has this rating for "some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images."

As far as the red headed kid looking on, it wasn't voyeurism, or anything creepy like that. The entity that was showing the boy "the scene" , was trying to make him jealous and hateful of Harry, so it showed him something that would do that.
It fit with the story line.

reply to post by decepticonLaura


Thanks for the apology. I realize this is a forum and not everybody knows all there is to know about a member, but I do know a bit about what I'm talking about. Although I don't have kids of my own, I have worked as a reading teacher and tutor. I'm currently writing children's books. The last book I wrote was for the same ages as the Harry Potter audience and I would never have incorporated a scene of intimacy involving voyeurism. Just thinking about it gives me the creeps, but I would like to see the scene instead of going off of one's description.

It just seems as though more and more children's entertainment is splicing in adult themes that may be difficult for a child's mind to comprehend. You can certainly entertain the adults without making things overtly sexual. For example, in my last book, I described fruit on a magical tree in a way that would make an adult see the sexual undertones, but a kid wouldn't catch on to this at all. But, if they made my book into a movie and turned it into a gross exaggeration of what I was only implying, I'd be quite upset.

I think this is how entertainment should be done when it comes to children. Put the adult themes in between the lines instead of a glaring spotlight. And just to be fair, I think the scene the Op described with the broken wand was OK. I doubt a kid understood the sexuality within this, but an adult would snicker.

Originally posted by snowspirit
This movie is rated PG-13, so not for the younger children. Not because of that scene though, that scene wasn't as bad as daytime soap operas.

I don't get a chance to watch soap operas, not that I would anyways, but that Harry Potter scene was much more risque than any soap opera I've ever seen.

Peace

You sound like a certain crazy priest here in Poland. Get a life

reply to post by steppenwolf86



Not sure I know what you mean by your reply at all!
All I ask was the rating of the movie and I mentioned
that it should be kept away from the kids. I think
you replied to the wrong person or something.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by decepticonLaura

 

Thanks for the apology. I realize this is a forum and not everybody knows all there is to know about a member, but I do know a bit about what I'm talking about. Although I don't have kids of my own, I have worked as a reading teacher and tutor. I'm currently writing children's books. The last book I wrote was for the same ages as the Harry Potter audience and I would never have incorporated a scene of intimacy involving voyeurism. Just thinking about it gives me the creeps, but I would like to see the scene instead of going off of one's description.

It just seems as though more and more children's entertainment is splicing in adult themes that may be difficult for a child's mind to comprehend. You can certainly entertain the adults without making things overtly sexual. For example, in my last book, I described fruit on a magical tree in a way that would make an adult see the sexual undertones, but a kid wouldn't catch on to this at all. But, if they made my book into a movie and turned it into a gross exaggeration of what I was only implying, I'd be quite upset.

I think this is how entertainment should be done when it comes to children. Put the adult themes in between the lines instead of a glaring spotlight. And just to be fair, I think the scene the Op described with the broken wand was OK. I doubt a kid understood the sexuality within this, but an adult would snicker.

sorry to keep this going and all
but what age are you assuming the HP series is aimed at?
because as i mentioned before, the series is a bildungsroman
oh gosh you don't know how much i'm revelling in the chance to use that word three times in one night.
it's a coming of age story, of necessity it splices children's and adult's themes
in a lot of ways it's written for that express purpose
to help guide and grow through those difficult years.
and i mean
in the time frame of her writing and releasing the books i went from approximately 12 to 22
during that last book [which is where the scene we're talking about takes place] should i still have been being protected from the adult world? should she have written for 12 year olds the whole time, despite knowing that her first audience would be way too old by the end?
i do appreciate that children need to be protected and shielded somewhat
but we all have to grow up one day
a series that grows up with you is a remarkable boon.

reply to post by Dr Love


Uhm, i guess you didn't actually look at Hermini...

Emma Watson?!? If you were in Harrys postion... Wouldn't you?

