1st Movie - HP and the Sorcerer's or Philosopher's Stone - Discussion

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 3, 2008 5:15 pm (#291 of 353)

Well, not only kids read the books. JKR throws bits in for her older readers as well. And hopefully some kids are either interested in myth or will be introduced to it as they get older, increasing their appreciation for the layers in JKR's writing.

---

tandaradei - Aug 3, 2008 5:43 pm (#292 of 353)

... and that's the mark of a good kid's story, when there's enough for youngsters, but also enough to keep older folks interested & happy...

---

journeymom - Aug 3, 2008 6:35 pm (#293 of 353)

But, how many kids have a background in Greek mythology?

Many, many. The fascination starts early in grade school for some kids and at least in California, Greek mythology is in the sixth grade curriculum. My son is nine, going into fourth grade and he and I are currently reading The Lightening Thief, which is alllll about Greek mythology. His nine year old friend gave it to him for his birthday. (And now thirteen y.o. sister is reading it, too.) These kids all love it. I know I loved the ancient Greek stories when I was that age. And a great story is a great story.

Anyway, yes I agree that JKR has all kinds of references that kids won't necessarily get. Primarily the alchemy and philosopher's stone theory. Most adults aren't familiar with that, much less kids.

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 3, 2008 7:11 pm (#294 of 353)

Edited Aug 3, 2008 8:13 pm
Yeah, I was well versed in Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian and Indian mythology by the time I was in Grade One (i.e. the equivalent of American 'first grade'), but for those kids who haven't been exposed to these rich stories hopefully JKR will have given them a push in the right direction so they can grow up to be knowledgeable adults with a continuous thirst for learning. I've heard that she gets questioned by kids about different elements of her books and rather than answer she tells them to go to the local library and borrow a book about it.

Oh, this is the movie thread, isn't it? Oh well.

---

megfox* - Aug 3, 2008 7:17 pm (#295 of 353)

Edited Aug 3, 2008 8:19 pm
I remember when this forum first started, we had all kinds of threads that focused on things such as where JRK got her inspirations from, and how people got into different literature because of her. I think that the connections such as Greek mythology make the story so rich, and the movies just leave things like that out or change them for no reason. I get that they can't include everything, but it seems like such a weird thing to change. I have a feeling that the writers or director didn't pick up on that connection and therefore, thought it would make more sense to have it be someone from the British Isles, because they thought that the casual watcher (which I think they would fall into, since they can't seem to get a grasp on what is important in the books **cough**Harry's green eyes**cough**Dumbledore's glasses**cough**) would expect.

ETA: Great minds, eh, Pesky?

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 3, 2008 8:11 pm (#296 of 353)

Great minds indeed, megfox*, and I am so delighted to see someone else use 'ETA'! I was so sure that I had seen it on the forum and I used it liberally until I was asked about what it meant last month. I assumed that I had imagined I had seen others use it and changed to 'EDIT' from then on!

I'm also rather disturbed that Dumbledore is at the Quidditch match where Quirrell tries to do Harry in and he does nothing while Harry is being whipped around by his broom! He just sits there looking mildly surprised; you wouldn't know that this is the most powerful wizard in the world.

Snape handles the situation in the book, then for the next match he referees and Dumbledore sits in the stands, for double protection.

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 6, 2008 6:23 pm (#297 of 353)

Edited Aug 6, 2008 7:25 pm
After all the whining, I think I should add that I liked Snape's use of Occlumency on HRH. It was a nice touch.

---

Orion - Aug 7, 2008 3:07 am (#298 of 353)

Quoi?

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 7, 2008 8:01 am (#299 of 353)

LOL, when Snape confronts the trio (on the day they decide to go down the trapdoor at night), he looks into their eyes and deduces that "people will think [they're] up to something". The first time I saw that I thought they were overplaying the one line in PS/SS where Harry feels that Snape can read minds. But lo and behold, come OotP we learn that when he stares into his students' eyes he really is 'reading their minds'.

---

Julia H. - Aug 7, 2008 9:20 am (#300 of 353)

Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading."

I like this scene too.

