Did anyone else notice that on the first movie, Harry isn't actually seen casting any spell? He flys, and does inadvertant magic, but he never casts a spell while on screen.

I noticed this when it first came out and had forgotten about it until I rewatched it a few weeks ago. Do you think it was done to appease the crowd who wanted to remove HP from schools because of the witchcraft? Or was there a different reason?

Any ideas?

Wow, I never noticed this either. But, another thing that wasn't ever mentioned was Hedwig. We see her, but they never said her name in the whole movie.

it's been a long time since i watched that movie! i didn't notice anything like that at all. there can be loads of mistakes in any movie. there were a few mistakes in the chamber of secrets too.

I've never noticed that either! Are you sure? Even Hedwig's name wasn't mentioned? It's incredible. lol
But it's ok. At least the first too movies are the closer to the books while in PoA & GoF it was a kind of "personal work".
Oh and don't remind me Dan's doggy's hair.
*faint*

I totaly never noticed that before!! Interesting.. And it's also true that Hedwigs name isn't actually mentioned in the film ( Unless you count the bonus scenes at the end, Harry says 'Hi Hedwig'.)

o.O.. I never noticed that as well.. Nice find
Anyways.. I don't know what spell could Harry actually cast in PS, since Hermione did almost all the spell-casting.

I think it was deliberately done. At the time there was a big uproar in that some catholic schools had banned the books due to the witchcraft aspect. When they made the movie, it appears that not showing Harry ever actually casting a spell was a form of defence against this angle of attack.

In the books he cast a few spells, in classes and such.

I watched the movie 4 months ago,so i really don't know about this,if u wish then i will again see the movie than answer your question

I never noticed that he doesn't cast any spells. I thought he did "Windgardium Leviosa" but I guess it just shows the class as a whole. They make up for it in the next three movies however. He uses his wand for a lot.

Ever since I saw the first movie, it has occurred to me that Hermione's performance in the films has outshone Harry's to the point where I had to ask myself why he was still the hero.

If you think back to the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone, she was all over the "Oculus Reparo," "Alohamora" and "Wingardium Leviosa," and "Petrificus Totalus" charms. I know those aren't much compared to what the trio is doing nowadays (in the films and the books) but back then it was a sight more than either of her companions were capable of.

Then, in the Chamber of Secrets, it was Hermione who used "Immobulus" on the Cornish Pixies. Admittedly, though, my opinion of Harry's spellcasting went up a notch or two thanks to the Dueling Club scene. Harry also had that "Aranea Exume" spell he kept using in the forest. His stock was rising. I still think that her cleverness and her ability to seemingly come up with the perfect spell whenever the trio was in a pinch outshone Harry's ability to get through everything by sheer willpower. I wish she hadn't been petrified so early on... I would kill to see what she'd make of the Riddle-memory-basilisk thing.

In Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry impressed me with his mastery of the "Patronus" charm (albeit at the end of the film) but all the Patronuses in the world wouldn't free Sirius from that cell in the tower. Once again, it was Hermione to the rescue, this time with her use of "Bombarta" to blow open the cell door.

I think the filmmakers were catching on to what I'm trying to say here, because in Goblet of Fire they completely "nerfed" her role in the film, turning her into something I'd expect to see on a soap opera or something. Let's face it, she went from clever spell goddess to mothering, nagging girl with a new boyfriend.

I guess what I'm asking is: Was it Hermione's prowess in the first films part of the reason for Harry stepping up his game in the more recent films or is he getting a bit better because he's coming into his own? Or is it a bit of both? Did the filmmakers sit down with the screenplay writer and say "Look, man, we need you to tone Hermione down a little bit here because she stealing too much of the hero's thunder?" Now, bear in mind that I'm not really talking about the characters as we know them from the books. I just mean their performances in the films. Tell me what you guys think. Maybe it's just me.

Z-Factor

I know I'm not supposed to double-post, but I forgot to mention the rogue bludger scene in Chamber of Secrets. Wasn't it odd that of all the wizards and students at that match, it was ultimately Hermione that stopped the bludger? Where was Hooch? Where would Harry be without Hermione's "Finite Incantatum?" Okay, now I'm done. Sorry about the double-post, moderators. I thought of it right after I clicked the "Add New Topic" button. Don't you hate that?

Z

Well you know I can hardly agree with you. Being that Harry never did magic before and Hermione did before she came. The thing is, Harrys magic is more powerful then Hermiones, yah hers might be helpful but Harry saves peoples lives. Anybody, including Harry, could pull of those charms if they needed to. Ron, in CoS, was the only one amazed at her magic ability. So I cant say I totally agree with you.

Okay, aren't her parents both Muggles? If that is the case, how could she have done any spells before coming to Hogwarts if her parents are Muggles? Wouldn't that violate the Secrecy Act? She did say in the movies that she's done only a few simple spells but they've all worked for her. What did she do? Read the first chapter of Standard Book of Spells volume 1 and practice a couple between Diagon Alley and the Hogwarts Express? It's possible I suppose, which means that she's done "more magic" but not all that much more. Harry had plenty of time to catch up to that little bit but he didn't.

I admit his spells carry a cretain amount of potency when cast, but without her magic Ron would have died in Devil's Snare in the first film. Where was Harry? In the second film, Harry couldn't get that bludger off him and it took her to blow it up. In the third, why didn't Harry blow the door to Sirius's cell?
Remember, we're just talking about the films and the point of this topic was to discuss whether the filmmakers gave a bit too much spell casting prowess to Hermione at the beginning of the series, and if so did that lead to her taking more than the intended share of the spotlight? I think her abilities made Harry look less impressive in the first three films. There was no doubting that he was the "hero" but I'm just not sure he was the MVP.

