Goblet of Fire Teaser Trailer Released

bryan8m writes "The teaser trailer for the next installment of the Harry Potter series has hit the web. The clip begins with a bit of a flashback but quickly turns to the triwizard tournament with some amazing visuals. And there is new director (again): Mike Newell."

Comments

omg

[Anonymous Coward]

first prost

Late as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

It was on Apple's movie trailers site a week ago today.

Re:Late as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

But where would we get our pop culture fix if not for slashdot?

The Kids are aging too fast

[yincrash]

when it comes to puberty, it's got to be hard to match older kids as younger kids.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[dark404]

Yeah, by the time they get to the last movie (whenever she finishes the series) Potter's going to have a beard, three kids, and a beer belly.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[jim_v2000]

I'm not sure what you mean by matching older kids. They've used the same kids through the whole series so far.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Dieppe]

I always cringe whenever anybody says that "the kids are aging too fast" to finish the movies.

Doesn't anybody remember Dawson's Creek or Beverly Hills, 90210???

...

Never mind I see your point...

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[yincrash]

sorry, i mean the actors are aging too fast, and it's getting harder to pass them off as younger kids like their character is.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

The kids grow at the usual rate of 1 year to a year, and the movies are coming out about 1 1/2 years apart. In the first one, some of them (at least Hermione) were younger than the part they were playing. The kids in the storys are also a year older with each story, so if you consider 7 movies at 1 1/2 years each, that's 10.5 years to finish, which means when the last one is DONE, they'll be about 3.5 years older, assuming they started when they were the same age as their characters. But, again, some actors are younger than their characters, and the first two came out only 1 year apart.

There's also the difference of their age when they start filming a movie and their age when it is released, about a year and a half later. For instance, when I mentioned Hermoine's age (I remember seeing it in the "What Happened Today" column in the newspaper), she was a year or so behind her movie age at the time of release. Even if you don't take that into account, assuming the kids ages matched when they started filming, at the end, they'll be 21 playing 18 year olds. That has happened quite often in TV and film.

So, yes, the actors are aging fast, but you have to remember the characters are aging, too. It is a bit hard to get used to, since we see the characters in "snapshots" spaced a year to year and a half apart, and if you're used to watching a kid grow up, it's so gradual you don't notice it as much. In the latest movie, they should be 14, and I don't think the characters look too far off.

Teens also tend to grow much more when they're 12-16. Often you don't see quite as much of a change from 16-18, so if they look okay for the next movie, I think they'd be fine in the last 2.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

Oops. (I always expect a "preview" to be listed before a "submit" button -- it just seems the check should come before the action.)

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[cvas]

How do you figure? Daniel Radcliffe was 15 during the filming of this movie and Harry is 14 in the book, not exactly a huge gap there. At the rate they have the films scheduled for release the actor will remain within a year or two of the character for atleast the next couple movies. I know kids change a lot during puberty, but I have a hard time believing that a couple years difference between the character and the actor will be earth shattering in terms of believability. As another poster pointed out, we routinely have shows and movies with 20-somethings playing teens.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for expecting intuitive behavior from an open-source project.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[fm6]

Actually, they're using the same three child actors they've had from the beginning. they've been doing a HP movie almost once a year, and each story is supposed to be about one year at Hogwarts, so the actors are only aging a little faster than their characters. Right now they're maybe a year ahead; by the time the series ends they'll be maybe 3 years ahead of their characters. Which is nothing as things go -- there are tons of "teenagers" on TV these days who are in their late 20s! What makes these actors look "too old" is the usual adolescent growth spurts -- which even the kids' parents probably find disconcerting!

The one that has me confused is Scarlet Johansson, who's been playing grownups since before she finished high school!

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't the "kids" from 90210 like 40 when they made them?

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cause we all know the kids on 90210 and Buffy really where high school aged their first few seasons.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[nutrock69]

I always laugh when I hear this complaint about the Harry Potter movies. As someone else already pointed out, the characters are aging and the kids will only be a few years older than their characters are by the time Movie 7 comes out. There's a little thing you have to remember when watching a movie: willful suspension of disbelief. It happens all the time - while watching a movie you convince yourself that something you know to be false is believable in an effort to enjoy the experience. Personally, I think it would be much easier to believe the original actors can play 17 year-olds when they're 21 instead of getting different 17 year-old actors who might not look enough like the originals to be believable.

Visually, they can do great things to change appearance of age. Check out the actress that played Moaning Myrtle in Movie 2. I don't think the character's age has ever been said, but she has to be younger than 17, and is probably closer to 14 because she hits on Harry when he was 12/14. How many of you knew the actress was 37 when that movie came out, and will be 40 this year playing the same character in GoF?

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Michelle Gellar actually was only 17 or 18 the first season, but everyone else was way older.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[dAzED1]

yeah - I remember how STUPID it was to suggest these folks in their late 20's were in high school.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[samnice]

And Hungarian Horntails, as we all know, are black with yellow eyes. Looks to me like they are trying to pass of an older Swedish Short-Snout on us with prostetics attached to the tail. Plus, has anyone noticed anything different about Dumbledore lately? Its almost as if he's been replaced by a look-alike . . .

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[fshalor]

I'd rather predictable and stable than "intuitive". It kind of takes the element of "whose doing the intuiting" out of it, no?

Goblet is definatly a favorite of the series... Any idea when book 6 is spoosed to come out? I mean. At this rate, the'll be done with the movies about 2 years before book seven comes out.

can't wait till novembert now.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it takes more than a year and a half for each book. Which means that the films will catch up to the books and then the bottleneck will be the book releases.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

There's 2 books left, the next one comes out this summer. This means book 6 will be out before movie 5 even starts filming. Movie 5 is due in 2007, 6 is due in 2008, so even if it takes *3* years to write her next book, it'll still be done in time to do movie 7.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[CristalShandaLear]

I can't believe people are still on about the aging thing or that this post got marked Insightful. Neither the mod nor the person who actually posted could have read the books.

People who have actually read the series know that this is not true, has never been true and especially if you use Beverly Hills 90210 as a yardstick, then you know it will never be true.

The HP kids age in the stories with each installment of the series and their counterpart actors are growing nicely into their characters. They do not look "too old" unless you're going by usual Hollywood standard of using a child of 10 to portray a child of 12 and using "snappy" dialogue to give the "wise beyond years" effect.

Clever marketing and using younger actors may be a neat trick to fool unwise parents into thinking that the movie is meant for their little one and buying a ticket (a la Kangaroo Jack which pissed off many parents) but if you've ever seen a child carried out of a movie screaming or crying you'd know that it's an awfully cruel one.

Recently George Lucas publicly stated that he is dismayed that the "marketing machine" insists on marketing Episode Three toys and merchandise to a target audience of five and six year olds. He also stated that taking anyone under the age of 12 to see Episode Three is a big mistake.

True Potter fans have been saying the same thing about HP since Movie the first. WB insists on marketing these stories to the preschool and elementary set when in reality the stories are very dark and anyone taking a small child to see Goblet of Fire is going to get their feelings hurt and have to take a terrified child home; especially since all the gory bits don't happen until near the end.

The actors are the right age. The children attending are not.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheoMurpse]

Book six (Half-Blood Prince) comes out July 16 of this year. Readers have been able to pre-order the book since around January, if I recall correctly.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TiggsPanther]

Visually, they can do great things to change appearance of age. Check out the actress that played Moaning Myrtle in Movie 2. I don't think the character's age has ever been said, but she has to be younger than 17, and is probably closer to 14 because she hits on Harry when he was 12/14. How many of you knew the actress was 37 when that movie came out, and will be 40 this year playing the same character in GoF?

ISTR that she dies in her third year, so she'd have been 13 or 14 at the time. I could, however, tell that the actress was significantly older than a teenager. I didn't know how much older untill just now, but it was obvious that she was an adult playing a kid. Well, maybe only obvious to those who either work with kids or have kids of their own. But she didn't look the right age.

The main characters, however, will probably be fine should they stay on for the entire series. The age difference won't be so pronounced, meaning that the makeup department will probably be able to do a convincing enough job. Plus, as you mentioned, using the same actor with a year or two's age discrepancy will probably look less odd than having a whole new actor try to take over a role.
Besides, around that age kids really can seem to age that fast. And some don't. I've known kids who look three years older than they are, and on the other hand I know I still looked late-teens until I was about 22.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[hazem]

How many people in "real-life" actually act their age well enough to pass off as their actual age?

On a daily basis, I engage in a stupendous effort of suspension of disbelief just to get by. I can handle a few kid actors who are a couple years older than the part they're playing.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't work with kids or anything, and just got out of college. But I thought moaning myrtle was *horribly* cast. It was very obvious the actress was not a kid, the voice was bad, it was just an all-around badly done part. Very dissapointing.

Goblet of Fire?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's for little kids. WTF?

Um

[jim_v2000]

Actually, the trailer "hit the web" about a week or so ago.

Bit of a stretch don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry Potter is not exactly news or entertainment for nerds

Re:Bit of a stretch don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why this was posted on slashdot as well. Are we a childrens literature journal now?

Re:Bit of a stretch don't you think?

[KillerDeathRobot]

Nerds don't like fantasy books and movies all of a sudden?

Re:Bit of a stretch don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's the faggot wizardry that everyone hates.

This'll be big

[Gabrill]

Almost as big as Star W. . . .Ahh!!!! Get away you freeks!

I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Darth23]

.. and I can barely remember any of them.

Maybe I should break down and start reading the books instead.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Shea_Butter]

Harry Potter and the Kafkaeque Prison of Self?

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

The books are much better. They are not solely for kids.
I bought the books last summer and read all 5 of them in a matter of days (spread out over a few weekends). Since them I have reread them and I am most certainly looking forward to the next one in ~62 days.
Give them a change, most likely you wouldn't be disappointed.
They are funny, well written and at the end of each book, you hit yourself over the head, because you didn't see it coming. One really can't stop reading them. Rowling even makes a joke in one of her books about a magical book that you can never put down. Well, her books are certainly magical.
They are also kind of a mystery spread out over 7 books. Only two left to go.
But if you can't take the suspense, perhaps you should wait untill book 7 is out in a few years.
What is also surprisingly is that the writing style ages with the characters. While book one is more targeted at 11 year olds, the 5th one is more for young adolescentes. But any age can and does enjoy them.

A decent fansite is: www.mugglenet.com
The editorials are usually good.

Before I read them I just discarded them as over hyped kids books. I was proven wrong, lucky me.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[calvincopter]

Read it nyub :D

the book is like 10 times exiciting than the movies because there's more details.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Mashiki]

Agreed, this is one of the few series that I've quite enjoyed my younger sister lent me her set to read. By far better then the movies. The movies are well, trash, total complete ... trash compared to the books.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

Well, some of the books are 500+ pages long. Quite difficult to translate that into a movie. Although Jackson did it so good, I like the LOTR movies over the books.
Also, keep in mind that it are just kids acting. You can't expect an 12 year old to be as good as, say, Morgan Freeman.
As they grow older, their acting does seem to improve, save for the boy playing Ron.
The movies are good for young kids, but the books are for all ages.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[roystgnr]

The books are much better. They are not solely for kids.

Big Harry Potter fan?

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them a change

"chance".

What is also surprisingly is that

"surprising".

I just discarded them as over hyped kids books

"over-hyped", "kid's" or "kids'".

Also, your post contained some typos ("untill", "adolescentes", etc.). "Preview" (not to mention a spel chekcer) is your friend.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Dixie_Flatline]

Where'd you get the fifth book? It's not due for release for about a month yet.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I have read the books and I also have the audio version of the book. Jim Dale(The reader) has done wonderful job. I guess he got an award for his reading style.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the present. The sixth book is due in ~62 days

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[tylernt]

"They are not solely for kids."

Unfortunately, I have read one of the books. There are a few things in HP that adults can appreciate, but the oversimplified plot and cardboard characters held pretty much zero interest for me (as an adult). I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy. I base this suspicion on the fact that most of the adults that I know who have read the HP books, previously never read any books at all. It's good thing to encourage more adults to read, I suppose, but there are so many other books out there that are so much better.

If you want a real fantasy series, check out Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series or Roger Zelazny's 'Amber' series. And if you want a fantasy series so adult it's depressing (but riveting nonetheless), you can also try George RR Martin's 'Song of Fire and Ice' series. JK Rowlings can't hold a magical candle to any of these authors.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Dixie_Flatline]

Argh, you're right. I forgot all about the 5th book. It wasn't as memorable as the first 4. :P

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Lord Apathy]

I hated the very ideal of the Harry Potter books since the came out, until I read one. Four of the books where out when I read the first one. From there I was hooked. I read all four in a matter of days then the 5th one came out a couple weeks later. I innhaled it in a two days. Then I picked up the first one and read them all again.

I'm hard core SF and Fantisy. Stuff that makes most peoples head hurt. JK Rowlings is an icredible writer. If she can write a book that kids will read and I can't put down that says something.

By the way I seem to be the only one who hopes Voldy wins in the end....

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Destoo]

1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
* Story time: 1991-1992
* Release: June 26, 1997
* Note: Both the book and the film were retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S., with similar alterations to the text
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
* Story time: 1992-1993
* Release: 1998
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
* Story time: 1993-1994
* Release: September 8, 1999
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
* Story time: 1994-1995
* Release: July 8, 2000
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
* Story time: 1995-1996
* Release: June 21, 2003.
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
* Story time: 1996-1997
* Release: July 16, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_potter

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[bheer]

Although Jackson did it so good, I like the LOTR movies over the books.

Bing! And now to prepare you for the Tolkien Geek Attack that is to inevitably follow:

You monster you, Peter Jackson was spawned by Satan, he left out Glorifindel and made that ho Arwen flood the ford. Gimli was treated like a fucking comic character instead of the great dwarve he was. And NO TOM BOMBADIL, WTF!!! And made Galadriel look like a schlok B-movie horror queen in FoTR. And since when do trolls fight in the daylight, hasn't he even _read_ the Hobbit? and the SCOURING OF THE SHIRE-- leaving that out CHANGES the story completely! Waa!

There, now that I've covered all the points, maybe the real Tolkien purists will be gentle ;-)

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[-kertrats-]

Comparing the Wheel of Time series to the Amber series is kind of...completely wrong. Having read both, Amber is on a plane far above WOT in almost every category.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[nb caffeine]

obivously, everyone likes happy endings, but having voldemort get away or kill harry in the end would be a twist (almost) nobody would expect... I kinda like it :)

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because your tastes are absolute and you are the arbiter of what makes quality fantasy. Thank goodness you're here to tell us all what to think! I don't know what I would have done without your humble guidance.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Dh2000]

I'm sorry, but the "Wheel of Time" series is horrible. I think JK Rowlings is a mediocre writer... but Robert Jordan can't write a good book to save his life.

Length != Quality

And length is the only thing that the Wheel of Time series has in abundance. Well, that and far too much description of whatever clothing the character he's focusing on is wearing today.

Enough of this, I'm hardly the only one who hates his books.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[swillden]

I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy.

Your supposition is wrong, in many cases. Don't get too hoity toity over it, because there are plenty of fans of serious fantasy that enjoy the HP books. The books didn't outsell Tolkien by selling only to kids -- it's the fact that they're enjoyable to such a broad audience that has made them so successfull (well, that plus plenty of media attention).

If you want a real fantasy series, check out Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series or Roger Zelazny's 'Amber' series.

I concur with Zelazny's Amber, and highly recommend most everything he's written. You can keep your Jordan, though... he starts out good but gets rather tiresome. Similarly, I would have highly recommended Terry Goodkind's Wizard's Rule series but the later installments have become insufferably preachy (even if I largely agree with what he's preaching).

Some other good ones to look into are some of the oldies, including, obviously, Tolkien, Terry Brooks' Shanarra series, Stephen R Donaldson's works, including the Thomas Covenant series and the "Mirror of Her Dreams" books. David Drake's "Lord of the Isles" books are also a very good read. There is obviously a lot of excellent fantasy out there. I'm really just listing what's on the corner of my bookshelf that I can see from where I'm sitting.

And if you want a fantasy series so adult it's depressing (but riveting nonetheless), you can also try George RR Martin's 'Song of Fire and Ice' series.

IMO, Martin's books are the most amazing contribution to fantasy since Tolkien (and they're better than Tolkien's groundbreaking but uneven work).

Part of what makes them so amazing (and depressing) is that he spends most of the first two volumes breaking a cardinal rule of popular fiction: the hero won't die. He sets up one major character after another, delves deeply into their character, allows them to grow through hardships and then, often without the slightest warning, kills them. He doesn't use any sleight of hand to bring them back, either. They're just stone dead and the story moves on without them (though the effects of their lives ripple outward).

The net effect is that the reader has to give up the comforting sense that his or her favorite characters are safe, that they'll somehow win out because that's how books are written. But Martin will kill *anyone*. The result is a huge increase in tension and suspense, which greatly strengthens the power of the story.

I just hope Martin doesn't die before he finishes this amazing masterwork.

JK Rowlings can't hold a magical candle to any of these authors.

Of course not. But that's not to say that the adventures of Harry, Hermione and Ron aren't a worthwhile way to pass the time while waiting for the next installment of "A Song of Fire and Ice".