---

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 7, 2008 9:23 am (#301 of 353)

I plead guilty to being a complete Muggle. I'll go slam my hands in the freezer door now.

---

rassannassar - Aug 7, 2008 4:21 pm (#302 of 353)

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but what Snape is using on the trio when he says people will think they're up to something is Legilimency.

---

PeskyPixie - Aug 7, 2008 6:51 pm (#303 of 353)

D'oh! I have become a complete Muggle, haven't I? Thanks, rassannassar. I'll go slam my hands and my ears in the freezer door now.

---

Liz Mann - Aug 9, 2008 7:36 am (#304 of 353)

Edited Aug 9, 2008 8:37 am
I was thinking, there's a read-along of the books, why not do a watch-along of the movies? If we did do that then would it be in this thread or a new one, do you think?

---

Orion - Aug 9, 2008 8:47 am (#305 of 353)

You know, Liz, sometimes you have brilliant ideas. I'd love to take part in a watch-along. When do we start?

---

Liz Mann - Aug 9, 2008 9:27 am (#306 of 353)

Edited Aug 9, 2008 11:11 am
You know, Liz, sometimes you have brilliant ideas. - Orion

Aww, shucks.

Well let's see how many others are interested first.

Do you think it should be on this thread or a separate one?

---

Orion - Aug 9, 2008 2:25 pm (#307 of 353)

If anybody is interested it should be on a separate thread, IMO.

---

Julia H. - Aug 9, 2008 2:29 pm (#308 of 353)

It is an interesting idea but I hope we can take our time to watch the movie first.

---

Orion - Aug 9, 2008 2:49 pm (#309 of 353)

That would certainly help the discussion.

---

Madam Pince - Aug 10, 2008 8:29 am (#310 of 353)

Edited Aug 10, 2008 9:30 am
Oh, I like that idea. I'd be in. We seem to watch one or the other of them on a weekly basis anyway.

---

---

Liz Mann - Aug 10, 2008 11:01 am (#311 of 353)

The watch-along thread it up.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 5, 2008 10:01 am (#312 of 353)

In the Mirror of Erised scene I am always disturbed by the fact that Lily and James look middle-aged. They died young, for Merlin's sake!

---

Orion - Oct 5, 2008 10:27 am (#313 of 353)

You can't make them look like 21. It would be cheesy if a girl who looks like a girl from NEWTs class puts a hand on Harry's shoulder. But another big reason, IMO, was the decision to cast AR. He was around 55 when the first film was shot. Oldman was 56 in OOP. They were all in the same year at Hogwarts, so their ages mustn't differ so much. (They still differ too much, but you can overlook that if you squint a bit.)

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 5, 2008 10:39 am (#314 of 353)

Ummm, better check those facts, Orion. Gary Oldman just turned 50 this March.

Besides, Snape (even book Snape) has aged since the Potters' death. In the 'honour guard' scene in DH Harry's parents are practically the same age as him. Even Sirius and Lupin have regained their youth after passing through the veil.

On a personal note, I found the geezer versions of James and Lily pretty cheesy.

---

Julia H. - Oct 5, 2008 11:26 am (#315 of 353)

Yes, the ages are mixed up. James and Lily look as old as they never actually were, while Snape, though he has indeed aged since the Potters' death, is far too old for someone in his early (later in their mid) thirties and this, I think, puts the character and his relationship with the other characters into a totally different light. Dumbledore looks quite old, but perhaps not as old as book-Dumbledore really is, which rather reduces the age-difference between him and Snape (in comparison with the book). (For example, I've noticed that movie DD sometimes looks with almost the same disapproving look at movie-Snape as Snape looks at the children and I think with a younger Snape that would be in a different context.) But then again, a younger Snape would not be Alan Rickman, so perhaps I don't mind this age problem so much.

BTW, what happened to the watch-along?

---

Liz Mann - Oct 5, 2008 12:18 pm (#316 of 353)

I imagine that in the mirror Harry would see them at the age that they'd be were they alive, because the mirror is a reflection of his deepest desire and that's probably how he'd imagine them.

My biggest peeve about Lily and James was that James didn't look like an older version of Harry. His hair was too short and neat. It should have been like Harry's.

