in the pensieve scene..when their interrogating karkaroff..and he names snape...the movie pretty much follows the book [pp390-391]..except that in the movie..karkaroff adds "snape remains loyal to the dark lord" after dumbledores' closing remark at the top of p391...could this be a clue that snape really will turn out to be on voldys' side in book 7?..

I didn't notice that bit but im probably going to see it again soon so I shall look out for it and let you know what I think. I do think there is some clues to Snapes character in the movie though in regards to the future books. I want to believe that Snape isn't evil and that he is on the good side but I do have my doubts. I just can't believe Dumbledore would trust him if otherwise. Good point though!

yes very good point however if you think about it book 6 was only released halfway into filming of the GOF so they would have had to have a script change which is unusually for halfway through filming and as they dont film, films in order they may have already filmed the scene and i doubt they would have gone back to change it!

Yes, the book did come out later, but Kloves, the script writer, keeps in close contact with JKR and she might have let in one of her ambiguous hints at that time, like, "you're getting closer." She apparently does that a lot.

Actually, when I heard Karkaroff say that, I thought the same thing. There were other hints in there too, that haven't been revealed, and they either answer questions or lead you further in your suspicions. For instance, when DD said he'd set the curtains on fire in his fourth year, that tells you right there that DD was in Gryffindor. Now I don't know if JKR said so in one of her interviews, but it was never in the books. There are lots of other things, too, but I can't remember what they are at the moment. When I see it again (for the fourth time) sometime soon, I'll fill you in on stuff I noticed. It bugs me, though, because it seems like they'd spend less time dropping vague hints and actually stick to the book. They could get more important lines out that way. For instance, they never mentioned who turned the cup into a portkey. That was a kinda important line, and it would be an easy line to throw in there. But instead they had to leave stupid hints to a book that isn't even out yet, if they really did so. Grrrrrrr.

Cheers!

yeah i get wat you meen about the hints they do leave alot of the book out its annoying wen [u] you read the book and [u] you thik oh that will b[e] good then it isnt in the film thats realy that is


MOD EDIT: Watch the netspeak please. I have fixed it for you this time.

i'm not aggreeing with the person who first posted. my friend has an amazing theory that i'll post later in a thread that deals with it, but after what was said. i'm having second opinions.

ok i have decided to put in my two cents worth. the movies are so different from the books you don't really know what is what. i doubt that karkaroff said anything important to the seventh book. it was just another way for them to change around jk's text of the book. besides jk would probably not have told the directors or anyone else what is going to happen so tha they can put it in the movie. but i will say this (i am aware that i am about to contradict my self somewhat). jk did not neccesairily give any subtle hints to any directors, but she did say there were some shocking similarities between movie 3 and the sixth and seventh or maybe just the seventh books. but i am going to stop because i think this is a little off topic.

As someone said earlier, JK keeps in close touch with the screenwriter. It's necessary for her to sort of point him in the right direction. So much of her writing is nuanced - she has many different plots continuing at once, some of which gain greater importance in later books. So the screenwriter must have some inkling of which plot points hold importance for the end so that he/she (I don't know anything about the screenwriter - sorry!) can write an appropriate script. For example, if the screenwriter had chosen to simply leave Scabbers out of the first and second films, the impact of his being Peter Pettigrew would not have been quite as shocking. JK writes so such seemingly unimportant plot points become pivotal - the screenwriter must have some inkling about what is important...so I think everyone's right on target trying to take hints from the films.