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[LocoMan]

I have to say I love them too (started reading them when my mom, that's a teacher, got the first one from one of her students and I borrowed it), and since then I have read and loved all of them. One thing, though, if I hadn't read the books, I doubt I would have liked the movies to begin with. There's too much backstory and character that's missing in the movies, but that I kinda fill in the blanks from the books.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[STrinity]

I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy.

Well, it's not like she's won any major SF awards or anything, so I guess not.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I hadn't noticed the trolls fighting during the day. I'm afraid my tolkienity rating has dropped.
I don't understand how can anyone like the movie over the book, the movie is /bad/ if you haven't read the book (just ask anyone who saw the movie, but didn't read the book).

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

For such a smartass, you seem to have missed the fact that the author of that post is not a native english speaker (my bet is he's a native spanish speaker).

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Jim Dale is shit. Stephen Fry, who also reads the books, is however awesome. If you have the choice listen to Fry.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[h4rm0ny]

* Note: Both the book and the film were retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S., with similar alterations to the text

Do any of you guys over there feel patronized by that? It reminds me of the story (I hope apocryphal) that George III was renamed to The Madness of King George because it was thought Americans wouldn't go and see it without having seen George I & II.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[hostyle]

IMO, Martin's books are the most amazing contribution to fantasy since Tolkien (and they're better than Tolkien's groundbreaking but uneven work).

Close, but IMO you're out by one. Steven Eriksons 'Tales of the Malazan Books of the Fallen' are above even Martins genius. If you haven't tried them out, do so immediately. First book can be difficult at times, but after that its all completely mesmerizing.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[ColMustard]

What an interesting phenomenon. Everyone I know who has "fallen into" the series like you have (including myself) has always been urged to read the entire series again almost immediately. Fascinating.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

He was just giving a dissenting view, Mr. Coward. Funny how folks like you never complain when someone says something positive...

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's not like she's won any major SF awards or anything

Oh, like that means anything. One of the worst books I ever read was by a Hugo winner. It was horrible. I'd read fanfics with better prose. I kept repeating to myself "he won a Hugo, he won a Hugo", trying to get through the book. I did, but I choked a chapter into the second volume.

(If anyone cares, it was that Star Wars novel trilogy, "Dark Force Rising" or something like that.)

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[bheer]

Damn, I hadn't noticed the trolls fighting during the day. I'm afraid my tolkienity rating has dropped.

Actually your 'tolkienity' rating would have dropped _if_ you complained about the trolls who fought in the daytime :-) ... Jackson was right there, see the appendices to ROTK (the book).

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Xurbax]

I think much of the material mentioned, particularly Erikson's work is fantastic... and I still love the HP series and am eagerly awaiting the next book. Just because HP isn't quite on the same literary level, doesn't mean it isn't a very good story.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Knara]

Yeah unfortunately to read WoT you have to have some measure of incredible patience, on multiple levels.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[swillden]

Close, but IMO you're out by one. Steven Eriksons 'Tales of the Malazan Books of the Fallen' are above even Martins genius. If you haven't tried them out, do so immediately.

Rest assured that I shall! It's possible that I'll disagree with you but if it's even remotely close to being in the same league, I definitely want to read it. And if it turns out that I agree with you then, well, I absolutely must read it.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[MemoryDragon]

I highly recommend all the works of LeGuin especially the EarthSea series. (which got a really foul treatment by the SciFi channel recently)

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[hairykrishna]

I found the books much the same I have to say. They're ok but I found it hard to see what everyone was raving about.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[UserGoogol]

Depends on which book you read. Sorcerer's Stone is way more childish than Goblet of Fire is. The books tend to mature along with the characters.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you that has a horrible grammar which needs to read more.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[MutantHamster]

And since when do trolls fight in the daylight, hasn't he even _read_ the Hobbit?

HAHAHAHA! I shall now 1-up your Tolkien Nerdity by mocking you for not knowing that there are three distinct strains of Trolls in Middle Earth, and only one variety is succeptible to petrification by sunlight. PWND PWND PWND OMG.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[canadian_right]

If you like Harry Potter you should try Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy: The Golden Compass (also published as Northern Lights), The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. The first two are excellent, and the third is quite good. I would say the writing is more literate, and for adults there is an obvious religious allegory within the text. Kids will just enjoy the characters and adventure.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I read them I just discarded them as over hyped kids books. I was proven wrong, lucky me.

From reading the other comments I'm clearly in the minority, but when my girlfriend encouraged me to read the first book last year I got the distinct impression that these books were indeed written for children.

No offense intended, but I'm baffled that any adult that read books with any frquency whatsoever would find Harry Potter entertaining.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

i am not really into Fantasy.
Reading Tolkien was a quest I would not have completed if I didn't know the movies were coming.
Science fiction is more my thing. I discovered Philip K. Dick last summer also and I just finished "Time's eye" by Clark a few days ago.
Also don't presume that because an adult can like HP that said adult hardly ever reads. Taste is personal and there are many styles and authors to choose from.
Some people just read books for entertaining, others swear by literary minds and Nobel prize winners. Me, I stay with the entertainment. If I want something to think about, I'll just read a non-fiction book.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Mashiki]

Really when I watch movies from 50 years ago with child actors, I can see a real class to the kids. They were good at acting, and playing their parts. Perhaps the kids just need some lessons on acting? Who can say.

You are quite right that Jackson did a good job on the LoTR translation, it was well done, missing some but well done. The hatchet job on Prisoner of Azkaban however drove me nuts.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[LocoMan]

Trying to but not so easy when you've spent 29 years speaking spanish and less than a third of that learning english (specially considering the lack of availability of english written books here in Venezuela).. ;)

obquote

[Psionicist]

http://bash.org/?111338

How long...

[blueadept1]

How long are they going to make these things for? That woman keeps writing books, and Hollywood keeps churning out movies. I know it sounds crazy, but it's like some sort of factory.

They need to get on some new fantasy series like something by Piers Anthony.

Re:How long...

[petermgreen]

iirc the plan is for there to be 7 books covering the 7 years of harrys educations.

Re:How long...

[-Harlequin-]

How long are they going to make these things for?

If I was in her shoes, I'd keep doing it for as long as it took for my paychecks to drop down to 5 figures, then I'd retire. After buying an island to retire on. :)

Re:How long...

[PaulCamelHump]

I think she could buy a little island called England.

direct link

[slashjames]

http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_480.mov

Re:direct link

[Seft]

Actually, the direct link is: http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_m480.mov

Re:direct link

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Acutally, the first one works fine as well.

Re:direct link

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the first one only gives a small file to the link for the m480 file. People who want to download the actual video needs the m480, not just 480.

Anyway, those who want full screen:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_ifs.mov

Re:direct link

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it doesn't. It's actually 262 bytes long...

Re:direct link

[fm6]

Thank you! I was afraid I'd have to download almost 50K of extraneous graphics and HTML!

What would be helpful would be a link to the full-screen version that didn't require iTunes to play. Apple has gotten as bad as Microsoft and Real Networks when it comes to trying to take over your multimedia.

Re:direct link

[WiKKeSH]

Apple has gotten as bad as Microsoft and Real Networks when it comes to trying to take over your multimedia.

Oh? My quicktime files play in iTunes and my mpeg, xvid, & wmv files play in media player classic. If I chose so, my quicktime files could play in mpc just as well (I did this prior to iTunes accepting video files). I've had experiences with WMP trying to steal file associations (I use it when i need to make a video playlist) but never with iTunes (and in WMP its easily fixed). iTunes has never hijacked file formats for me.

FUD? Certainly!

Re:direct link

[fm6]

As usual "FUD" is a handy excuse for your own ignorance. iTunes does indeed hijack associations, just not the ones you happen to use. Obviously it can't hijack wmv files, since it doesn't know how to play them.

Re:direct link

[siegesama]

Th parent link is just a stub that references the real movie file. Here's the link you'll actually want for a direct download of the movie:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_m480.mov

Re:direct link

[WiKKeSH]

and switching to winamp... hmmm...
itunes stole my file associations back without asking! oh wait.. no it didnt...

I use winamp just as often to stream music to work, and ive never run into any of the issues you suggest.

filerush torrent...

[i88i]

here tis

the reason

[antimatt]

that there's been a new director for every film so far is that J.K. Rowling is so difficult to work with. She doesn't want to give away what will happen in future books (for example, which major characters will die), so it's much more difficult for the directors to do some intelligent story/character development.

Re:the reason

[Pete]

Source?

For, well, either of those (a) baseless, and (b) totally illogical assertions? :-)

Re:the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The first two were both directed by Chris Columbus.

Re:the reason

[bjprice]

there's been a new director for every film so far

Not true.

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were both directed by Chris Columbus (this one, not that one).

Re:the reason

[antimatt]

whoops, oversight. Chris Columbus directed both the first two films. -matt.

Re:the reason

[fireboy1919]

Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.

What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?

And for that matter, why have the characters in what is essentially an old English boarding school wearing modern and eventually dated clothing rather than uniforms?

Re:the reason

[Detritus]

She's doing something right. The quality of the films has been reasonably consistent, unlike George Lucas, who will be lucky if he scores 3 out of 6 on Star Wars.

Re:the reason

[Blackeagle_Falcon]

What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?

They didn't exactly "get rid" of Chris Columbus. He chose not to direct the Prisoner of Azkaban in order to spend more time with his family (he was still an executive producer though). According to the IMDB, he wanted to come back and direct the fourth film, but Warner Brothers chose Mike Newell instead.

Re:the reason

[TrevorB]

Actually I'd argue that the third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuarón was vastly superior to the previous two, which came across as long and a bit dry.

When asked to do the fourth movie, Alfonso said no, we wanted to spend the time to get the third one right in post-production. The result? An excellent 3rd movie, but I'm worried that the 4th won't be anywhere near as good.

Re:the reason

[fm6]

Nonsense. Chris Columbus, who directed the first two films, is still Executive Producer of the series. Directing a film is hard work, and it's not unusual for somebody to launch a series, then delegate that job in later films.

There are lots of silly rumors about J.K. Rowling. The only conflict that has any real basis in fact is that she's not producing more Harry Potter as quickly as the publisher would like. One reason for this is the novels are getting progressively more bloated. Which I personally find a pain, but which most fantasy fans seem to love.

The big problem with the HP movies was not that the movie people didn't get along with Rowling, but that they got along all too well. So the first two movies were very literal adaptations of the first two books. Not a good way to make a movie, because you end up with a shortened version of the book that doesn't take advantage of cinematic story telling. Which is why I enjoyed the first two books, but found the first two movies utterly boring.

Re:the reason

[zebs]

Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.

Which movies did you watch? The scenery, sets, characters, and acting have got progressively better with each film.

Re:the reason

[tonydiesel]

Meh, not quite. The same directory did the first two films, and I think he was asked to stop because the films weren't quite living up to the source material.

The third one was a new director, and given that it was waaay better than the first two, I think they wanted to have him do the fourth BUT post-production on the third overlapped with pre-production on the fourth (maybe even filming) so it was impossible.

Re:the reason

[Hrodvitnir]

The movies are far enough behind the books that, even if Rowling was holding back plot elements, the directors should have more than enough information to make their film.

That comment is a blatantly obvious troll.

Re:the reason

[Hrodvitnir]

he was still an executive producer though

Which means absolutely nothing. Most "producers" are getting paid because they're friends with the movie makers. He's most likely listed as a producer on the third movie because of his affiliation with the series.

Re:the reason

[curlyjunglejake]

I'd have to agree. The third one, like the book, takes a sudden delightfully unsettling turn for the macabre. Flirting betweent eh characters, twisted evil... it's much more fun for an adult audience to relate to. They have all been really excellent renditions, but I feel like they are getting better.

Re:the reason

[TychoCelchuuu]

Wouldn't it spoil it if she told the director who would die? I mean, we're not supposed to know, and the characters sure as heck don't know, so why would it be foreshadowed?

Re:the reason

[deanj]

I would have to disagree about the third movie being superior. If you read the books, the story made sense because you could fill in the blanks. Otherwise, all you would see is a disjointed series of events. "Harry does this" "Now he does this". The narrative was nearly non-existant, and made the movie a big disappointment, even for fans.

Re:the reason

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Erm, no. Chris Columbus directed the first two films, and is still on board as executive producer. Alfonso Cuaron (who directed the third) was never intended to direct the fourth, although he has stated he'd like to come back later and do at least one more. Neither Columbus, Cuaron, or Newell have ever hinted at being displeased with Rowling's involvement.

Re:the reason

[henni16]

I have to agree with you; I think the third movie was worse than the others.
IIRC there were some big plot holes for people who didn't know the story;
the Marauders Map (looking very nice) was put very much into the foreground, but it lacked some explaining - for example who created it:
Lupin knew what it was, but there was no explaination why he - but not Snape - did know how to use it
(no explaination of the creators' nicknames and that Lupin was one of them).
That could have been nicely integrated with a remark of Harry's father being and Animagus and the shape of Harry's patronus.
Another thing (again IIRC) was that there was no explaination how Sirius knew about PettiDon'tKnowTheSpelling and why he was at Hogwarths
- which was the reason for him trying to escape from Ascaban

These might sound like nitpicks (and I might remember them wrong, only saw the movie once last year) but if you don't know the books they are examples of things that create some basic WTF?-feeling.
Also I didn't like the atmosphere. The castle and its surroundings might be a matter of taste,
but I sure didn't like that the students ran around in Jeans and Sneakers instead of their robes most of the time.

Re:the reason

[Nogami_Saeko]

I agree - the movies are getting darker and more interesting. The 3rd movie was the best by far, and the next looks (although it's hard to tell from a teaser trailer) even darker and better.

They're realizing that the kids (both in the movie, and their fans) are growing up, and can handle a darker movie.

N.

Re:the reason

[Nogami_Saeko]

but I sure didn't like that the students ran around in Jeans and Sneakers instead of their robes most of the time.

Actually, this was one of the things that I thought was a brilliant idea. It really helped to show that they really ARE kids, and helped decrease the "fake fantasy" feeling that tends to permeate the other two movies.

The third movie felt "real" (for lack of a better word). Ordinary kids thrown into extraordinary circumstances.

N.

Re:the reason

[Forthan Red]

Not quite right.

Steven Kloves has written the screenplay for all 4 movies. He's the one, not the director, who has to pry the secrets from JKR.

Re:the reason

[leenoble_uk]

I've been dragged along to see all three films so far and I'd say the third was in a different league to the other two but each film has improved on the previous.

I just wish someone would go back and re-render all the CGI in the first film. Parts of that (particularly the Quidditch (sp?) scenes) looked no better than a console game. They really were appallingly rushed and are a stain on what would otherwise be a nice little DVD boxset in the future.

Re:the reason

[fireboy1919]

Read the books. This is a natural side effect on basing it on the books.

The books get darker each book, so the movies should get darker too.

On the other hand, the last movie wasn't actually as good. It told a very small portion of the story the book did, and the things it focused on weren't nearly as interesting as some of the things it left in there.

Like, for instance, they didn't even mention some (IMHO) crutial plot things - SPOILER OF BOOK WARNING-:

1) all the new adults in the third movie went to Hogwarts together and were really good friends - and all really good friends with James Potter, Harry's dad. This group also made Harry's map.
2) Because of this friendship, all of them became animagi (people who could transform into animals) in sympathy for Lupis, who was naturally a lycanthrope.
3) including Harry's dad, who could turn into a stag.
4) Harry's patronus is a stag. He takes after his dad a lot it seems.

A big theme - probably the biggest that seems to run through the book is how heredity and your past affects it's future and the choices you make.

They missed it in this last movie.

Re:the reason

[Xurbax]

I agree - to me the third movie felt like a series of vignettes from the book. Taken as such, I did enjoy it, but I had read the book twice before seeing the movie... I really fear what they are going to do to the fourth movie. I wish they'd break it into two full-length parts, but I doubt it will happen.

Re:the reason

[MemoryDragon]

Actually the first two were pretty awful, the third one done by the mexican guy was excellent.... (no wonder this guy did Y tu mama tambien as well, and the first two were done by a disney guy)

Re:the reason

[henni16]

The third movie felt "real" (for lack of a better word). Ordinary kids thrown into extraordinary circumstances.
Yes, and that's exactly what I didn't like about it :-)
I somehow got the perception that the Wizard- and the Muggle world were very separated and that most of the kids tended to live more in the Wizard world.
The kids spent most of their time there, you only hear them think about wizard careers and all those (especially "pure blood") wizards who don't know anything about the muggle world:
think of the Weasleys who don't know how to dress like muggles or how their world works, the "Muggle Studies" class or that department at the ministry,
Harry seeming to be the only one who didn't know what Quidditch was but the football fan being perceived as odd by the others and so on.

I think it's just a weakness of the books - the whole relation between the wizard and muggle world;
being not the focus of the books, it feels formed as needed for a plot twist or some comical sidestories (culture clashes).

I think we simply got different impression from the books.
Maybe I still suffer from the plot of the fifth book were I always thought that the whole somewhat totalitarian social/political structure of the wizard world was very stupid and unlikely (it really pissed me off)
- especially if you think that lots of the kids/people are more "normal" and are in more or less close contact with relatives and friends in the real world and got some first hand experience of basic democratic principles or even went to school there before going to Hogwarths.