Zophael

In the movies they did perform simple spells at home, like Harry was perfroming lumos in the beginning of PoA. As for Hermione, I never saw it as her unstaging anyone. In PoA she was a bit more of a star, but she is smarter then Harry and Ron. It doesn't make her the star of the movies, as Zophael put it, she's more of the MVP.

that is a bit odd that we never see him cast a spell on screen in the first movie but it was still a good movie

i noticed that first time i saw it. it was just strange. not one spell. and in a way it just felt like he did. do u think the writer just forgot about writing in spells for harry?

OF COURSE SHE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE'S PERRRRRRFECT... SHE'S AMAAAAAZING!!!!

What an interesting point of view, Zophael. And I think that I agree and disagree. I think that Hermione does shin more britly than most in the first three flims, but Harry shins a bit more. The Patronus is clearly made out to be the greatest spell cast in the whole series up to that point, and Harry cast it. I think why he didn't blow the door open and Hermione did was because she stepped up and did it first. As for the fact that she safed Ron in PS, she saved him and Harry in the book so...isn't it understandable that she do the same in the movie. But I'll agree with something she said that has always annoyed me a little. Her saying "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too." Because Ron says that really, not her. So I think that in that moment she shins brighter than Ron anyway.

No, the star is still Harry. The film version of Hermione is a strong character. But you see her performing spells. She does not really 'do' anything of great importance. We see Harry fight Voldemort and kill a basilisk. I am sorry, but Hermione would have been dead. She admits as much in the first movie. "Books, cleverness...there are more important things. Firendship, bravery."

I must disagree. Her spells are only useful for circemstance. Harry learned to congure a patronus he's set for life is a dementor comes a knocking. But bombardement spell is what? A force of eneergy pushed forward? Hardly advanced magick, pales in comparison.

And I have never felt she stole the spot light. She made a nice female leadand attracted a huge girl fan base and a very huge boy fan base. *cough*


Stole the lead? I don't think so. Did she fight the dark load unpeteen times? She just does the research part and Harry's the one who goes and gets his arm bit off by a snake.

I think that Hermey definitely has her place in the trio, but I don't think she outshines anyone. Her character is extremely grounded. She has unwavering values and knows that hard work does lead to reward. Harry has the courage that most of us lack, including Hermione. She's not a coward, but I don't think she performs well under pressure, which is why she's always hitting the books. Harry's character has that quality of courage that comes out when he especially needs it. It's not necessarily something you can learn.

Which is why the books are about Harry and not Hermione, she'll help save the world, but she won't be the one to deliever the final blow.
Y2K, nice to see another Buffy fan around.

I think the reason for this was that being a wizard came as such a shock to Harry. He was not used to being magical. He needed that year to get used to the idea of magic. Not having him perform magic is supposed to convey this.

I'm quite certain he did pronounce Wingardium Leviosa in charms...

His feather levitated!

I have seen all 3 other movies at least 10 times each in the past week and I haven't seen SS in like a year lol, as I don't own it anymore but I do remember his feather levitated.

In the Charms scene we see Harry and Seamus paired and Ron and Hermione paired. Seamus, Ron and Hermione say the spell but Harry doesn't. He just looks on while Seamus tries it but it blows up or something, covering them in soot and leaving their feather burnt and hovering a few inches off the table.

His feather levitated yes, but it was Seamus doing it. I only watched PS/SS a few weeks back so it's all fresh in my mind again.

Not one spell in PS? That's really wierd considering he kills Quirrell and all...it's like he did nothing although we all know that's not the case.
Oh well, he makes up for it in the next few movies!

I guess this could have been a deliberate attempt on the film makers part to portray Harry's metamorphosis as a wizard over the years, just the way JKR did in her books. Like some pointed out, in his first year, Harry was still coming to terms with him being a wizard. He still is and we often find him thinking and acting like a muggle. He took to magical world quite quickly but still found himself amazed about several aspects of it and in those instances his muggle roots come to the fore. Harry seems to be someone who fluctuates between being a muggle and wizard depending on the day. But as he moves through years at Hogwarts, he starts to come into his own and his magical powers start growing.

That his spells are more powerful than average wizard is something that has been emphasised in the movies and the books, but he's still limited in his repertoire of spells and neither is he keen on learning new ones. The movies have captured this quite well. In the first year, he's quite content to see magic being performed rather than do it himself. Even in the second year, when he was down in the chamber of secrets, he did not perform a single spell, but the muggle in him took on basilisk with a sword. But in the next two movies, he's shown performing magic with much more regularity and competence and this would manifest itself further when Ootp come s out. Hermione and Ron are integral to Harry's life and his quest. Hermione is the best in Harry's year and her keenness for knowledge and trying out magic ensures that she's always looking forward to use magical spells, however, mundane. Ron on the other hand grew up seeing magic in action and combined with his (and Harry's) own laid back attitude to academics, finds it convenient to use magic only when required. A successful spell doesn't hold the same fascination for him that it does for Hermione.

This is one of the several reasons why Hermione comes along as the star early on in the movies, but as Harry grows up and faces challenges seldom faced by others and comes out of those, his character becomes more and more prominent and the stage is being set for the final confrontation between Harry and Tom with the support cast all lined up. The movies seem to be gradually heading that way.

I heard about harry not casting any spells. That's quite funny! He lfys on a broom, tackles trolls, takes on Voldemort, almost gets strangled by a plant, killed by a three headed dog, and had to survive Norbert, yet he doesn't cast a single spell?

That's funny! Mybe they did uniententionaly (sp?) , or for those people who have a problem with witchcraft?