I sure as hell would... shes frickin gorgeous!

reply to post by decepticonLaura


Considering how long ago the first Harry Potter book was published and knowing what a following the author has, I'm sure that there are older children/young adults following the story and character as it progresses. I'm hard pressed to believe that a 22 year old is suddenly interested in the story though. If they've been following it since the first book's publication, this I can believe. If I had kids or watched other people's children, I probably would've seen one of the movies by now.

Considering the ages of the actors when it first appeared on the big screen, I'm guessing that it was for 8 to 15 year olds. As the characters aged, sure the audience would, too. Knowing that the movie is rated PG-13, I would hope that none of the scenes were too sexual. It's just not necessary. I remember seeing Dirty Dancing when I was about 11, but from what everyone's describing, this scene tops any of the ones in this movie.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would be uncomfortable watching this scene with my 13 to 14 year old as it is described in the Op.
Would the movie have been just as entertaining and thought provoking without the scene in question? Probably. Could the producer have cut the eroticism down a notch? Quite possibly.

All I'm saying is that writers and producers of children's entertainment seem to be pushing the envelope further and further. Is this necessary? Do they have an agenda?

I'm really just trying to make sense of it all. That's all we can really do because I don't feel that it's going to become less sexual in the future. If anything, it's going to get a bit more so and we're going to have to be more cautious about what we feel is appropriate and not just shrug it off as a "coming of age" thing.
Kids need to mature at their own pace and I just think that Hollywood is pushing kids to grow up more quickly than they should be. Twenty years ago, a late bloomer was 17, maybe 18. It seems that now a late bloomer would be considered to be 14 or 15.
(When I say "late bloomer", I'm meaning those who are experiencing love/angst at a later age than their peers.)

reply to post by Openeye


Yeah, it wasn't in the book and I've seen the movie too and don't recall a sex scene at all.

Originally posted by crazydaisy

You sound like a certain crazy priest here in Poland. Get a life

reply to post by steppenwolf86

 

Not sure I know what you mean by your reply at all!
All I ask was the rating of the movie and I mentioned
that it should be kept away from the kids. I think
you replied to the wrong person or something.

I don't think he did reply to the wrong member.

The only part of Deathly Hallows Part 1 that I had reservations about young kids watching was the animated silhouette of a figure hanging themselves midway through, everything else though was perfectly fine.

I saw the movie in theaters and I do NOT remember this part. I am going ot have to watch it again, what part of the movie is it?

Is this the scene?



The above one looks like a pirated clip. Here's the exact scene from the movie:


I think if they were wearing clothes, the point would still have been communicated effectively with the same amount of kissing seen in the clip.

reply to post by Openeye


I watched that movie twice tonight and there was NO sex scene at all. one scene harry zipped up the back of ginnys dress right before the wedding scene and harry and ginny kissed, that was it.
But if youre saying that the highly blurred CGI scene is a sex scene, sorry but its not.

Im sorry but I saw both the deathly hallows movies and there was nothing sexually stimulating in either of them.

These movies are for teenagers and young adults, NOT children under 13.

I agree that these movies are not good for children, but thats where parental discretion comes in. If you are stupid enough to allow your 5 year old to sit through what has already been revealed as 2 hours of sorcery, occult rituals, occult symbology and lore, obvious adult themes and scenes that wouldve given the eleven year old me nightmares, then you are a douche bag.
The books however, I believe could be good for teaching children life lessons, as long as the parent is willing to explain the more complicated themes when necessary and use descretion with the darker scenes. Im trying to teach my daughter about monsters, the real and imagined, I dont sit her in front of a scooby doo cartoon and let her figure it out, I tell her stories that teach her the difference between whats real and whats imagined and how to deal with whats real. In fact the scene in the book where Harry has to deal with the monster that can turn into the persons worst nightmare, I forget its name, could be perfect for teaching her exctly what I want to convey.

Thats the real problem these days I think, we are too lazy, we would rather let hollywood tell the stories that need to be told.