So in a kind of keeping-the-fun-self-defense I chose to view the two worlds as very much separated and all the kids primarily as living in the wizard world
- hence I prefer the robes, not jeans ;-))

Re:the reason

[AaronLawrence]

It seems that people who are not fans or haven't read the books, liked the third movie more. That includes me. To me, it was simply a better movie; it made more sense, obviously because the director chose to focus on certain parts of the story. Whereas the first two movies seemed to rely on shocking deus ex machina moments to resolve the stories and had no tension.

Fans simply can't help noticing all the bits that were left out. This is nothing new.

Emma Watson

[Turn-X Alphonse]

But we all know the over 12s only goto see Emma Watson in hope of a pantie shot. It's like going to see the new Star wars films just to see Padame...

Re:Emma Watson

[yincrash]

she's 15. if anyone over 17 goes looking for that, they might have a problem.

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

Bah, she'll be legal in the UK next year :).

Re:Emma Watson

[-Harlequin-]

she's 15. if anyone over 17 goes looking for that, they might have a problem.

I really want to put a link to the Jason Killingsworth Hermione Countdown here, but the domain is gone. Too much hatemail I guess.

Re:Emma Watson

[dadragon]

She's already legal in Canada :)

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

OK you sickos.

She's underage. You're going well over the line in making remarks about panty shots.

If you don't respect the fact that she's jailbait, at least respect the fact that she's a human being. I remember reading somewhere she actually was quite shy about a scene in which she was supposed to HUG one of her fellow actors. I can't imagine how I would feel being in a film knowing that pimply, greasy nerds and other creepy people were trying to picture my genitalia.

So in short, grow up and get a life. As for the guy with the "coming of age" clock - anyone who produced something like that about my daughter gets his CPU reprogrammed with a softball bat and rightly so. Get it? Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner, I would accord the same respect to Emma Watson and to her father as I would expect shown to me and my own kids.

When did we as a society decide this kind of sick crap was OK? Fatty Arbuckle's career was ruined by the suggestion he was a diddler. R. Kelly, of whom we have VIDEO EVIDENCE he's a child molestor and kiddie rapist, is top of the charts. Go figure.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I'm sorry to hear that.

Maybe you should consider changing that state of affairs.

Re:Emma Watson

[-Harlequin-]

I really want to put a link to the Jason Killingsworth Hermione Countdown here, but the domain is gone.

Here is a link to it in the web archive. Their server seems to be having difficulty at the moment. It may not load properly.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

> She's underage.

She is a fully physically mature woman.

> Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner

Oh, nice strawman. Sure, she's a 'little girl'. Sure.

What I hear from you is "baa baa, 17 years 364 days = little innocent kid, 18 years = full grown responsible adult woman, baa". to which I submit that you're just proving you can't think for yourself or independently of what society tries to tell you. Plus, you obviously don't recall high school, or you just never got laid during it.

Re:Emma Watson

[Raul654]

I can't tell you when it started, but I can say that it was already going in the 50's

Re:Emma Watson

[kristopher]

Sorry, all I got out of that was; Blah Blah Blah.. Panty Shots.. Blah Blah Blah Blah.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should consider changing that state of affairs.

Why? Because a bunch of prudes from south of the border tell us to?

Re:Emma Watson

[-Harlequin-]

If you actually take a look at the guy with the "coming of age" clock, you should notice pretty quickly that he actually seems to be trying to make your point - it's clearly not a genuine site (the photo isn't real, not even the clock is real - it counts the character, not the actor). It's purpose seems to be to make counters look really revolting. It succeeds wonderfully.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: She is a fully physically mature woman.

She's a kid. She's underage. She's off limits. If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.

RE: Oh, nice strawman. Sure, she's a 'little girl'. Sure.

Let's see, how old was she in the first film? 12? How old is she now? 15? Neither is an appropriate age to be trying to look at her underwear. You can play semantic games all you want, but you can't get around the fact that that crap is off base and outa line. Unless you're R. Kelly.

RE:to which I submit that you're just proving you can't think for yourself or independently of what society tries to tell you.

I can think for myself. I can also recognise that sexualising children is wrong. You can't seem to work that out. And I feel sorry for you. I don't see you as liberal, liberated, independant or whatever. I see you as a sicko. You can do any kind of perversion with a consenting adult person - don't care if the person is male, female, black, white, etc. But lusting after someone who's between 12 and 15 is quite wrong. And all parts of society - even the lowest of the low in jail - disapprove of your attitude. Do you know what happens to diddlers in jail?

RE: Plus, you obviously don't recall high school, or you just never got laid during it.

Once again - there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old. And legal provisos are usually made for same. I wouldn't have a problem if it came out that members of the cast were more interested in each other than they let on on-screen... they're of an equivalent age and though I wouldn't think it the best course of action, that's age-appropriate and normal. What isn't is an adult male in a predatory mode.

Careful, by the way projecting things on to me. Suggesting that I have some kind of hangup or cannot get sex has nothing to do with the discussion. But for what it's worth most kiddie diddlers can't handle relationships with adults and are emotionally stunted. Most of the 20+ year olds sniffing around my high school had low self esteem, low IQs and if they did work worked part time at places like McDonald's. No wonder they'd go after kids. No adult female would want em.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I wouldn't look at something like that Harlequin, but if you're right then I take back my comment about his clock. Anything that makes stuff like that revolting is OK in my book.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

But she's not in Canada. :)

Re:Emma Watson

[m50d]

She's underage. You're going well over the line in making remarks about panty shots.

What if she's of age where the OP lives?

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Where would that be? Canada?

Emma Watson lives in England, and the movie was made (to the best of my knowledge) there.

It was not made in Thailand, she isn't Thai, she doesn't come from a culture in which she's expected to be a sex object long before the age of consent.

She didn't sign up to do bikini scenes, she isn't topless in any scene - she's playing a repressed, bookworm nerd.

What you're in essence arguing is "don't project your mores on my society". Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait. Don't project your mores on hers.

Re:Emma Watson

[conteXXt]

"When did we as a society decide this kind of sick crap was OK?"

Two words:

Britney Spears.

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

"Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait."

Barely: and if she'd been born on a council estate she'd have a couple of kids of her own by now. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that underage sex isn't a regular occurence in the UK.

In any case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if NuLab reduced the age of consent to fourteen: after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen, and I'm sure they'd like to reduce that further.

Re:Emma Watson

[schon]

She's underage.

Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others.

She's off limits.

Why? Because you say so?

If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.

I'm sorry, but it appears that you're the one with the problem - you are deliberately ignoring evidence presented to you that you are wrong.

How old is she now? 15? Neither is an appropriate age to be trying to look at her underwear.

Bullshit. You have made an arbitrary decision about based on an imcomplete representation of facts. There are *many* people here who are her age (typically the ones making these comments), and you're saying it's inappropriate for them to want to sneak a look?

If you believe that, you should go in for some councilling - repressing your feelings that much is just asking for trouble.

there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old

Ohh.. another straw man! Seems to me that we were discussing 15 year olds, weren't we?

Got a tip for you: if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make stupid arguments that have no bearing on the topic at hand, all you do is make it look like you don't have any relevant arguments, and are grasping at straws in order to convince yourself you're right.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't look at something like that Harlequin

Typical holier-than-thou prude.

"I haven't seen it, but I have no problem passing judgement on it anyway."

God forbid you would actually want to *understand* what it is you're condemning.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I have a problem with that too.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Barely: and if she'd been born on a council estate she'd have a couple of kids of her own by now. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that underage sex isn't a regular occurence in the UK.

Underage with underage, fair enough - though I don't think it's the perfect state of affairs it happens. I can of course have a problem with adults shacking up with kids. And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province for his life.

RE: In any case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if NuLab reduced the age of consent to fourteen: after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen, and I'm sure they'd like to reduce that further.

And of course, there'll be people like me saying it's wrong, and these oh so enlightened folk claiming that it's repression or whatever that's the root cause. Whatever happened to decency?

Re:Emma Watson

[Fyz]

Hey, this is just in: you can tell if someone is a pedophile by tossing them in the water. If they float, they're pedophiles. If they drown, eh, we had to make sure.

Now, I dislike pedophilia as much as the next guy, but the sort of furious demagogue rhetoric I hear from some people in this forum sounds like someone trying to inflame a mob to lynch a witch to me.

Further more, Emma Watson is 15 years old, which makes her below age of consent, but only barely, so you are actually justified in your moral outrage legally. And I do understand you stance, being the protector of a little girl and all.

However, expression of sexual attraction to a physically adult human being sounds vulgar to me, but not nearly as vulgar as your threat of death by softball bat that you spewed. I really don't get how an expression of violence should somehow be acceptable, but one of sexual matters should be labelled "sicko".

Now que the "You're a God-damn pederass lover and need to be executed same as them!" flames.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others. [ageofconsent.com]

WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?

RE: Why? Because you say so?

I say so, the law says so, most people say so. I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old, and when you get to jail, you can tell the fellow inmates all your palaver crap about how it's OK because they do this in Cameroon. If you live, write me back. Looks to me that even thieves and murderers have more decency to you.

RE: I'm sorry, but it appears that you're the one with the problem - you are deliberately ignoring evidence presented to you that you are wrong.

I am not wrong. You are wrong. Sexualising children, diddling children, preying on kids is wrong. You'd find few people appreciating you hanging around the high school cruising for tail, making appreciative comments about how hot a 14 year old looks, etc. It's wrong legally, it's wrong morally, etc.

RE: Bullshit. You have made an arbitrary decision about based on an imcomplete representation of facts. There are *many* people here who are her age (typically the ones making these comments), and you're saying it's inappropriate for them to want to sneak a look?

Yeah, I do. Got a problem with that?

RE: If you believe that, you should go in for some councilling - repressing your feelings that much is just asking for trouble.

Dude, I have no feelings for little kids. You're the one arguing for the right to do that kind of thing.

RE: Ohh.. another straw man! Seems to me that we were discussing 15 year olds, weren't we?

Replace six with fifteen. Same trip.

RE: Got a tip for you: if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make stupid arguments that have no bearing on the topic at hand, all you do is make it look like you don't have any relevant arguments, and are grasping at straws in order to convince yourself you're right.

Got a tip for you. Wait til my daughter's 18 or I set you on fire. Deal?

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

"Underage with underage, fair enough"

What makes you think the father is underage? In many cases they're probably in their 20s or older: certainly the few specific cases I know of they mostly were.

"And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province for his life."

And you talk about _decency_?

Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies looking for panty shots, but if you've never seen a fifteen-year-old you wanted to shag then I can only presume you're deluding yourself or have no libido... and claiming that attacking someone with a razor because they shagged a fifteen-year-old is 'decent' behaviour make you look like a psychopath.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies looking for panty shots, but if you've never seen a fifteen-year-old you wanted to shag

Nope, sorry. I see a bunch of kids standing by the bus stop, I want em to be kids. But then again I don't go around looking at everyone as potential sex objects, either.

RE: then I can only presume you're deluding yourself or have no libido...

No, just a sane libido. I don't find men attractive either.

RE: and claiming that attacking someone with a razor because they shagged a fifteen-year-old is 'decent' behaviour make you look like a psychopath.

Tweren't me, that was the rest of the estate. I was young at the time. The bikers who caught up with the guy weren't.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: However, expression of sexual attraction to a physically adult human being sounds vulgar to me, but not nearly as vulgar as your threat of death by softball bat that you spewed

It was the server I threatened with a bat.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

Servers are people too.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?

America != rest of the world

RE: I say so, the law says so, most people say so. I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old, and when you get to jail, you can tell the fellow inmates all your palaver crap about how it's OK because they do this in Cameroon. If you live, write me back. Looks to me that even thieves and murderers have more decency to you.

America != the rest of the world

RE: I am not wrong. You are wrong. Sexualising children, diddling children, preying on kids is wrong. You'd find few people appreciating you hanging around the high school cruising for tail, making appreciative comments about how hot a 14 year old looks, etc. It's wrong legally, it's wrong morally, etc.

again, America != etc etc

RE: Yeah, I do. Got a problem with that?

FUCK YOU, AND YOUR EGOTISTICAL SELF. You are not god, as much as you want to be, little 1337 sheep.

Now shut the fuck up about it. Your american ways dont apply here. Die, filthy american.

Re:Emma Watson

[conteXXt]

here here brother.

I like a young chick as much as the rest of us, but I draw the line somewhere.

The olsen twins ? another non starter.

As to Jon-Benet Ramsey (kiddie pageantry), don't LET me get started there.

Society is sick and needs an enema.

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

"No, just a sane libido."

Hardly. Men are genetically programmed to find teenage girls attractive, because they can have lots of kids... you can dislike that if you want, but fighting genetic programming is usually a losing battle.

I don't really have any interest in shagging fifteen-year-olds, but that's because I wouldn't have much of anything to talk to them about afterwards, not because I'm a prude.

"Tweren't me, that was the rest of the estate."

But you seem to be the one having masturbation fantasies about it.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

There's a difference between thinking someone's cute, or attractive, and/or sexually so.

I think babies are cute, and dogs are cute. I think certain works of fine art are pretty and beautiful as well.

But that doesn't mean I'm into doing babies, dogs, etc.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're a child molester waiting to happen. Just say the hell away from children, or you're going to end up in prison.

Re:Emma Watson

[swillden]

Now shut the fuck up about it. Your american ways dont apply here. Die, filthy american.

Ah, the genteel, erudite discourse of slashdot.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Well, I can go you one further.

Imagine someone in the 1950s proposing that thongs be marketed to five year olds.

Imagine someone, even in the swingin 60s, proposing that stiletto heeled hooker boots be made in four year old sizes.

Think they'd have kept their jobs, if not their front teeth?

So why is it acceptable today?

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I haven't seen sadomasochistic homosexual kiddie porn either, but I'll tell ya sure as shootin I disapprove of that too.

Just as I know for sure I wouldn't like sticking my privy parts into a meat grinder without having tried it.

So I was wrong about the clock. But the whole idea is distasteful.
What do you think my chances are about the kiddie porn being OK? "Oh, I'm terribly sorry - that was art! That was wonderful and witty social commentary." Uh huh....

Re:Emma Watson

[Fyz]

Oh, then forget it. I thought you ment the other kind of CPU.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

after all, they've already reduced the butt-shagging age for boys to sixteen

There was one sole reason for reducing what you call the "butt-shagging age", and that reason was equality. It was obviously unfair that the age of consent for homosexuals was higher than that for heterosexuals, and Labour corrected that. Don't try to impose your homophobic views on something that's all about equality.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

the best part is I wrote it, and I'm an american.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FLAME ON

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?

Probably, yes. And that is not the law anywhere. The age of consent is 15 or lower in about half of the world. She's of proper age for half the population. It sounds like you have some hangups.

I say so, the law says so, most people say so.

In the "new world", ie. pre-US, historically women were married at age 14 or thereabouts, and it was even religiously accepted.

I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old

Now it's a 14 year old... they just keep getting younger in your arguments!

Got a tip for you. Wait til my daughter's 18 or I set you on fire. Deal?

Ah, so the truth comes out. This is not about age of consent, it's the fact that you're an over-protective father. Legal age is 16 in Canada.. so just don't send her over the border!

And death threats are much more illegal than anything else in this discussion (set you on fire? WTF?).

Re:Emma Watson

[Crazyjamaican46]

Gimme one example of thongs being marketed to 5 year olds. The only problem i hav seen so far is short skirts for preteens that make them look like nasty little ... Well you know what I mean. Why do there parents allow it. Once they are older teens I can understand how some parents lose control and I dont really have a problem with them making their own choices then but the under 15 crowd that wear these very short skirts need to be kept in check by the parents.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

> She's a kid. She's underage. She's off limits. If you don't understand that, then you have a big problem.

Google up 'kid' and click on the definition. Let's see. "Between birth and puberty." Therefore, the person under discussion here is NOT a 'kid'. Underage. Under _what_ age? You mean under the age that society has decided you suddenly become a fully responsible & mature adult at 12:01 am on that birthday? Age limits - for driving, screwing, drinking, voting, everything - are legal abstractions. Because it can't fairly be determined when a certain person is ready for these activies, the law had to draw a line somewhere. 18, 16, 14, 20, whatever. It's a highly individualistic thing, and it depends on the person. I could introduce you to two females I know: a 15-year-old cousin of mine and a 23-year-old friend of mine. If I only told you the ages and not which was which, you would pick the 15-year-old as older and quite probably find her sexually attractive. Until you found out her age, anyway.

> I can think for myself.

No you can't. Not if you've got a switch in your brain that says attraction to any woman under the exact age of 18 years 0 days is a horrible horrible crime. Society put that switch there and marked it with that number.

> I can also recognise that sexualising children is wrong. You can't seem to work that out.

I can work that out just fine, however we seem to have a different definition of 'children'. No 15-year-old is a 'child' and - do you even REMEMBER high school? - they're pretty damn sexualized as it is. Sure, an adult male with manipulation in mind can really fuck over a 15-year-old. He can also really fuck over an 18-year old. Or a 24-year-old.