---

Choices - Oct 5, 2008 5:05 pm (#317 of 353)

I agree with you Liz. The mirror showed what Harry imagined them to look like at that time - it was not a realistic portrayal, but how Harry sees them in his mind.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 5, 2008 5:30 pm (#318 of 353)

Edited Oct 5, 2008 6:30 pm
I honestly don't feel that so much thought went into it, although as fans we'd try to make the pieces fit and argue it in this way. I feel that the people in charge of casting James and Lily cast actors who look old enough to be a pre-teen's parents. I doubt they had in-depth discussions about how the Mirror of Erised works.

BTW, in the book Harry sees many family members who have passed over. Does he fashion these individuals as well?

---

Choices - Oct 6, 2008 7:36 am (#319 of 353)

Edited Oct 6, 2008 8:36 am
I think he does. I always thought it strange about Harry seeing the old man with knobby knees like Harry's. Did Harry see him wearing shorts? I just don't imagine wizards wearing Bermuda shorts. LOL

---

Orion - Oct 6, 2008 8:53 am (#320 of 353)

Oh sorry! I gave Gary Old Man an ageing potion. I think I read it somewhere, but probably I mixed up two people. Can I make up for it by confessing that he was heartbreaking in OOP?

IMO, Lily and James are not too old, they just look wrong. They look boring, conventional, conservative and prematurely aged. They look as if a team of consultants had sat together and searched for the right parental look. They look like parents out of a corny US fifties family comedy. They look so safe. Especially this James. He was a hellraiser when he was alive so it's a lie to make him so tame and grown-up.

They are supposed to look as if they didn't live in the same decade, because they never had the chance to live in the same decade. But they look like they belonged to the "Truman Show". False, narrow-minded and scrubbed clean.

---

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 6, 2008 11:23 am (#321 of 353)
Edited Oct 6, 2008 12:24 pm

" ... Lily and James are not too old, they just look wrong. They look boring, conventional, conservative and prematurely aged. They look as if a team of consultants had sat together and searched for the right parental look. They look like parents out of a corny US fifties family comedy. They look so safe. Especially this James. He was a hellraiser when he was alive so it's a lie to make him so tame and grown-up." -Orion

I'm not completely sure about the 'not too old' bit, but I've got to agree with the rest.

---

journeymom - Oct 6, 2008 12:16 pm (#322 of 353)

I agree, too, and thanks for putting it into words! They both look like they're anywhere from 30 to 40 years old. They could have chosen people in their mid-twenties and it would have worked for me.

---

Liz Mann - Oct 6, 2008 12:43 pm (#323 of 353)

IMO, Lily and James are not too old, they just look wrong. They look boring, conventional, conservative and prematurely aged. They look as if a team of consultants had sat together and searched for the right parental look. They look like parents out of a corny US fifties family comedy. They look so safe. Especially this James. He was a hellraiser when he was alive so it's a lie to make him so tame and grown-up.

I agree with you completely, Orion. Considering that they seemed to take the descriptions in the book into account with the rest of the characters it seems strange that they completely ignored it with Lily and James.

---

Julia H. - Oct 6, 2008 1:22 pm (#324 of 353)

I never thought of this in these terms but I also find Orion's description quite appropriate. Now I know what's wrong with that scene.

---

Choices - Oct 6, 2008 4:25 pm (#325 of 353)

Well, I always figured that death changes people. Ones who were at one time daring or untamed, now are more sedate and peaceable after their trip to the other side of the veil.

---

Julia H. - Oct 7, 2008 5:24 am (#326 of 353)

I agree that James behind the veil is almost a different person but Harry is supposed to see his living parents in the Mirror.

---

Choices - Oct 7, 2008 7:10 am (#327 of 353)

Harry saw his parents in the mirror as he imagined them to look at that moment. They were dead, but he saw them as they might have looked on that day if they had been alive. Harry knew very well that they were dead.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 7, 2008 8:35 am (#328 of 353)

I think we're over-analyzing now. Orion got it right.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 8, 2008 9:25 am (#329 of 353)

BTW, I just wanted to add that the previous post is merely my opinion. By all means, keep on analyzing! It's always interesting to read a new perspective.