In no way do I think books are getting sexed up and filled with too much violence for children to deal with. Movies and TV maybe, and again it should be the parents responsibility to not let their kid see a movie they think is inappropriate. I remember once when I was a child I wanted to watch smurfs, my mum wouldnt let me. I am glad she didnt because I just found out that there is some heavy sorcery in those cartoons and theres no way a child should veiw that kind of stuff. So Im glad my mum had some back bone and didnt give in to my every demand growing up

just one last thing;
If you think Harry potter is bad then you need to check this out
www.dbskeptic.com... iry-tales/

Originally posted by Afterthought
Is this the scene?

The above one looks like a pirated clip. Here's the exact scene from the movie:

That's it, but I think the video has been altered by some creepy dude, probably in his 50's, to show/CGI more of the young lady. The creepy dude probably goes through boxes of Kleenex at a faster rate than Chris Christie goes through the buffet line at Shoney's.

Shoney's breakfast buffet is good though.

Peace

reply to post by Rhebefree


Sorry but your mother not allowing you to see sorcery, magic and wonder in cartoons and such has really screwed you up as an adult if you consider Harry Potter anywhere near being occult and evil.

reply to post by curious7


Did I say harry potter was evil? Just because it has occult themes does not mean I think it is evil or else I wouldnt have seen the movies or read the books. You need to read my post properly.
And as for the way my mother chose to moniter what cartoons I watched growing up, well Im sorry but how is letting your child watch an angry man in a dark castle drawing a pentacle on the floor and doing dark magic for the purpose of catching and from what I understand, getting rid of, a bunch of blue people, good for a childs psyche? I experienced plenty of wonder and true magic as a child because I was fortunate not to witness the practises of dark sorcery on television. But of course all magic and the occult is good right? It should be in every cartoon eh?
Theres nothing dark and evil in harry potter right?
No of course not..... Oh wait, death eaters! Lord Voldemort and his creepy pet! Curses and spells to hurt and kill people! Dark magic rituals involving blood! And lets not forget those cuddly soul enriching dementors!
No nothing dark and evil in the harry potter franchise at all.
Either you are not paying attention or you misunderstand what I was attempting to convey. That Harry potter makes a great story, it conveys good life lessons and interesting ideas that can teach a child good things, IF discussed and made sense of with the help of an adult. However, they do not make good fodder for childrens movies because of the very nature of the occult themes depicted. For instance how do you explain to a child the scene where Harry potters blood is taken by force for a dark ritual to bring the "dark lord" back into a functional body? And why do you think there is nothing wrong with a child watching it???
You are the one that sounds screwed up not me!

reply to post by Rhebefree


Your whole response is more screwed up than I'll ever be lady.

Simple solution. Don't take your kids to a movie that obviously isn't for them until they're at a certain age to understand it all. Same for letting them read stuff.

Harry Potter is a story of good and evil. Good triumphs over evil but the good needs to be suppressed and trapped in a corner first to really give a sense of accomplishment not just for the heroes in the story but for whoever is reading/watching it too.

It's basic psychology 101 and if you don't understand that or don't understand how screwed up you really are thanks to your mother and your reckless attitude towards letting youngsters under 10 get involved then not my problem, it's yours.

Have fun reading the pop up book version of The Exorcist to your kids and explaining to them what's going on and why she's putting the cross there. From reading just two of your posts I can see your parenting skills leave a lot to be desired regarding this subject and I'm now done with this thread because I have nothing more to add.

Google search for some adult and child psychologists, I'm sure you'll be needing one soon.

The scene in question shows little to no nudity.
Shoulders and legs, thats about it.
It's not actually Harry and Hermione's characters, it's evil and it's all just to try to make Ron make a bad decision.

It's not sexual and I have seen far worse in other movies aimed at kids, i'm sure.

reply to post by Chukkles

The scene in question shows little to no nudity.

Most kids are capable, if not more capable than we think, of allowing their imaginations to fill in the blanks.
Why does the scene have to have the characters without clothes on?
He could still be in pants and no shirt and she could be in a flowing dress while still communicating the point of the whole scene.