> Do you know what happens to diddlers in jail?

There's a difference between 5-year-olds and 15-year-olds. One of them will get you tagged 'short-eyes'. One won't. You're refusing to recognize this difference and lumping the categories together.

> Once again - there's a difference between two six year olds playing doctor and a twenty one year old wanting to play doctor with a six year old.

Strawman strikes again. When did anyone mention six-year-olds? Oh, right, you did - in an attempt to lump the other side of the discussion in with prepubescent-child molesters.

> Careful, by the way projecting things on to me. Suggesting that I have some kind of hangup

You do. You shut off your hormonal attraction to - again, FULLY [PHYSICALLY] MATURE WOMEN - if you find out that they're under 18. Not based on maturity, personality, or philosophy.

> or cannot get sex has nothing to do with the discussion.

When did I do that? Oh, I see - when I asked if you ever got laid during high school. That wasn't a shot, that was to point up the fact that nobody needs to 'sexualize' someone in mid-late teen years. They're doing it enough on themselves.

Do yourself a favor. Google up "likejailbait2 swf". Take the quiz. It just might open your eyes to how arbitary this eighteen-year thing is.

Re:Emma Watson

[atriusofbricia]

Are you seriously trying to put an act with a young woman, 16 years of age and greater, and an act with a baby in the same category? Surely, you jest. Hopefully, I'm misunderstanding. As was said earlier, if you have never in your adult life seen a woman/girl (allowing you to pick your own term) who was under the legal age where you are, and found her highly attractive, there is something wrong. And we're not talking ten or twelve year olds here. We're talking freshman in highschool and older. I know I've seen sixteen year old girls that were damned hot. I can at least admit it. Is there something magic about the age of eighteen in your world?

I think it was said best here

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Gimme one example of thongs being marketed to 5 year olds

I believe the Gap was the company that was told to pull them.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

here's something that may clarify matters for you.

imagine you're talking to someone from a country where the age of consent is 20.

a 19-year-old (never mind how you know this) woman walks by. a HOT 19-year-old. you drool, because hey, 19. he stares at you. "in my country, she is a child! you creep! you child molestor and kiddie rapist! do you play doctor with 6-year-olds? you should go to prison, where even the lowest of the low will look down on you!"

Re:Emma Watson

[GutBomb]

you're seriously linking s&m gay kiddie porn with a "countdown to legality" joke clock?

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties? What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko? Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself.

something like that about my daughter

This is a dead giveaway of a guy with a lot of personal problems who would really mess up his kids. I pity your daughter (if you already have one).

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: a 19-year-old (never mind how you know this) woman walks by. a HOT 19-year-old. you drool, because hey, 19. he stares at you. "in my country, she is a child! you creep! you child molestor and kiddie rapist! do you play doctor with 6-year-olds? you should go to prison, where even the lowest of the low will look down on you!"

Here's something that may clarify matters for YOU

She showed up on screens at 12 and was being lusted after then. She's being talked of in terms of panty shots and worse at 15. This is not a case of 18 in a place where it's 19. Though she's legal in Cameroon and parts of Canada, it's way off base in most of the US and the civilised world, and off base in her home country. DIG?

You can think me a vile pervert for not being Islamic, and I am equally as entitled to oppose your country's liberal attitude towards slavery.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. Men are genetically programmed to be attracted to young females. Everything about a man finds youth attractive. It has always been this way. And it's a very recent phenomenon that considers this inappropriate. For most of human culture through most of human history, 40 year old men marrying 12-15 year old girls was perfectly acceptable.

I'll leave off discussions of whether our current system is an improvement, but I will just note that COMMENTING about an attractive young female is... not something to have a fit about.

Re:Emma Watson

[Lord_Dweomer]

And what if I were a 16 year old boy? Would you still consider me a sicko pervert if I had the same thoughts about her?

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

We've always found children to be off limits. It's just recently that we've decided to extend childhood.

And dude, you're not an animal - there's always a filter that eliminates hot. You could have an attractive mother, sister - or your friend has an attractive spouse or you see an attractive nun and the "yeah, this is hot" circuit breaker should get tripped.

As in, your interest should go to nil.

If it doesn't, there's something pathologically wrong with you.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Yeah, I am.

Stealing a $500 Honda scooter vs a $10,000 car.

Both are thefts.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties?

When did I say this?
RE: What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko?

Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag.

RE: Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself

I'm the one arguing against em. You're the one arguing for being able to diddle a six year old. Now shut up and stick your head in the oven and get out of our gene pool.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

If you were a 16 year old boy, I'd dicuss the difference between appropriate and inappropriate actions, and that it would be INappropriate for her to flash her skivvies onscreen even if she wanted to - because of the fact that there are adults who don't know what appropriate and inappropriate is, and direct him to the postings of the baby-diddler supporters here. I would not denigrate your age-appropriate feelings for one of your peers.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

South of the border? Do you mean the U.S.? It doesn't have a unfirom age of consent. We're a union of States, and all. There are States where she's been legal for some time now.

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

When did I say this?
Right where you implied that panty shots of an underage girl are somehow bad. Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone and any demonstration of these panties is bad. But that makes even less sense.

Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag.
Could you be more specific instead of tossing insults around?

I'm the one arguing against em.
Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away. And please, warn your daughter that most cases of child abuse are perpetrated by relatives, such as uncles or fathers. She ought to know.

Re:Emma Watson

[tezbobobo]

In addition to all the other responses you recieved, remember also, it has not been until the modern era that we have even classified children. We've not tried to deliniate children from adults. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that child labour protection laws came in. People, for the majority of history, were regarded as such, with respect payed for said development at the epistance in that persons life.

That said, there is something to be said for the developing ethincal inclusion which has occurred. For example, monkey now have rights. This may indicate two thing, we are becoming more aware of the natural law; or we are all stuffed in the head hippies.

I do agree about the panty shot being over the line (not that I could find that quote). This is not for any pragmatic reason such as going to jail, but on virtue that people have an intrinsic dignity and are to be counted as more than 'sexual beings'.

My two cents...

Re:Emma Watson

[atriusofbricia]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you're really, truely, saying that sex with a 16 year old is the same thing as having sex with a 3 year old!?!?!

Re:Emma Watson

[indiechild]

What makes you think he comes from an Islamic country? You probably think that all Muslims deserve to be nuked off the face of the earth?

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please...you're overreacting. The real truth is that most Slashdotters don't want to *molest* Ms. Watson--they want to *be* Ms. Watson...

Re:Emma Watson

[Musrum]

She's off limits.
Why? Because you say so?

In Australia, we have an age of concent of 16 in most States.
This law applies to us no matter where we are in the world (none of this "when in Rome" bullshit).
Do you not have a similar law?

Re:Emma Watson

[m50d]

Where would that be? Canada?

Most of Europe.

It was not made in Thailand, she isn't Thai, she doesn't come from a culture in which she's expected to be a sex object long before the age of consent.

I live in England, the culture certainly expects her to be sexual at 15.

What you're in essence arguing is "don't project your mores on my society". Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's jailbait. Don't project your mores on hers.

So if you see an attractive woman from a culture that doesn't believe in having sex at all, it's wrong to fancy her?

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE:Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone

That's correct. Just as, people do use the bathroom and most people have rectums, but taking photos of the process isn't considered appropriate by most people.

RE: Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away.

Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Alright, Danila, I'll admit that kind of comment was out of line, to some degree, but I'm entitled to get hot under the collar about it.

No, it isn't because I like little girls. I don't. My idea of a woman is a real woman, though there's a typo above I'm into a fully grown developed 20something woman. Kids don't interest me in any way - not physically, not as someone to talk to, etc. I'm very secure in this.

However, I will say this. Even if I was wired to look at a 15 year old and develop an interest, which I can certainly understand, this has to be tempered with an understanding of just how messed up things can get. Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling, or see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men.

I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people. Would I suggest it isn't possible that someone of 15 can make up her own mind and her own decisions? Nope! But two things - 1) neither of you are gonna die if you wait a few years and 2) if when she's 18 you're no longer interested in her that reveals it to be fetish, not love.

I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter. Either prove it or retract it.
And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for making that suggestion - so in future be real careful how sarcastic you get. That's a word of advice, not a threat.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Well, well, well, isn't THIS interesting. A quick search of danila found you on everything2.

This node, http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=149432 9, speaks volumes. Not only are you aware of different child porn sites, but you argue that there's a fine line between kiddie porn and art. You even go on to suggest that thanks to computer generated porn kiddie porn as acceptable public content will be here to stay. That is sick. If you need me to argue exactly why then that goes to show me how far gone you've gone.

Other nodes on that site you wrote include instructions on hiding pornography stashes.

Hey, man, rather than lecturing me on my own psychology, which is firmly rooted in people of legal age of consent, or making suggestions I would molest my own kids, you should go see a shrink.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Ooooh, and this is even more interesting: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=147838 5 - in which you talk of sharing everything from bukkake to child porn with your friends, and say at the end of your node that it's based on personal experience.

I think perhaps your trip is that you're some kind of libertarian or something. I think perhaps you've never had personal experience with someone who was molested, and others who went too far too soon with people old enough to know better. You seem to suggest at the end of yer node that computers will allow people to make safe kiddie porn.

As someone who regularly assists anti-kid-porn and survivors of child abuse groups, let me tell you this - the prime use of kiddie porn is for diddlers to convince other kids that it's OK to do what's being shown to them in the pictures. So kiddie porn per se is evidence of a crime, and computer generated porn something used to assist people in committing crimes. So I take a very dim view to your point of view. Perhaps this will enlighten you. But considering you're in that pit of holier than thou deviance called E2, I doubt it.

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

I am glad that you found some of my everything write-ups, that frees me from the need to repeat whatever arguments I made there already. I will also add that one of my writeups there was arbitraly deleted by the site owner as too controversial (which is why I lost interest in e2 and moved on), though you still might be able to find it somewhere by applying your well-honed detective skills. :)

But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki regularly includes panty shots of prepubescent girls just for the sake of it. Yeah, he directs anime, not real films, but this still suggests that may be, just may be a panty shot of a small girl is not evil (though some people like yourself immediately resort to calling Miyazaki a pedophile). As far as I remember my school years, the boys certainly weren't above oogling girls and (when opportunities arose) looking at their panty-covered areas. I heard that it's not uncommon in schools all over the worlds. While this doesn't prove that panty shots are good, it suggest that they are rather natural and probably not very harmful (if at all). And please don't use the slippery slope fallacies. We are not talking about rectums, we are talking about panty shots. There can be a gradation of disgusting photographs face->bare hands->belly->breasts->pubic area->vaginal lips->spread vagina->deep photo->endoscopic photo->x-ray scan. :) Just because a certain stage is bad taste doesn't prove that the one before it is too. :)))

Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior.
Yes, I do and yes, you may be. Note, how I didn't say "closet child molestor", I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).

Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling
But not everyone, who has childhood diddling develops problems. One of my well-adjusted female friends first had sex in her tweens (pre-13), albeit not with an adult. Sex is not necessarily harmful and the only thing I object to is arbitrary statutory restrictions on sex. If someone tries to "mess up" a child, of course, arrest the guy/gal and try them at court. But first there has to be some evidence of "messing". I would even support compulsory psychiatric testing for each child-adult couple, but if the testing shows that both partners are fine, they should be allowed to pursue their relationship.

see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men.
So what? I don't understand this one.

I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people.
But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not. The fact is that the vast majority of cases of child abuse are perpetrated by non-pedophiles. So sex with kids is not necessarily connected with pedophilia, which is not necessarily connected with psychological problems. It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay, you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).

I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter.
It is not fully serious. :) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.

And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for makin

Re:Emma Watson

[One Childish N00b]

For the record, I'm no dirty old man, I'm 17.

Right, a basic fact: The human body is biologically designed to be attracted to anyone who is past the age of puberty.

Sorry, but that's the way it is - we're designed to start breeding as soon as we hit puberty so we can further the species - this comes from the days when humans barely made it past 25 if they lived to their old age, and babies and such were likely to die before they got anywhere near double-figures, thus it was important to pump out as many kids as you possibly could in the short space of time there was availible. It was biologically neccessary and thus it occurred.

Therefore, I wouldn't call it 'sick' to be attracted to someone who was 14, 15, etc, especially if they *act* like adults - can you tell me an accurate way to differentiate between a 14-year-old who is physically mature and acts like an adult and an actual adult, short of asking their age? I'll give you a clue: there isn't one.

The real 'sickos', as you say it, are the ones that are attracted to kids *because* they're kids - 'paedophile' means 'lover of children'; they are sexually drawn to the innocence of children, the overt prepubescency - I'll cede to you, anyone who lusted after Emma Watson when she was 12 (either prepubescent or at the very early stages of it) may just fall into this category. Not so now she's 15. I had my first sexual experience when I was that age, and my girlfriend of the time was a year older - legal in Britain. Do you think she should have been arrested for child molestation? If you do, you're either against base humanity or simply incredibly naive. Just because the age of consent is 18 where you are, that doesn't mean that any girl under 18 is an innocent little girl and any man attracted to a girl under 18 is a steaming paedophile.

Law and your so-called 'morality' are simply conveniently ignoring reality, and while I agree perfectly with laws to keep middle-aged perverts apart from early-teen girls (as any decent person would), I would also argue they are too strict and fail to take nature into account - what sort of law or society would say that two 15-year-olds making love are raping each other, or that a 16-year-old lusting after a 15-year-old is a vile pervert? Sorry to jump into this interesting debate, but to my mind you're both equally wrong.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki

Don't quote the Japanese at me. As a culture it's sick. Buying used underwear from prepubescents in vanding machines... IIRC there's no age of consent at all there, which is why a lot of weird stuff, including children in bondage, is available over there. I may be wrong in this, but I don't want to investigate that avenue. All I know is that their cartoons are sick enough.

RE:I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).

Ah, the typical defence of the pervert "you mustn't like this because deep down you love it - so deep down even you don't know." Uh huh. Whatever.

RE: But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not.

You know what? There's something wrong with anyone trying to take children and put them into adult situations. Look at that kid, for example, whose father smacked him around and demanded he become this bodybuilder - making him pump iron even though his bones were still growing, etc. just so he could show him off. Likewise, sex is an adult thing - not a game. Not a pastime without consequences.

RE: It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay,

Only in prison, maybe. If it's against your will.

RE: you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).

So, so you're saying in ten years if you get your way the idea of a forty year old with a twelve year old will be just another lifestyle choice? Over my dead body. The essential difference here, mate, is that gay men are adults. Two adult men want to do whatever they want with each other, fine. But kids are not physically or emotionally ready for this kind of thing, and they certainly aren't economically ready for some of the lifelong repercussions of their actions.

RE: It is not fully serious. :) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.

In certain groups I travel in, you would not have been able to finish that sentence. Once again I'm not threatening you - I'm just pointing out that while you're sitting here pontificating about liberty and well in Scandinavia they believe this, and logical fallacy that most people have a sense of right and wrong and pulling children into an adult arena for your own selfish pleasure IS WRONG. And many groups of people will hurt you or worse for making those kinds of statements. Because this isn't some intellectual game or some airy conjectures about life - this is people's lives. Grow up.

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

Don't quote the Japanese at me. As a culture it's sick.

Hayao Miyazaki makes some of the most family friendly and most touching films. His Spirited Away was awarded Oscar for Best Animated Film. It's not Japanese culture that is sick, it's American. A sick mixture of sexual innuendo and sexual inhibitions. Britney Spears is OK, salivating for Olsen twins is just fine, but panty shots of girls are sick. Psychiatrists have a name for it - it's "schizophrenia".

There's something wrong with anyone trying to take children and put them into adult situations.
I agree with you here. But what if a child is willing to get into that situation himself. Look, sex between children is normal. Normal, mentally and physically healthy kids can have sex as early as at 12-15 years. This is a fact of life, they do fuck that early. Boys and girls, sometimes boys and boys as well as girls and girls. And they have group sex too, you know. This is reality. Good, old-fashioned, physical reality, not just some pedophilic wet dreams. I am not saying that all kids do it, I am not saying it is always beneficial, what I am saying is that this is happening and apparently it's no big deal.

So what if some kid wants to have sex with a consenting adult? How is the sex different? All the arguments that you can state against it apply equally well in the situation of sex between children. And we have already established that it is ok, fine, legal and acceptable, even if not very good.

sex is an adult thing - not a game

Why is that? Because you say so? Kids can have sex just fine and they do. And for many of them it's a game. And usually there are no bad consequences. In most cases there is no pregnancy, in most cases there are no STDs. In most cases there is no lifelong trauma.

Only in prison, maybe. If it's against your will.
You might want to read up on the subject. Yes, it is possible to have consensual sex with men, even if you are not gay. You can be bisexual or even straight.

So, so you're saying in ten years if you get your way the idea of a forty year old with a twelve year old will be just another lifestyle choice?

No, I am not. It won't happen very soon, because some western societies are so preoccupied with pedophiles. That doesn't change the fact that sex with children is not always bad.

But kids are not physically or emotionally ready for this kind of thing, and they certainly aren't economically ready for some of the lifelong repercussions of their actions.
This is a logical fallacy. In fact, several fallacies.