---

Mrs. Sirius - Oct 8, 2008 8:47 pm (#330 of 353)
Edited Oct 8, 2008 9:48 pm

Sometimes you see what you want to see. Last weekend I returned to my college for a re-union for the first time since I graduated some 20 something years ago. I recognized several people instantly and most people remembered me to. Most people said " you haven't changed a bit" (I was very flattered)

Well, twenty years and four kids later, I have changed. But my classmates, say "you look the same". In the wizarding world there is magic, and Harry has actually seen his parents. We know from POA that Harry remembers more than he thinks. So I am not surprised Harry has a better idea of his parents appearance.

Once again Harry and that lonely feeling. This time none of the Gryffindors speak to him because he has broken the rules.

They establish patterns early, together again preparing for a big mission, Hermione at her books, Harry and Ron thinking.

It seems that they young first years stay up late an awful lot.

Has anyone on this thread kept track of gifts Harry has receive? Here he takes a gift from Hagrid, a flute.

Neville, the knight, gallant in his new confidence to fight for what is right, what is right not easy. He will stand up to Harry Potter himself. Once again he is here before Harry to challenge his leaving the dorm. This also reminds me of how he charges out of Hogwarts to challenge Voldemort at the end of DH. Ignoring the danger to fight, looks at it, Ron right in the eye, to stand for what is right.

We get to see a spell up close here. Hermione does petrificus totalis, Neville arms and legs go together, he falls, he cannot speak only his eyes move. Like Harry at the end of HBP, held by DD spell.

Ever chivarious, Ron offers Hermione the chance to go done the trap door first. Harry leads.

“Yes but there is no wood” have you gone mad? Are you a witch or not?

I love this line. I so looked forward to seeing this in the movie. This is gem JK planted and had to wait until DH for it’s punch line. This is also, (IMHO) laying the foundation for those of us who were R-H ‘shipper. The entire exchange between Ron and Hermione starts to lay a certain tension that is more heightened.

Is their wondering here about meeting a full grown dragon foreshading?

Getting the key is highly coordinated task and shows how well the kids work together.

---

---

Madam Pince - Oct 14, 2008 9:25 am (#331 of 353)

Edited Oct 14, 2008 10:27 am
I agree with Liz Mann's and Choices' take on the Mirror of Erised scene. Harry is seeing the deepest desire of his heart, which I took to be that his parents would be alive there beside him. Naturally he would see them at the age they would be if they were alive now, not at the age at which they died.

Someone mentioned that they look "safe" and "conventional" -- isn't that also what Harry would desire? He doesn't feel safe with the Dursleys, and he says over and over in the books that he just wants to live a "normal" life, so wouldn't he picturing a "typical conventional" family? Remember, at this point Harry has no idea that his father was a "hellraiser" in his youth, so why would the Mirror of Erised show that?

Dumbledore said the mirror shows "...neither knowledge nor truth..." so I'd say it shows what Harry desires. I think it's perfectly reasonable that Harry would desire "normal-looking", traditional, conventional parents -- he wants to be "normal." (I'm putting normal in quotes because I realize that varies according to personal perspective.)

Also, why do we think James hasn't "calmed down" a little bit from his schoolboy "hellraising" days, since he married and had a child? From the few scenes that I recall of him in that time period, he had quieted down a bit (I'm thinking of the playing with baby Harry domestic scene.) Sirius was the one who seemed to have never "grown up" (for lack of a better term.) But, there is something to be said for "a leopard does not change his spots," so I don't know.

Anyway, for me, the scene works and I like it.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 14, 2008 9:44 am (#332 of 353)

Edited Oct 14, 2008 10:46 am
"Also, why do we think James hasn't "calmed down" a little bit from his schoolboy "hellraising" days, since he married and had a child?" -Madam Pince

He was getting antsy sitting at home for the protection of his baby. I'm sure he matured, but that does not mean that he became a homebody. He directed his energies towards fighting the enemy. And yeah, the Potters in the movie-Mirror of Erised are geezers - sorry. Even if James and Lily had lived to be eighty, they don't strike me as the type who would ever become geezerish.