First, kids are ready for sex in the sense that they are having sex all the time. Second, readiness is not a prerequisite. Some adults are not emotionally or economically ready for sex and its repercussions, but they are still allowed to have it. Third, the repercussions do not necessarily have to follow. If you use a condom or another contraceptive option, you can avoid pregnancy and I don't know what else you need to be economically ready for. Conclusion - you argument is thrice false.

In certain groups I travel in, you would not have been able to finish that sentence.
I choose not to travel in such groups. I very much like the environment I am (and was) in and I do not intend to radically change it. I am aware that there are a lot of people and groups that I wouldn't like (or would outright hate), but I am confident in my ability to generally avoid them. And when I can't, I will take heed of what I am saying, thanks for the advice again.

And many groups of people will hurt you or worse for making those kinds of statements. Because this isn't some intellectual game or some airy conjectures about life - this is people's lives.
No, not because of this. But because they are simple-minded illiterate morons, who are programmed a certain way and don't have a functional brain in their head. But as I said, I don't find the company of such people intellectually or emotionally stimulating, so I let them stay in their ghettos or wherever they usually hang.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Hayao Miyazaki makes some of the most family friendly and most touching films.

So what? He's still a voyeuristic pederast like many of his contemporaries. Walt Disney made some nice films but it didn't change the fact that he was a virulent anti-Semite.

RE: His Spirited Away was awarded Oscar for Best Animated Film.

Would this be the same Hollywood that supports Roman "drugged and raped a little girl" Polanski?

RE: It's not Japanese culture that is sick, it's American. A sick mixture of sexual innuendo and sexual inhibitions. Britney Spears is OK, salivating for Olsen twins is just fine, but panty shots of girls are sick. Psychiatrists have a name for it - it's "schizophrenia".

I'm not for Olsen Twins or Britney Spears either. We need to cleanse our culture of this kind of vileness.

RE: I agree with you here. But what if a child is willing to get into that situation himself.

That doesn't make it right to exploit that for selfish purposes or to get kids involved in stuff they have no business in either. My three year old son would really like to ride my Harley Davidson. He's not old enough to yet, not legally and he doesn't have the balance to stay on, never mind the neck strength to keep from being killed or worse in an accident. So like a mature adult, I say NO.

RE: I am not saying that all kids do it, I am not saying it is always beneficial, what I am saying is that this is happening and apparently it's no big deal.

No, it is a big deal. What people do vs what they should do are two different things.

RE: So what if some kid wants to have sex with a consenting adult? How is the sex different? All the arguments that you can state against it apply equally well in the situation of sex between children. And we have already established that it is ok, fine, legal and acceptable, even if not very good.

No, I said age appropriate - not acceptable or good. It's one thing to be 15 and with someone of the same age group. It's another to be 29 trolling for 14 year olds.

RE: in most cases there are no STDs. In most cases there is no lifelong trauma.

You naive fool. I will find the studies and present them to you. But suffice it to say this sort of thing leaves lifelong scars. Ask Alanis Morrissette, who regrets being tossed around, as a willing 12 year old, between groups of predatory men even though she was willing at the time.

RE: You might want to read up on the subject. Yes, it is possible to have consensual sex with men, even if you are not gay. You can be bisexual or even straight.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

RE: No, I am not. It won't happen very soon, because some western societies are so preoccupied with pedophiles. That doesn't change the fact that sex with children is not always bad.

Murder isn't always bad, either, but we've a law against it for a damn good reason. Same as for laws that protect children.

RE: First, kids are ready for sex in the sense that they are having sex all the time.

Physically ready != emotionally ready

RE: Second, readiness is not a prerequisite. Some adults are not emotionally or economically ready for sex and its repercussions, but they are still allowed to have it.

Yer right - readiness isn't technically a prerequisite. You can always use force. As for adults - that doesn't mean they should.

RE: Third, the repercussions do not necessarily have to follow. If you use a condom or another contraceptive option,

Which can fail

RE: you can avoid pregnancy

Abortions for ten year olds. Great. That's the kind of childhood experience it'd take a liberal therapist to justify, huh?

RE: but I am confident in my ability to generally avoid them. And when I can't, I will take heed of what I am saying, thanks for the advice again.

Very good. And stay away from my kids.

RE: so I let them stay in their ghettos or wherever they usually hang.

Ah, the "you are uncultured/stupid because you do not agree with my perversion" lie. Whatever. Tell you what, you see how many people who aren't sick in the head agree with you. Very few.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

White. With little blue flowers...

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

So what? He's still a voyeuristic pederast like many of his contemporaries. Walt Disney made some nice films but it didn't change the fact that he was a virulent anti-Semite.
The difference is that Miyazaki's films are considered great films for children and the whole family. They are usually highly acclaimed and rated G in the US, meaning that the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls (at least in animation) a horrible abomination. You are in the minority.

Would this be the same Hollywood that supports Roman "drugged and raped a little girl" Polanski?
First, I'd say that the good of his films overweights one mistake. Second, what the society and the media did to Geimer was much worse than what Polanski did.

That doesn't make it right to exploit that for selfish purposes or to get kids involved in stuff they have no business in either. My three year old son would really like to ride my Harley Davidson. He's not old enough to yet, not legally and he doesn't have the balance to stay on, never mind the neck strength to keep from being killed or worse in an accident. So like a mature adult, I say NO.
Logical fallacy again. We are not talking about 3-year old kids riding HDs. We are talking about 12-15 kids, who already have sex with each other, having sex with an adult. They are already "invoved in stuff". What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

No, it is a big deal. What people do vs what they should do are two different things.
Who are you to decide? Children have sex, it's legal and it's accepted by the society (except by the same wackos who oppose gay marriage too). So it's not a big deal (you don't get to decide what is and what isn't a big deal - society does).

No, I said age appropriate - not acceptable or good. It's one thing to be 15 and with someone of the same age group. It's another to be 29 trolling for 14 year olds.
Logical fallacy again. I was talking about how there is no significant difference for the kid to sleep with another 15 year old or with a 25 year old.

You naive fool. I will find the studies and present them to you. But suffice it to say this sort of thing leaves lifelong scars. Ask Alanis Morrissette, who regrets being tossed around, as a willing 12 year old, between groups of predatory men even though she was willing at the time.
Of course, you can find studies. It's because the society is outraged at correct science and tries to ban controversial research such as Rind's study. So any researcher demonstrating that sex with children is not as horrible as anyone believes is going to have almost as much respect as Polansky. That doesn't change the reality - there are many cases, where there is no trauma. There is extremely strong correlation between coercion and trauma. If the child is not forced, but is allowed to do what he/she is comfortable with, there is usually no trauma. This is reality, this is a fact, no matter how much you may dislike it.

Murder isn't always bad, either, but we've a law against it for a damn good reason. Same as for laws that protect children.
Are you really incapable of thinking rationally or does it just look that way? Murder is always bad, that's why we have a law against it. There can be extenuating circumstances, but it doesn't change the fact that murder is bad. Furthermore, the whole point that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that the existence of laws against something doesn't make it always bad. Sex with children is one such case. I am not arguing that it's legal, because it's usually not, I am arguing that it's not bad. If you can't understand what we are talking about and insist on something totally obvious and unrelelated, you are clearly stupid.

Physically ready != emotionally ready
Thank you, Captain Obvious. But they are emotionally ready too. The fact that they do have sex proves that they are ready. Except, of course, by your own definition of ready, which means someone isn'

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: The difference is that Miyazaki's films are considered great films for children and the whole family.

By the "wanna sniff little girl panties" Japanese.

RE: They are usually highly acclaimed

By geek loser white guys who are into animated kiddie porn

RE: and rated G in the US, meaning that the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls (at least in animation) a horrible abomination. You are in the minority.

Or, which is more likely - that the rating system is screwed up. Used to be G-rated films didn't contain scatological humor, fart jokes, etc. In fact, here's a shocker - the Tom Green film "Freddy Got Fingered" was rated R even though in the film he masturbates a horse, which is supposed to make that film unviewable.

RE: First, I'd say that the good of his films overweights one mistake.

So the deliberate drugging rape and sodomy of a little girl is a "mistake"?

RE: We are talking about 12-15 kids, who already have sex with each other, having sex with an adult.

And for starters, I'm saying the 12-15yr olds shouldn't be having sex - not that that makes it right for you to go in and exploit that and them for your own selfish pleasure. You wiggled out of that one. Just because someone wants to do something or is doing something doesn't make it right. According to your argument it wasn't wrong to give little 9 year old Drew Barrymore drugs cause she wanted them and she was already doing them.

RE: Who are you to decide? Children have sex, it's legal

Exemptions and exceptions in the law are made for age-appropriate behaviour. That does not mean that it is OK nor should those laws be expanded to let YOU in.

RE: and it's accepted by the society (except by the same wackos who oppose gay marriage too). So

I think you'll find most people think 12 is too young to be fooling around. The wackos want their kids locked up til marraige. The normal people expect some kind of peer experimentation. Sickos like you want anyone to have a fair crack at em.

RE: it's not a big deal (you don't get to decide what is and what isn't a big deal - society does).

Well, mate - that's what the law says now - and I didn't write the laws. Society did. You're the one trying to change em for your own selfish purposes.

RE: Logical fallacy again. I was talking about how there is no significant difference for the kid to sleep with another 15 year old or with a 25 year old.

Yes there absolutely is. No question. Heck, there are serious emotional and psychological differences between the 15 year old and the 18 year old, never mind the 15 year old and the 25 year old.

RE: tries to ban controversial research such as Rind's study.

This would be the "objective" group of researchers that included a kiddy diddler in their midst? Rind's study has been debunked. One of its major "findings" was asserted with no corroborating data, the notion of "consent" was mishandled - that study has been debunked on its own failings not hysteria.

RE: So any researcher demonstrating that sex with children is not as horrible as anyone believes is
going to have almost as much respect as Polansky.

That's cause noone can do it. They can try and lie to suit their own purposes, as Rind did.

RE: If the child is not forced, but is allowed to do what he/she is comfortable with, there is usually no trauma. This is reality, this is a fact, no matter how much you may dislike it.

There are certain things you don't get. There are well known repercussions of childhood sex with adults whether "trauma" is involved a lot. Kids learn, and learn deep, that sex is important, very very very important - that it will attract people to you and keep them with you. They've found a very significant correlation between childhood interludes of this sort and very dysfunctional behaviours like drug use and problems with adult relationships. Look at Michael Jackson, whose entire adult life is FUCKED because he h

Re:Emma Watson

[danila]

By the "wanna sniff little girl panties" Japanese.
Wrong, by moviegoers all over the world and by MPAA rating commissions.

By geek loser white guys who are into animated kiddie porn
Wrong, by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Or, which is more likely - that the rating system is screwed up.
Wrong.. I guess all the same it's because the majority of people do no consider panty shots of little girls a horrible abomination.

So the deliberate drugging rape and sodomy of a little girl is a "mistake"?
Do you think it wasn't? And Polansky wasn't charged with drugging rape or sodiomy, only with "statutory rape" (which isn't really rape), actually, because the mother of a little girl asked to drop the charges. The girl's little son actually thinks that "it's "cool" that mom's been on TV" and the girl doesn't feel angry or hateful and thinks Polansky "is a really good director".

And for starters, I'm saying the 12-15yr olds shouldn't be having sex - not that that makes it right for you to go in and exploit that and them for your own selfish pleasure.
This is not up to you, so STFU. They do have sex, they will have sex and the society thinks it's ok. So shut up about that, would you?

You wiggled out of that one. Just because someone wants to do something or is doing something doesn't make it right.
First, it's not for you to decide. Second, something not being right doesn't mean it should be a crime. Being a moron on Slashdot is not right, but I am not trying to charge you with that in the court.

According to your argument it wasn't wrong to give little 9 year old Drew Barrymore drugs cause she wanted them and she was already doing them.
You are a moron, sorry. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to draw analogies, they are too complex for your simple mind. Answering the correct question - in the hypothetical situation where it was legal for Drew to possess and use drugs, where it was legal for adults to distribute drugs, it would be ok for an adult to give drugs to Drew.

Exemptions and exceptions in the law are made for age-appropriate behaviour. That does not mean that it is OK nor should those laws be expanded to let YOU in.
Are you an idiot? I wasn't talking about that. Try to read my posts at least 4-5 times, you don't seem to get it on the first reading.

I think you'll find most people think 12 is too young to be fooling around. The wackos want their kids locked up til marraige. The normal people expect some kind of peer experimentation. Sickos like you want anyone to have a fair crack at em.
You don't make any sense.

Well, mate - that's what the law says now - and I didn't write the laws. Society did. You're the one trying to change em for your own selfish purposes.
Are you stupid or what? I was saying that it's legal for kids to have sex and it is. RTFL.

Yes there absolutely is. No question.
Well, since I am questioning it, there IS a question. And you haven't yet explained what difference there is. I guess it's because you are a moron and can't realise that you are not making any sense. Whoever programmed your little brain did a decent job at deleting any capabilities for logical reasoning that you might have had at some point.

Heck, there are serious emotional and psychological differences between the 15 year old and the 18 year old, never mind the 15 year old and the 25 year old.
As well as between the 18 year old and the 60 year old. And your point is?

This would be the "objective" group of researchers that included a kiddy diddler in their midst? Rind's study has been debunked. One of its major "findings" was asserted with no corroborating data, the notion of "consent" was mishandled - that study has been debunked on its own failings not hysteria.
Oh, really? Wasn't it Congress that did the debunking with it's damnation declar

Ahem, wrong site

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Harry Potter a kids' movie? As in for young children?
If so, what is it doing on here?
By the poweres vested in me by the Late Pope EyeEye, I hereby declare -1 Offtopic on this news story.
If I get labelled as trolling for this post I'll be pissed off. This is my honest opinion, hopefully I'm just not the only one...

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[hb253]

I agree that Haryy Potter is not a Slashdot type of subject. However, I would recommend you read the books. They're enjoyable by both adults and older kids.

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have read the books. I've got nothing against Harry Potter in itself, but I do think this is the wrong place for it.
Oh and DAMN YOU TROLL MOD PEOPLE!

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[beuges]

The movies are most definitely aimed at kids, however, as many others have already pointed out, the books are very enjoyable to adults as well. JKR has done an awesome job of sticking in subtle humour and wit that would completely pass over childrens heads, but which make the books alot more enjoyable for older readers.

Also, the books contain the entire story. Important parts of the plot aren't discarded to make time for an extra 30 seconds of pointless special effects. I've found it surprising that JKR has ok'd the scripts for the first three movies because in each of them alot of important info has been cut out of the movies. Which is a pity because she spends alot of effort going back to her stories to add hints and clues as to what might happen in a future book.

In short, the books rock. I've had the 6th one pre-ordered for months now

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[BitterOak]

Isn't Harry Potter a kids' movie? As in for young children? If so, what is it doing on here?

I wasn't aware that Slashdot had become an "adults only site". It must be all the links to goatse. In any event, as others have pointed out, the books and movies can be enjoyed by people of all ages. I enjoy them, and I'm old enough to remember playing Dungeon on a DECWriter terminal attached to a Vax 11/780.

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[danila]

The fact that they are enjoyable doesn't make them worth reading. I am guilty myself, having read all of them, but I wouldn't recommend others do that, as long as there are truly great classical work and scientific books that can profoundly change who you are, how you perceive yourself, the world and its destiny.

It's like masturbation. Yes, it's enjoyable, yes, we all do it, but... recommending others that they spend time masturbating instead of doing sports, reading or talking with others?

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh... And yet, look... You could be reading great works that would change your perception of the world, and instead you're wasting time reading Slashdot... I hope you feel very dirty now. ;)

And by the way, just because the books didn't affect you, that doesn't mean they can't affect others. Not everyone is affected most by reading great philosophers. Some find them to be boring, some find them to be overinflated empty ballons with nothing interesting to say other than how unhappy they are. And of course, there are those who love them, but that's not everyone.

And I know more tha half a dozen of people whoose lifes have been affected by that books (myself included). That's actually more than I know that have been affected by works of Plato and the company...

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[danila]

I do feel dirty. I recognize this problem that I am having, that due to a number of factors it's easier to read a quick online story and a number of comments that do not really challenge your mind, memory, intelligence of imagination than to invest 1-2 hours into watching a documentary movie or 3-10 hours into reading a good thought-provoking book. Yes, I am guilty. And yes, I am doing something about it. For example, before posting this I watched two Bittorrented documentaries (one about "The Method", the lost and found book by Archimedes and the Episode 2 of "The Corporation"). But then again, Slashdot is a socialisation channel in a sense - I get to communicate with others and that can't be replaced with a film.

I'd actually be interested in hearing about how Harry Potter books affected the lifes of many people, because, frankly, I find it rather unlikely.

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[Anonymous Coward]

That might have been because she understood from the begining the differencies between books and movies.

Mos people here could take a sheet out of her book.

corrupted officials

[sakura the mc]

someone bribed cowboy neal to post this bullshit

... there is new director....

[simetra]

He Ingrish Velly Good.

Re:... there is new director....

[fistfullast33l]

Actually, I remember seeing something about him on the Donny Brasco DVD. He is actually quite interesting. He talked about actually meeting mobsters as part of his research for the film. Combined with the fact that he also directed Mona Lisa's Smile (which I'm willing to admit I liked), I actually am kind of looking forward to his work on this film.

Re:... there is new director....

[dooglio]

Meeting mobsters?! Oh man, I can imagine the initial contact.

Newel: "Mr. Mobsterini, would you do me a favor and meet with me so I can more acuratly portray a mobster in a movie?"

Mr. Mobsterini: "Sure! I'd be happy to interview with you and you can ask me anything you like. And one day, I'll might call you to ask you to do a favor for me in return."

Is this the one where Hermione dies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is that the next one?

Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Nova Express]

I was listening to National Pravda Radio when they did an interview with Terry Gilliam. He said that he had been one of the three finalists for the job of directing the first Harry Potter movie, but only because J. K. Rowling had wanted to see him direct it. He said he felt stupid that he'd actually believed he had a chance when the studio was dead-set against it. Then there was the following exchange, which is as close to verbatim as I can remember it:

Gilliam: Eventually they went with another director, and since the film made over $300 million, that was obviously the right decision.

NPR: What did you think of the movie when it came out?

Gilliam: Crap.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[jfengel]

Too bad he thinks that. Cuaron had nothing but nice things to say Columbus on the commentaries. Duh, and if you read between the lines you can see that Cuaron wasn't entirely pleased.

But Cuaron rightly praised Columbus for a number of things right with those movies. He picked a knockout cast, both kids and adults, and an awesome location.

Some of the failings of the first three (yeah, all three) I put on the screenwriter, who seems to have a tendency to substitute action scenes for character moments. That made the first two movies rather long for kids' movies and still leaving out some important scenes from the books. Still, that's Rowling's chosen screenwriter, so I guess it's what she wanted.

I much prefer the gritty realism of the third movie to the first two. But for Gilliam to dismiss Sorcerer's Stone as "crap", given that he's been rather hit-and-miss himself, seems undeservedly arrogant.

Columbus made basic kiddie fare. Gilliam's would have been a fascinating change, though in some ways I like the idea of the first intro movie being a more pedestrian adaptation of the book, to serve as a foundation for the sequels to be more interesting. I'd love to see Gilliam direct one of the future movies, but with an attitude like that there's no way they're going to let him.

Of course, the studio was probably dead set against him from the start. He has a tendency to create truly grand visions and then run over schedule and budget. Baron Munchausen almost didn't make it, and his Don Quixote did fail. He blames it on circumstances and cheapskate studios.

Me, I'm a director myself (stage, rather than film), and I know that disasters happen and you need to be flexible to fix them. The documentary Lost in La Mancha is very favorable to him, and he did have a run of bad luck, but it also sounds to me like he failed to have backup plans and cut things too close to the wire. Under those circumstances projects will always fail, because things go wrong.

He needs a better unit production manager, or he needs to listen more closely to the one he has.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Balthisar]

Pretty nasty attitude, but still, I'm a fan of his work, and I'd be plenty happy to see Gilliam's efforts at a Harry Potter movie. I'm a fan of the books, too, despite the target audience.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[moosesocks]

Third movie wasn't directed by Columbus. It was VERY different from the first two, as all the sets were different and didn't have Richard Harris. Frankly, I enjoyed the change, as the first two seemed to run together quite a bit.

However, I disagree with the parent poster in that I think the character moments capture the very essence of the books. The books aren't intended for (very) young audiences, and neither are the movies to an extent. Despite all this, first graders are definitely able to grasp the plot of all 3 movies.

I will agree with another user that I certainly preferred the "gritty realism" of the third. I think this reflects the change in director as well as a change in the style of Rowling's writing. You definitely see her evolution as a writer through the books. The last book was particularly dark (not necessarily a bad thing), but the books have definitely 'grown up', and the movies will have to do the same.

I'm unsure how Gilliam would have done it differently. Even though I liked the third one the best (despite the disjointedness of the ploy), Columbus's directorial style perfectly fit the first two. Perhaps it's a good idea for them to change directors each time (or every other time) around. Variety ain't bad for the HP series. If there were 3 different directors for LOTR, it would have been a disaster, but I think the variety makes it far more interesting to see 3 different takes on the books.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[the_2nd_coming]

the third movie was CRAP!!!!!

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[jfengel]

Richard Harris missed the third movie on account of his being dead. I like Michael Gambon in the role, but I'd happily have Richard Harris back.

The books have been aimed at Rowling's own children, who get older significantly faster than Harry does. So they get darker and more grown-up.

The upcoming book is going to be very dark, I'm sure. I'd love to see them get Cuaron back to direct one of the really dark books. Perhaps this upcoming one, which I suspect will have a serious romatic subplot.

I'd have expected to see Richard Newell do the fifth book, containing Harry's first kiss. That's such a sweet moment, and Newell has done some very sweet work. I'm sure that the little romatic encounters in the fourth book will be played up nicely. (Emma Watson cleans up nicely in the trailer.)

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Flyboy Connor]

The documentary Lost in La Mancha is very favorable to him, and he did have a run of bad luck, but it also sounds to me like he failed to have backup plans and cut things too close to the wire. Under those circumstances projects will always fail, because things go wrong.

Actually, in "Lost in La Mancha" Gilliam admits that he was cutting it too thin, that under pressure of studios and because of his desire to make a movie, he started out basically under budget.

Of course, it is pretty nice if you have enough money so that you don't need to worry if a flood washes all of your equipment away. And he WAS insured, only the consequence of the insurance was that he had to stop the movie.

As far as the first Harry Potter movie goes, I can only agree with Gilliam: it was crap. It was tremendously boring. But that is mainly because of the script, that was too afraid to diverge from the book.

That doesn't mean I think Gilliam would have done better. This simply wasn't his kind of movie. He is not really a character director, certainly not an average-character director, and the Harry Potter movies are all about average characters (in an extraordinary situation, that's true).

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[MemoryDragon]

Actually Münchhausen was the only movie where he significantly ran over budget, as for Lost in La Mancha, that really was bad luck, I am not director, and I agree with the backup plan, but given that the spanisch weather is very consistent at certain times in a year, it really was bad luck, in the documentary, it became clear that they tried to shift things and hold out as long as possible, but what do you want to do if you dont have a single shot, the weather washes you down the drain, and the main actor cannot do it and the investors start to visit you out of nervousness. The only thing I might be able to blame him for, is not to have a backup actor for the main protagonist.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Anonymous Coward]

National Pravda Radio, wtf!? Are you some kind of moron or something!?

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[jfengel]

It does sound like the real problem is that he's kind of a prick. No offense. But it means that the execs are less likely to cut him slack. They kept saying in the documentary that he had a "reputation" for going over budget, which I suspect is mostly a reputation for being hard to work with.

Never met him myself; I'm just inferring. I loved many of his movies.

Personally, I found it weird that he thought there could be only one actor in the world who could play Don Quixote, and one who had to be taught English to boot. I mean, hey, Peter O'Toole's still alive. It doesn't mean he could necessarily drop back and start over, but it meant that the discussion got cut short real quick.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[dabigpaybackski]

Bah, they rejected Gilliam because they feared the random onslaught of the dreaded 12-ton Weight.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[MemoryDragon]

It does sound like the real problem is that he's kind of a prick. No offense. But it means that the execs are less likely to cut him slack. They kept saying in the documentary that he had a "reputation" for going over budget, which I suspect is mostly a reputation for being hard to work with.

I guess you easily can get a bad reputation in the arts sector if you make a mistake once. To my knowledge, the only movie where he went severely over budget was Münchhausen. But the reputation is still with him, although he did some movies afterwards and none went over budget. (Fear and Loathing was after Münchhausen)

As for the main Actor, I agree with you, there would have been a handful of Actors who could have done the role, Peter O'Toole probably would have been an excellent choice. Dont beat me for this but even John Clesse probably could have done the job (although he looks totally different than what people expect from a Don Quixote)

Anyway I am glad the movie was not done anyway, the story sounded to move áway to strongly from the book, which by itself still has no decent conversation into a good movie. And what could I get from the documentary, this definitely would not have been it.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[peterb]

I didn't think the first Harry Potter movies were terribly good. But they were still better than whatever wandering, unfocused, and over-budget by several hundred million dollars monstrosity Gilliam would have unleashed upon the world.

Gilliam is an extremely creative person. He'd be a great production designer.

But he's a terrible director.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[object88]

Richard Harris missed the third movie on account of his being dead.

Another way of putting it might be: Richard Harris could not be reached in time for filming. (With all respect to Richard Harris, RIP.)

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[siriuskase]

Maybe they will bring Richard Harris back for the final book. Betting in the town where the next book is being printed indicate that Dumbledore will die. Once that happens, Gambon will no longer be appropriate.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[siriuskase]

Alonzo Cauron was able to work around the weather in Prisoner of Azkaban. It rained all but one day when they were shooting in Scotland, where most of the outdoor scenes were shot. That accounts for PoA possibly coming out darker than intended, but they made it work.

-n, redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

GAH

must refresh screen more often.

Quicktime install

[HumanTorch]

Anybody know of a way to install quicktime without iTunes?

Re:Quicktime install

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone .html

Re:Quicktime install

[HumanTorch]

To the nerf who modded parent as 0, offtopic.. please tell me how installing the software needed to view the trailer is 'offtopic'.

Re:Quicktime install

[Cognitive Dissident]

If you are using Windows, you can install Quicktime Alternative. Get it from http://www.free-codecs.com/

Re:Quicktime install

[seirui]

You could always try the K-lite Mega Codec pack, which installs Quicktime Alternative, along with Real Alternative, and a host of useful codecs for viewing all the stuff you grap off of bittorrent.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Mega_Co dec_Pack.htm

Re:Quicktime install

[Anonymous Coward]

Find a version "6" or less and download it.
Good luck

Harry Potter is gay, for kids.

[Fecal Troll Matter]

SO HERE ARE SO TIG 'OL BITTIES!: wakka wakka wakka!

Important Stuff

# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

yo yo ma

[chigun]

Not only is this old, but it hardly seems fitting for the /. main page. I realize the books are much-loved and all, but let's be serious. Do we really need Slashdot pimping movie trailers? I'm sure a good majority of us hit apple.com/movies often enough anyway. I prefer /. to report on cool tech stuff, not hollywood bullshit.

P.S. Sorry for the flamebait post.

Re:yo yo ma

[KajiCo]

No, you're pretty on topic, I submitted a year ago the teaser/trailer of Prisoner of Azkaban and it was denied posting because it was noted as "Off topic/not relevant".

Re:yo yo ma

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to imagine topical for slashdot is whatever geeks talk about. And remember... there are more kinds of geeks than just computer geeks, and most geeks are more than one type. Slashdot is like a social club for those with (stereotypically) no social life.

Re:yo yo ma

[Mr Bubble]

Is the Slashdot Main Page some sort of temple that must not be defiled?

What if the story was about a new video card, is that pimping?

I think Slashdot should cover geek things in general - be they scientific, technical, or cultural.

Re:yo yo ma

[novakreo]

Not only is this old, but it hardly seems fitting for the /. main page. I realize the books are much-loved and all, but let's be serious. Do we really need Slashdot pimping movie trailers? I'm sure a good majority of us hit apple.com/movies often enough anyway. I prefer /. to report on cool tech stuff, not hollywood bullshit.

I'd prefer /. to go without the endless Microsoft-bashing and Apple/Google fanboyism, but one can't always get what one wants. The great thing about the internet is that you get to decide what you click on. There's plenty of other stories on the front page, if you don't like this one, why whinge about it? You could always try submitting something you'd like to see on the main page yourself.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the fourth movie after seeing the trailer. I wasn't very impressed with the first two, but I think the third made up for them and then some.

Re:yo yo ma

[bw5353]

Your post is currently marked "Flamebait", and I think that is highly unfair, as your opinion is clear and obviously honest, but I do disagree with your comment.

Slashdot has plenty of news in different areas, and in many of them I have absolutly no interest, but other people obviously do. There is a visible interest for StarWars, StarTrek, Lord of the Rings, HitchHiker's guide and so on. Harry Potter isn't far from that category of films. If it had been "When Harry met Sally" I would have jumped, but Harry P is within limits I think.

Re:yo yo ma

[kreyg]

hardly seems fitting for the /. main page

News for Nerds...

Harry Potter is an outcast who discovers he has special powers and finds a place to fit in.

Compare to the person who is an outcast at the same age because they are smarter than others, but when they discover computers find that this is a gift, not a curse.

The story appeals to me for this reason, as I'm sure it does to many others here. If you don't get it, perhaps you should simply consider yourself fortunate, rather than hating us for it.

Audio Books

[henni16]

I can recommend the audio books read by Jim Dale, they are amazing.
He won some awards (including a Grammy) for them and a Guiness Book entry for "Most Character Voices in an Audio Book".

dragon feed

[natedubbya]

It is wise not to meddle in the affairs of dragons...
...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

sorry, couldn't resist

Re:dragon feed

[dooglio]

I wonder what Gandalf...er, uh, I mean Dumbledor would say to that.

PEOPLE WITH MOD POINTS: CALL FOR HELP

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a guy currently flooding Slashdot with randomly generated crap messages with the intent of disrupting normal discussion. Click on one of the links below to see what I mean. If you have mod points left and aren't sure what to use them for, plase mod him down so we can get his network banned.

• #12529789
• #12529682
• #12529639
• #12529586
• #12529517
  
  
• #12528534
• #12528506
• #12528480
• #12528439
• #12528383

Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Re:PEOPLE WITH MOD POINTS: CALL FOR HELP

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The "call for help" guy is lying through his anal teeth. If you waste your mod points on any of the comments he linked to, you're doing just that: wasting your mod points. Everyone in that comment tread is a loser troll
2. So... did someone 'sploit mercatur.org's DNS record to point it to the Cracky-Chan wiki?
3. How long has this 20271 comment thread been around and what's the story behind it?

This was the book where it stopped being kid's lit

[blackcat77]

It will be interesting to see if they stay faithful to the original or tame down the plotline to keep it appealing to little kids.

I held off reading them for a long time

[blackcat77]

I didn't expect much from "children's books," but these are very very good. Admittedly the most recent one was a very slow starter (150 pages of nothing more than people talking to each other) but once it got going, it was very good. Hopefully she was listening to the critics on her last effort and trimmed this one down a bit. But these are trifles -- the books are absolutely worth reading no matter how old you are. There's always a place for fantasy.

Slashdot Jr.

[Rasta Prefect]

Slashdot Jr. News for prepubescent nerds, Stuff that would matter if I were 12.

(I kid, I've actually seen all of the other ones).

Re:Slashdot Jr.

[LadyVirharper]

Glad you put the disclaimor in, else I'd have to flame ya since I'm 22 and not at all ashamed to be a HP fan. ;)

~*~Tangent:~*~ Anyone who thinks sci-fi and fantasy is something to be put away upon entence to adulthood never really understood what the genre is all about (the book one at least, I have my doubts about the movie/tv genre) and the reasons authors write in it.

Re:Slashdot Jr.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I'm 22 and not at all ashamed to be a HP fan

Well you should be for God sakes!

All the good books you could read and you're loving this trash!

Re:Slashdot Jr.

[LadyVirharper]

You, my Anonymous Coward fiend, obviously did not read my tangent.

Nor have you seen my personal library of 300+ SFF books.

Re:Slashdot Jr.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of people who read SciFi/Fantasy as children have grown out of it to a degree. I know that I don't nearly as much of the above genres as I used to, mostly only when something presents itself that I know will be very good. I've moved on. This isn't to say that it is wrong to still read it, but to say anyone who put it away never understood it, that is bullshit.

My brother is 4 years my senior and he likes HP. I am ashamed for him, but that is just HP.

I thought 1 and 2 were better than 3...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did they have to switch directors? The first two movies seemed like a good book. The last felt like I was watching an episode of ... well any show with ordinary teenagers dealing with magic. What the hell was with putting the characters in street clothes for the whole second half of the film? They're supposed to be in a magical land. What next, Herminone having her Ipod taken away from her when she's listening to it in class?

Re:I thought 1 and 2 were better than 3...

[Bombur]

What next, Herminone having her Ipod taken away from her when she's listening to it in class? Have you never read "Hogwards - A History"? iPods don't work there, Squib!

Re:I thought 1 and 2 were better than 3...

[Viper_Viper]

Well, if you accualy read the books you would know that they were not in the school for a good portion of the book, it wasent the director.

Re:I thought 1 and 2 were better than 3...

[6.023e23]

Well, if you accualy [sic] read the books you would know that they were not in the school for a good portion of the book, it wasent the director.

I for one agree with the earlier parent. Even in the earlier movies when the kids were not at Hogwarts they did not wear "modern" street clothes. AFAIK, bringing the kids' clothing up to current trends was the director's decision, and the only one I really have an issue with. It just seems so non sequitur in the Harry Potter world.

The feeling of the world of Harry Potter to me seems that in the world of the Muggles things are more modern, but not circa 2000. In the parallel realm of the wizards, things have kept a more Victorian look and feel. To have the kids dressing down to the Muggle equivalent when not at Hogwarts would have been more acceptable than today's trendy wear, though they were dressed in modern garb even when they were on the Hogwarts grounds but not in class, which flies against the setting of the previous movies.

I hope they revert that change in GoF and the later movies.

FWIW

Re:I thought 1 and 2 were better than 3...

[CoronalPendragon]

Oddly, I had the opposite experience. I think that movies 1 and 2, didn't have the spirit or feel of the books, but had all the details right. But the 3rd, had the feel of the books, even if some of the details were sacrificed.

And well, teenagers are teenagers. Remember, most of the students there are not pure-blooded wizards and witches, they were muggles like the rest of us. People will act the same no matter how they turn on a light, be it a wand or central lighting. They are still teenagers

Re:This was the book where it stopped being kid's

[TekMonkey]

The fans of the books/movies are growing older each year too. I'm still a big fan of the books, which I started reading when I was 11 or 12. That was 5-6 years ago.

Direct Link

[HungSquirrel]

Because I hate watching movies in a browser window.

Save dis shiz

PEOPLE WITH MOD POINTS: CALL FOR HELP

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a guy currently flooding Slashdot with "call for help" messages that disrupt normal discussion. Click on one of the links below to see what I mean. If you have mod points left and aren't sure what to use them for, please mod him down so we can get his network banned.

• #12529961
• #12514880

Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Very interesting.....!

[BluedemonX]

Notice that all these liberated, pro kiddie diddling people post anonymously?

If you've got the courage of your convictions that diddling children is OK then hey, post with your actual accounts.

Oh, you don't?

Right.

Screw Karma, screw everything else. Sexualising children is WRONG, creepily projecting fantasies on people who don't want that attention is WRONG, and I will stand by my words and proudly post them under my account.

Re:Very interesting.....!

[schon]

Sexualising children is WRONG

Again with the straw man - tell me, are you missing the point deliberately?

She's not a child, she's a teenager who is well past puberty, and in much of the world, she's past the age of consent. (Which has been pointed out to you before, and yet you continue to ignore it while making your straw man argument.)

Re:Very interesting.....!

[Turn-X Alphonse]

erm.. people took the joke wrongly it seems. It was a freaking joke, you know how many people get dragged to these things for little kids? At least star wars has Padame.

this has started a huge flame war over nothing :/

Re:Very interesting.....!

[-Harlequin-]

I do think you're over reacting a bit. I agree that sexualising children is wrong, but surely you're aware that a lot of children are taking cues from older segments of society and sexualising themselves quite happily without any conspiracy of "kiddie diddlers". Go out on any Friday night, and you'll see that not a single 25 year old dresses as sexually provocatively as the average 14 year old, not even the prostitutes.

I can't tell you how many times I've been out and seen a girl where I honestly couldn't work out the faintest clue as to how old she was - anywhere between 15 and 26. I'm in my 20s and not the least bit interested in anyone under 21, but in some cases, you genuinely can't tell from looks alone.

It's a pain in ass, but it's life, so I think going near-ballistic because someone dares observe that 15 year olds can be (and often are) sexual is a little baffling. I know one very sexy, gorgeous 24-year-old night-clubbing girl who has even commented out-of-the-blue that she really doesn't like going to all-ages events because the 14 year olds make her feel so unsexy and plain in comparison.

And I guarentee you she isn't creepily projecting fantasies on those girls. Many, if not most 14 year olds are NOT asexual chidren. They are sexual beings. You don't have to like it (I don't, she doesn't), but that's the way the world is.

Re:Very interesting.....!

[BluedemonX]

RE: I can't tell you how many times I've been out and seen a girl where I honestly couldn't work out the faintest clue as to how old she was - anywhere between 15 and 26. I'm in my 20s and not the least bit interested in anyone under 21, but in some cases, you genuinely can't tell from looks alone.

Here's what happens. You ask a girl out, you find out she's under $AGE_OF_CONSENT, and at that point you excuse yourself, explain the situation, and leave.

You don't airily talk about how in Cameroon the age of consent is 9 or whatever and ask if she wants to shack up.

RE: I know one very sexy, gorgeous 24-year-old night-clubbing girl who has even commented out-of-the-blue that she really doesn't like going to all-ages events because the 14 year olds make her feel so unsexy and plain in comparison.

There's totally something wrong with this.

Re:Very interesting.....!

[DiamondGeezer]

My daughter is nearly two. The idea that she might hit puberty in six or seven years is frightening. Nobody knows why they're getting to puberty so early but its frightening. The sexualization of children on TV and the media is not helping.

There are plenty of creeps trying the troll of "what's the difference between 15 yrs 364 days and 16 years" but the answer is usually "statutory rape". Lines have to be drawn somewhere and vulnerable children protected. Children are vulnerable - they may have sexual feelings (and thinking back, mine were INTENSE in my teens) but they have no clue about consequences.

Rock on.

Agreed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The third one was like 'Harry Potter Lite' - just one calorie, not quite evil enough.

ROFL!!!

[absurdist]

Yes, yes, of course...

YOUR kink, whatever it may be, is just fine and good. MY kink, however, is sick and twisted and disgusting.

I would point out to you that the age of consent in much of the world is 14, not 18, as you seem to believe. With some places as low as 12. So "underage" is a mere matter of location, at best.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/

I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.

And this post is courtesy of a 49-year-old married man with kids of my own, but, unlike you, with a rational view of human sexuality. So much for your idea that anyone who thinks such things are OK must have problems with adult relationships. As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

Re:ROFL!!!

[BluedemonX]

RE: YOUR kink, whatever it may be, is just fine and good. MY kink, however, is sick and twisted and disgusting.

I don't particularly care what anyone's kink is. I'm opposed to people who molest kids, molest the handicapped (e.g. non consensual) or comatose, rape, or do other things in which they take advantage of immaturity, insecurity, etc. or outright abuse the other person. I have a problem with date rape drugs or people who get others smashed to take advantage of them.

RE: I would point out to you that the age of consent in much of the world is 14, not 18, as you seem to believe.

I don't care what other people in other parts of the world do. In other parts of the world they do female genital mutilation or send their children out to be suicide bombers. I care about what people in a normal, sane, mature and decent society do.

REL I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality,

Much of our law has that concept in mind. You can't drive at 16. Heck, there are people in their 20s who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. But that's no excuse to lower the driving age to 8.

RE: rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.

I seem to remember Alanis Morrissette deeply regretting her relationships with adult men. Back when she was 12-15 she thought herself mature, cool, urbane, sophisticated, in charge, etc. Now she realised she was being used, and wished she'd known better. Many 12-15 year olds think they know everything, but they don't - which is EXACTLY why there's laws preventing their exploitation by adults.

RE: And this post is courtesy of a 49-year-old married man with kids of my own, but, unlike you, with a rational view of human sexuality.

So you've no problem with sex with children, and you have kids? Wow. I don't know what more to say.

RE: So much for your idea that anyone who thinks such things are OK must have problems with adult relationships.

I have no idea what your relationships are like. Hey, does your wife know you're into kids?

RE: As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

And as a rational, sane, decent human being I posit to you that certain things, like driving a car, sex, and voting should be deferred to a certain age and maturity. There's evidence that sex at younger ages cause greater risk for cervical cancer - as in, the female body needs some time to mature before it's ready for certain things.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I care about what people in a normal, sane, mature and decent society do.

So, you're saying that only people in your country are sane, normal, mature, and "decent".

Wow, you're even more fucked up than I thought.

Re:ROFL!!!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

As a Libertarian, you probably also are not living in the real world. Here in the real world, laws concerning age-of-consent are entirely necessary. Sure, in the worldly sense, they are arbitrary... but I also like to think the west has advanced since the days of, oh, I don't know... people getting married at 12.

If you feel otherwise, I suggest you keep an open mind when your 13 year old daughter is being seduced by 39 year old named "Chevy". Hey, if she consents, is all good, right? Just as long as that nasty government doesn't tell your daughter how to live her life.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaah, yes, the normality, sanity, maturity, and decency of American society. The latter three of which are widely contested by other, more normal, sane, mature, and decent cultures. But who's comparing.

Re:ROFL!!!

[bwalling]

I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are.

If you think you know a 12 year old that is capable of understanding the consequences and is willing to consent to having sex with you, then you are mistaken. Finding some country that tolerates slavery does not make slavery okay.

Re:ROFL!!!

[BluedemonX]

He's not thinking of the 39 year old seducing his 12 year old daughter, who of course, thinks she knows it all, etc. and naturally when she gets pregnant at 13 and "Chevy" takes off to find a younger woman and it's the poster who gets saddled with the bills (cause tho the 13 year old's parts all work, she can't drive the kid to the doctor's and is still at least seven years away from enough schooling to realistically support herself never mind a kid) ...

He's more likely to be secretly wishing his 12 year old daughter would bring her friends home. And that's wrong.

Re:ROFL!!!

[BluedemonX]

Thank you, bwalling. I was feeling like the lone voice of sanity, here.

Re:ROFL!!!

[yincrash]

I'm also a Libertarian. People should only be able to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. Consent laws and child pornography laws are there to protect the kids from being exploited. I was in highschool not too long ago, and at that age I really didn't know what I was doing. I definitely felt like I did though, or at least pretended I did. The fact is, laws are in place to prevent kids from being exploited and harmed mentally if not also physically.

Re:ROFL!!!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

This should be modded up. I ripped on libertarians in my other post on this thread, but that was probably more of a response to the typical libertarian you hear speak their views - not the "real" libertarian stance. After all, I never heard Badnarick say that age-of-consent laws should be revolked (please, correct me if I'm wrong and indeed this is an official stance).

As a Green-party kind of guy, I can relate to people often misrepresenting your party. I see the Greens as Libertarians in terms of civil liberties, but who also realize that things like war, pollution, and media consolidation do indeed "harm other people", to use your phrase, and therefore justify government action to correct the problem. Cheers sir

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you think you know a 12 year old that is capable of understanding the consequences and is willing to consent to having sex with you, then you are mistaken."

With him, no. But with me, y... ooups, er... gotta go

Re:ROFL!!!

[Astro Weasel]

Wow, there's a reason why we try to lock up idiots like you. You live a world where you think it's OK to have sex with kids, and justify it as "a rational view of human sexuality". That's messed up you sicko. I just hope you haven't molested too many kids along the way...

Re:ROFL!!!

[qopax]

You CAN drive at 16. Even here in new york you can drive at 16, and I'm fairly sure other states have even more lenient restrictions.

Re:ROFL!!!

[atriusofbricia]

Define kid, please.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe the parent post was moderated above -1

The original poster to which you responded said nothing about "... willing to consent to having sex with you [them] ..."

For crying out loud, go back and read the original post. It was intelligent and well written. Your response, i'm sorry to say, was not.

Age does not determine someone's maturity to determine the consequences of their own actions.

I have a friend who started having sex at 5 - he's now in his 50s and stands by his understanding of what he was doing (unless you've done it yourself - don't comment).

My brother on the other hand is 37 - and has failed to take responsibility (or consider the consequences of his foolish life) ... until most probably 18 months ago (after he lost his kids through the courts).

Now what's your theory on that? My brother wanted to have sex with my friend when my friend was 5? It makes about as much sense as your post above.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously dude.. you are a pervert. You don't have sex with 12 year olds because they are 12. Being mature has nothing to do with it. The point is, you are a child predator.. it's to protect them from you.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but you forget to take into account that most of the people who lust after your so-called "mature" 12 year-olds have serious issues. We like to call these people "pedophiles".

Maybe some of them are capable of making intelligent decisions, but regardless, they're all 12. Or, 15 in Emma Watson's case. Most 15 year-olds are mature enough to undestand sex and the repercussions and the possibility of STDs and pregnancy, to the point where they're mature enough to actually have it. But that's other 15 year-olds, not with some pasty creep, penis-in-hand, sitting in his parents' basment.

Re:ROFL!!!

[ErikZ]

He's a frothing Dad with a 15 year old girl.

Historically, girls were married off at an average age of 13. First child had at an average age of 15.

Oh, one more thing. I hang out on a forum that's mostly women. They thought that one scene in the girls bathroom with the two boys was *really* sexy. To the point where they were embarrased that they wanted to have sex with box under the age of consent.

I'm still waiting for the howls of outrage.

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

intelligence's got nothing to do with it.
It's wisdom. You usually get that with time.
who modded you insightfull?

Re:ROFL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we Americans are normal, sane, mature, and decent! I mean, we invented industrialized warfare and nuclear weapons. We are also very much ahead of the curve on the widespread compulsory adoption of psychotropic drugs as a means of promoting happiness and social harmony.

I just don't understand the irrationality and immorality of you foreigners...

Re:ROFL!!!

[lee1026]

well evolutionary speaking, wanting to have sex with young girls that are past pubty is a good idea. it gives one a better chance of having children (15 year olds generally are more ferile then 50) and have a much better chance to last long enough to raise the kids, as well as lasting long enough to have tons and tons of kids. and as we all know, evolution likes any action that might produce children. and we all know what programed our desires - evolution.

MOD PARENT UP

[Armadni General]

Score: 3, Funny

Goblet of Fire Teaser Trailer Released...

[IdJit]

like a friggin' WEEK ago!!

News is usually about stuff that's new.

To get even more OT ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's what you get for expecting intuitive behavior from an open-source project."

The "Submit" button should not even be there when the comment page first comes up. IOW, you should have to "Preview" at least once before you submit.

Re:To get even more OT ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to, but only if you are AC, if you have an account you can choose.
Is it really that hard to read the button before pressing it?

Emma Watson.. Emma Thompson

[Destoo]

Every time I read Emma Watson, I think of Emma Thompson, who plays prof Trelawney and she used to be married to Kenneth Brannagh, who played Guilderoy Lockhart.

Re:Emma Watson.. Emma Thompson

[yincrash]

they also share the same birthday.

Quicktime without iTunes here

[DigitalBubblebath]

Quicktime standalone player

Re:Quicktime without iTunes here

[fm6]

Already been there -- if I hadn't I couldn't play Quicktime at all. But the standalone player no longer does full-screen.

Re:Quicktime without iTunes here

[AaronLawrence]

And hasn't done full screen for a long time.

I don't get it. If they want us to watch advertisements, then for gods sake present it in the best way. I find it incredible that many movie sites still do the "postage stamp" video that we were all mocking in the early days of media on the web.

News for Tweenies. Stuff that matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

OT: FUD

[Bishop]

A claim of FUD used to be a very serious accusation. It was meant to counter act some of the subtle marketing that the big players were pushing. FUD goes hand in hand with vapourware. FUD is all about promissing that a company's future product is better then a competitor's product. A common claim was that a competitor's product had no future. A important part of FUD is that it is difficult or impossible to varify a company's claim.

Now FUD is claimed by any 13 year old fanboy who does not like a negative comment about their product of choice. A claim of FUD has become no better than true marketing FUD.

Re:OT: FUD

[fm6]

I agree that accusations of FUD are the last resort of people who don't have a real argument. But that's not a new thing. The first time I heard this TLA was back in 1998, when was when I was working at Sun, where "FUD" was their standard response to any criticism of Java. Even the most loyal Java programmer knows this platform has always had problems, starting with early implementations that were slow and flaky, and continuing with controversy over language features and control of the specifications. Instead of giving an honest response, Sun would accuse critics of spreading "FUD", which did little to improve Java's credibility.

"FUD" is, and always has been, just another way to spin honest argument into conspiracy theory. No intelligent person should ever use the term.

Well it's a funny country, the US...

[Kjella]

...I mean, you got plenty of kids being trialed as adults, but not one that can screw like an adult. This has lead to silly stuff like a 12yo girl being charged with molesting two 11yo girls, or the teenager (how old was she? 15?) charged with molesting herself.

So if the underage person is the "molester", she understands everything, but if she is the "molestee", she understands nothing. That requires a few leaps of logic, but that is the way it is.

We're approaching the same kind of sillyness here. A 16yo can screw as much as they want with whoever they want, but if you take a picture of it it is child pornography. It's like saying you can smoke weed, but not take a picture of it. Go figure

Kjella

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

You certainly have a point. Whenever you draw a line in the sand, there are bound to be circumstances that seem ridiculous when judged by that line. For example, does anything really think that age-of-consent laws were drafted to prevent 17-year-olds from dating 16-year-olds? Of course not. And when you look at situations like that, of course the whole thing sounds silly.

But in the end, a line still must be drawn. Those grey areas in between - let a judge figure it out... there are going to be some good decisions and some bad ones, but I don't think that makes a valid case that age-of-consent laws should not exist.

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[danila]

Age of consent laws are wrong. Why don't you live it to the judge (or jury) to determine whether the kid was molested and harmed? If there is evidence that there was rape, that the child was forced to have sex - guilty. If there is evidence that the adult tricked the child, lied to him, intimidated him - guilty. Basically if the child was harmed - guilty. But if a 10-year old kid had a healthy sexual relationship with an adult with the consent of the child's parents, why is it wrong simply because the child is underage?

Age of consent are wrongs, because they contradict reality, because there is no scientific, factual basis behind them, only religious and moral justification. Children are sexual beings and that they should not be sexually abused doesn't mean they should not have sex at all. Furthermore, many countries accept that a child can have sex with another child, but then it makes no sense that the older partner becomes a criminal simply by virtue of being 2 years and one day older instead of 2 years.

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Traci Lords? Everybody thought she was on the up-and-up when she told the producers and everybody else that she was an adult. She looked like an adult. And she certainly fucked like an adult. But she wasn't an adult. In fact, she started making movies at 14, and when it became known to the Reagan-era Justice Department that the world's greatest porn actress was jailbait, they indicted a shitload of people on various child-molestation charges. Ouch.

Anyway, it's all on Rotten. www.rotten.com/library/porn (or something like that)

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[BluedemonX]

RE: Age of consent laws are wrong... Basically if the child was harmed - guilty. But if a 10-year old kid had a healthy sexual relationship with an adult with the consent of the child's parents, why is it wrong simply because the child is underage?

Because the child is not yet mature enough to determine right from wrong, appropriate behaviour from inappropriate, etc. Small children by nature want what feels good not necessarily what's best for them - overeating candy, staying awake really late even though they will feel wrecked in the morning, etc. because they're immature. Sex is not a funtime pastime it's a game with consequences. AIDS, pregnancy, hurt feelings, lifelong trauma.

Some people mature and at certain points are given various rights and privileges as a result. OK? Some people like you on the other hand fly in the face of common knowledge and morality and decide that there is no right and wrong, no weal and no woe. If it feels good just do it. And that's why society is going to hell in a handbasket. So what if we destroy our industry? We'll get a good couple of quarters and $2 more on our stock price RIGHT NOW. Why save for what we want when there's easy instant credit?

RE: Age of consent are wrongs, because they contradict reality, because there is no scientific, factual basis behind them, only religious and moral justification.

There's quite a LOT of justifications. If ya can't trust a 12 year old to raise a baby you can't trust her to be doing them things which will result in a baby.

RE: Children are sexual beings and that they should not be

Humans are sexual beings - but there's time, place and appropriateness for behaviour. Some of us learn this. Some of us don't.

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[danila]

Small children by nature want what feels good not necessarily what's best for them.
As opposed to adults, who always to what is best for them. Yeah, sure. Do you believe in the Easter bunny too?

Sex is not a funtime pastime it's a game with consequences. AIDS, pregnancy, hurt feelings, lifelong trauma.
Oh, really? May I suggest that you are doing it wrong? I certainly didn't experience any of the above because of sex. Why should a 10-year old kid?

So what if we destroy our industry?
That's what is wrong with you. You don't have a coherent argument. You just through random unrelated tidbits and hope that something will make sense. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but nothing does so far. How are the imagined decline of our society and the shortcomings of corporations related to the issue we are discussing?

There's quite a LOT of justifications.
Would you mind telling us about SOME of these? You are so evasive in this discussion, I suspect you don't really know about ANY justifications and just blow hot air.

If ya can't trust a 12 year old to raise a baby you can't trust her to be doing them things which will result in a baby.
Do you think her adult partner might be able to do something about it? Like wear a condom may be? Or choose not to have penetration, but oral sex instead?

Humans are sexual beings - but there's time, place and appropriateness for behaviour. Some of us learn this. Some of us don't.
Some of us have irrational beliefs that they can't justify, but too comfortable with to abandon them. But some of us are sceptical, question these beliefs and prefer to have rational justifications for important rules that we set in our society. Apparently, you are one of the former.

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[Ominous the Forebodi]

A lot of these problems can be avoided with a dual-boundary system. Instead of setting a single age, say 16, that you cannot cross, set two ages, say 15 and 18. It then becomes illegal for anyone over 18 to have sex with someone under 15. It gets rid of the problem of two people who were born a day apart being illegal for a day, when one is 17 and the other is 16.

Irony: WMP works better than QT under GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a Windows Media Player version of the trailer (direct link to MMS stream easily available in that file; use mimms to download rather than stream), which ironically works better than the quicktime version under GNU/Linux; in the quicktime version, the audio is unsupported.

I'm not asking for trailers in Ogg or something like that. Is standard MPEG4 with MP3 or AAC audio too much to ask?

Bah, she won't stop at 7

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would she stop at 7 books when making so much money? I find it hard to believe that she will just stop when she gets to 7.

Re:Bah, she won't stop at 7

[daern]

Why would she stop at 7 books when making so much money? I find it hard to believe that she will just stop when she gets to 7.

Because sometimes it's not about the money, but I suppose many Americans may find that hard to believe... ;-)

Lindsey Lohan

[cheesy9999]

Oh if only Lindsey Lohan would play Hermine... http://www.liquidgeneration.com/blog/video/snl_pot ter.mov

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they didn't spend 50 episodes on their 'different-schools' tournament, unlike Naruto.

Slashdot is a business, think they aren't selling?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as you would like to think Slashdot is some sort of free-world rebellion, it's run by OSN, a company with a huge axe to grind. They could easily be taking a cut for advertising and feeding the "nerds" Potter.

I think the big joke on everyone is that Harry Potter was a horrible copy of LOTR combined with other junk (Rowlings didn't do any historical research when "re-defining" races), and everyone hated it. Now it has slowly seeped into campy-land and there are very few protests.

Potter sucks.

Gaiman fans, repeat after me...

[Stormwatch]

Harry Potter is a stupid, sissified TIM HUNTER RIP-OFF!!!

Re:Gaiman fans, repeat after me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. As much as I love the Books of Magic and couldn't give less of a damn about the HP series, even Neil Gaiman has said any resemblance is pure coincidence. The whole lonely-boy-finds-out-he-has-fantastic-powers thing is pretty archetypal, especially in British kiddie lit. And other than that basic resemblance, they're very different stories.

As far as the two being drawn similarily, if you look at how artists' depictions of Tim Hunter evolve and the dates, you'll notice he actually starts to look more Harry Potterish after the first HP book got big.

Also, while Gaiman wrote the original mini-series and had general creative control over the ongoing series, the other writers really were responsible for the story. Don't give Gaiman too much credit for it, especially since the on-going series is much better than the mini-series.

Re:Gaiman fans, repeat after me...

[notmartinfrobisher]

Interesting comment,I too read the books of magic when they came out originally. a few years ago when I finally cottoned on to the whole HP phenomenon, I thought, "Geez, why did Gaiman rip off this Rowling person for DC?" thinking that HP was obscure for years before hitting it big. When I looked at the dates I was blown away. Gaiman was hindered by the fact that he was trying to tie a whole bunch of DC historical backstory and characters into the Books of Magic in only 4 initial volumes, which in my opinion didn't feel very coherent. I'll pit his imagination against any author (except Grant Morrison and Jorge Luis Borges) on any day. Bottom line is I think it's a heck of a coincidence that at the very least should have been picked up by mainstream media more.

Re:Gaiman fans, repeat after me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously modded down by stupid, sissified Harry Pothead fans.

Yet another money machine

[nurb432]

This is heading the route of StarWars.. Milk them for all you can.

Oh, and dont forget your donation to the MPAA when you go see these things.

Not that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true the chances a 12 year old would attempt to do that sort of thing with an adult are remote, as too are the chances they'd be able to appreciate and handle it mentally. But you've missed his point. Each person is an individual. Dividing people by slot categories with age numbers is of limited use.
It's true that a person aged at the age of consent is probably going to be more likely to be able to handle and appreciate the complexities of human sexuality than a person aged a couple of years under it, but we're talking about trends here: there are wild variations in human mental and physical development among individuals inside the trend. Some people should never be having sex, at any age.

Can you honestly say there's not a single 12 year old in the world that is less able to mentally handle and understand sex than the average 18 year old? Or of a wife-cheating, prostitute-seeing 30 year old? Once you start seeing everything in terms of the average of the trend and of the individual as being synonymous with their category within it, you burn the people on the edges. The hypothetical 30 year old is allowed to harm others with impunity and gets little condemnation from others, whereas the hypothetical 12 year old and her boyfriend of whatever age are going to be serious trouble if they do what comes naturally to them. I know I once saw a 12 year old with a DD bust. We're talking about rare cases here, but they do exist.

The person who started this thread was probably either a troll or just being cynical, but there's probably a shred of truth in it that some people do find the girl attractive. Herminone of the books is an unattactive, buck-toothed girl. Would the actress of a major role been chosen if she looked like that? Throughout human history it was normal for girls 15 and younger to be sexually active, have babies and get married. By that age, a girl is physically and mentally far more an adult than a child. Someone doesn't magically become physically attactive to adults at a certain numerical age. They slowly become more attactive as they develop physically and mentally, each at their own pace. That many teenagers nowadays are so irresponsible, selfish and stupid over things reflects today's society, and not how teenagers should be if they're raised properly. The minority of teenagers who are raised in a better environment can end up very different.

It's not paedophilic to say that adults might find someone like Emma Watson attactive. Worry how someone's attacted, now whether they are or not.

This kind of discussion always goes the same way. It comes up, people go balistic, someone complains they're being unreasonable and it's a complex issue, and people get even madder and become less rational. It's a self reinforcing cycle.

An age of consent law is a self-fullfilling prophescy. Where it's 18, it's fine for 18 year olds to be having sex and be seen as being attactive, but 17 year olds are meant to be asexual and unattactive. Where it's 16, it's the same with 15 year olds. Where it's 14, it's the same with 13 year olds.

If Christian fundamentalists hadn't managed to have the age of consent increased much higher with the aim of stopping girls having pre-marital sex, then people's views would've been very different today.

I know of a 16 year old girl who was manipulated by a 30something for sex and emotionally hurt by it. But he did nothing legally wrong. So we could say the age of concent is too low? I also know of another 16 year old who got into a relationship with a 30somehing, and she happily spent the rest of her life with him.

Re:Not that simple

[h4rm0ny]

I think one of the things that confuses issues here is that biological indicators that existed in evolutionary terms are over-ridden by social indicators. I'm stepping into this topic with trepidation, but it seems to me that young girls are imitating the sexual signals they are shown by older girls in a way that wouldn't be possible without the clothes, the make-up etc. Putting on tights and short skirts, or lipstick, eyeliner, etc. are advertising sexuality that the girl doesn't actually possess. Stand a naked 15 year old next to a naked 23 year old and you can see which one is the sexually attractive one (and I mean the older one for anyone who is uncertain on that point), but dress right and maybe a guy is less able to see that she's just a little girl.

I don't really know much about this, but I'm guessing the imitation of sexual advertising by younger girls can confuse the issue. These days people are paying too much attention to clothes, make-up etc, and less to what someone actually is.

Re:Not that simple

[BluedemonX]

I don't see Emma Watson either dressing, acting, talking or in any way being a sexual being in any of the films. Unless you're one of those people who think she's asking for it by dressing in a private school uniform.

In actual fact, she seems to be a rather shy, timid, reserved and conservatively dressed person.

Not that I'd condone people leering at a 15 year old Britney Spears clone, I mean I think the whole marketing schtick behind T.A.T.U (underage lesbians!) is vile... but in this case Watson's sending off no signals whatsoever.

I dunno - a fully grown woman vs. a 15 year old. I'd take the 15 year old. Used to be the sex symbols were people like Marilyn Monroe and Betty Page who had adult bodies. These days people are being steered to 12 year olds, or people with those builds.

Re:Not that simple

[h4rm0ny]

I don't see Emma Watson either dressing, acting, talking or in any way being a sexual being in any of the films. Unless you're one of those people who think she's asking for it by dressing in a private school uniform.

I wasn't talking about Emma Watson, I was speaking about the girl on the street. I figured the discussion had moved on to general issues about young sexuality. I don't fancy Hermione for reasons that would be pretty obvious if this discussion were in person. ;) She's a very good actress though.

The thing with T.A.T.U. also passed me by, but I think if anything the two girls were getting a good laugh out of the act, at the expense of a lot of men. I don't see that it did them any real harm, unless they're totally unable to get past it later on, and always regard sex as just a way to exploit men - in which case they'll miss out on something special. But I'm sure that they weren't threatened by their admirers, and that's the essence of it, I think. A girl of 15, if not already active, will certainly be exploring and attracted to it. She may be attracted to an adult, but the problem is one of power. It can be very easy for a young girl to be overawed by a grown man and not all men are good men who are able to understand that and treat a girl gently, or hold off if they know that she'll get hurt.

But I'm probably omitting cases where it could conceivably be a positive thing. I lost my virginity to a significantly older partner. I don't think it did me harm - probably I got a better idea than with some fumbling teenager. But I was likewise able to accept it for what it was and walk away afterwards. I think most teenage girls (at least here in the UK) are emotionally capable of doing the same, though not all. The age of consent laws are probably about right. 16 is okay unless you're in a "position of trust" such as being their teacher, in which case 18 years old is required.

I dunno - a fully grown woman vs. a 15 year old. I'd take the 15 year old. Used to be the sex symbols were people like Marilyn Monroe and Betty Page who had adult bodies. These days people are being steered to 12 year olds, or people with those builds.

I'm surprised by this from what you wrote in your earlier posts, but perhaps this is why you have such strong feelings on the subject. I think most men would prefer the grown woman. While the media is obsessesed with skinny, it's also obsessed with huge tits and shapely butts, things that young girls just can't compete on. And I also don't think the media can overide our evolutionary preferances to any large degree. But we can't generalise about sexual preferences - you would probably go for the young girl, okay. But my biggest point I guess is this, if you talk to the girl for a couple of hours, and realize the discrepancy between you in terms of interests, music, what you want from life, etc, then I would think this would often put an older man off. The clothes and the makeup can make a young girl appear more than she is.

Anyway, that's my £0.02. I did read your earlier posts and just as an aside, you don't take account of how old the other posters might be. Any one of the people you were arguing with could easily have been under eighteen, which would undermine what you were saying considerably. Also, saying that it makes no difference between a six- and a fifteen-year old is very wrong. Legally, you are correct, but I would base my criticism of a man sleeping with a fifteen year old on ethical grounds rather than legal which makes for a much stronger argument.

Re:Not that simple

[BluedemonX]

Whoops, I meant to say would ignore the 15 year old. Now watch danila jump on this typo as evidence of repressed pedophilia. Sigh.

Age of Consent

[ansible]

I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.

Ugh. You don't seem to understand anything about society engineering. I don't mean social engineering. I mean engineering societies so that they productive and not too screwed up.

Sure, some 12 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds. That's not the point.

We can't have a society where everyone has to take long, drawn-out tests to allow them to do certain things. Think about applying for a driver's license (including the written and driving tests) for everything adults are allowed to do. Drinking alcohol, voting, signing legally binding contracts, entering the Army, getting a job, buying a firearm (*), owning a house, etc..

Geez, think of the cost. Think of how thick your wallet would be, carrying around all those different ID cards. Then, when you have to move, think about all the change-of-address forms.

So we don't do that kind of stuff. We don't have the time and money to implement comprehensive ability tests for all aspects of adulthood. So we pick a number (14, 18, 21, whatever) and hope for the best.

It is fine to question the rules of society. People don't do that enough. But to dismiss the rules without understanding the reasons for them is folly.

(*) Actually, I think a more comprehensive test for gun ownership is a good idea, but even that's probably not going to happen in the USA.

Aspect Ratios

[ralmin]

Is it me, or do aspect ratios on movies keep getting wider and wider? Now we're up to 30/13 already.

Re:Aspect Ratios

[Anonymous Coward]

It's you. 2.35:1 has been the standard aspect ratio for anamorphic widescreen film (a.k.a. "Cinemascope") for decades.

Just to confuse the issue, non-anamorphic widescreen film uses a 1.85:1 ratio, and in Europe 1.66:1 has been popular in the past (still in use, I think).

Naturally, widescreen TV fails to exactly match any of the above: 16:9 = 1.77:1. "Close enough for government work", as they say.

Thank Goodness!

[Anonymous Coward]

>who seems to have a tendency to substitute action scenes for character moments

You must be an American. Two reasons
1. Because you call it the "Sorcerer's Stone"
2. Because of the comment above. I call this the "Bruckheimer Syndrome". Movies tend to be jam-packed with explosions and other trickeries ... rather than spending any quality time on CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT (which the Potter movies balance well, IMHO).

I personally tend to prefer UK movies to US movies (note: i'm from neither region) - for that very reason... UK = character focused movie... US = explosions and other 'distractions' (aka. eye candy).

IMHO, one of the major failings of the Matrix sequels was just that... All eye candy - and no character development.

Then again, as a director, you already know this.

Having said that, I respect your right to enjoy eye candy all you like - but conversely, that bores me to tears in movies.

AC #4571

Mozilla?

[Newtronica]

"Goblet of Fire" I clicked on this thinking it was the newest product from Mozilla.

CowboyNeal's mailing address

[Craig_P92669]

I need CowboyNeal's mailing address to send him the shit I don't give about this.

Places w/ age of consent is 14 mutilate genitals

[Anonymous Coward]

Places where the age of consent is 14 also seem to be places that practice female genetic mutilation and honor rapes.

Nice to see you're the rational one.

Movie release date

[suitti]

I may or may not view the trailer. I've read the book, so it won't spoil much for me. But what I was interested in was the release date. It claims November 2005.

DVDs by Christmas? I doubt it. My Birthday (late January)? I doubt it.