---

Madam Pince - Oct 14, 2008 10:45 am (#333 of 353)

Sigh... I guess Mr. Pince and I are geezers, then, because we look a lot like Lily and James in the movie, age-wise anyway...

How do you get that they're geezers? Is it the touch a gray at James' temples? I mean, all they do in the scene is smile at him and put their hands on his shoulder. How can that be interpreted as "geezerish?"

Aren't James and Lily played by the same actors in all the movies so far? (except for the Snape's Worst Memory, of course...)

---

Liz Mann - Oct 14, 2008 11:39 am (#334 of 353)

Edited Oct 14, 2008 12:40 pm
Yes they are.

I think Pesky was referring to the impression their looks give of their personality.

I don't mind Lily so much, it's James I have a problem with because he didn't look like an older version of Harry. He was supposed to have the unruly hair etc. Also, they would only have been about thirty-one if they were alive and they definitely looked older than that.

---

PeskyPixie - Oct 14, 2008 11:55 am (#335 of 353)

Yes, Liz, I was referring to how their personalities were represented rather than how much grey hair they had, or whether they were wrinkly or not.

I think Gary Oldman's Sirius Black is not geezerish at all, even though he is obviously no longer a teen. His look and mannerisms exude 'Sirius'. I didn't get that with mirror-James ... and I don't blame that on Harry's imagination either. He's only eleven years old at the time; people in their twenties or thirties look equally old at that age.

---

haymoni - Jul 11, 2009 1:08 pm (#336 of 353)

Just watched SS on Family Channel.

Watched Harry catch Snitch in his mouth.

Who would have thought that scene would impact Book 7???

---

Mrs. Sirius - Jul 12, 2009 9:44 pm (#337 of 353)

That's why JKR is such a brilliant writer. All those tiny details in there; one sentence in PS/SS about young Sirius bike, exciting end to a quiddich game ending with ball caught in mouth, you just never know which little detail will come back to make a huge difference.

---

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 16, 2009 6:55 am (#338 of 353)

I was watching SS with a friend and was really impacted by the snake Harry freed. It reminded me of Nagini. Its all there in the first two books and movies. When I saw the snitch scene I thought about DH. There is also baby Norbert (a) in book one and an adult dragon in book 7.

I have a friend who teaches 8th grade Language Arts and she uses JKR as an example of writing, outlining and planning ahead. LPO

---

Orion - Jul 16, 2009 12:51 pm (#339 of 353)

Baby Norbert and adult dragon would be great for thread palindrome the symmetry. Surely she planned that or looked at her chart and said "well that would be a beautiful symmetry".

---

journeymom - Sep 20, 2009 12:43 pm (#340 of 353)

The 'ultimate' edition of Philosopher's Stone is coming out December 8.

Includes extended version with 7 minutes of footage not shown in theaters. This is the only part I'm really interested in, though the whole package includes five discs.

hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/293063/whv-press-release-harry-potter-ultimate-editions-dvd

So, will it be worth the $40? $50 for blue ray?

---

---

The giant squid - Sep 21, 2009 5:17 am (#341 of 353)

So what are they putting on the other 3 disks? Seven minutes don't take up that much room...

---

journeymom - Sep 21, 2009 7:45 am (#342 of 353)

Edited Sep 21, 2009 8:47 am
Disc 1: Theatrical release
Disc 2: Extended Version with 7 Minutes of Footage Not Shown in Theaters.
Disc 3: Self Guided Tour of Hogwarts, Interview - Capturing the Stone: A Conversation with the Filmmakers - Director Chris Columbus, Producer David Heyman, Screenwriter Steve Kloves and Production Designer Stuart Craig talk about casting and bringing the novel to life. Is this the extra stuff that was already on the dvd? I never bothered with it.
Disc 4: introduction by Daniel Radcliffe - An introduction to the many special features for the Harry Potter films [NEW]
Creating the World of Harry Potter, Part 1: The Magic Begins - Discover the story of how one vision for the Harry Potter films came together out of limitless possibilities to create the visual world we have come to know and love. [NEW] A Glimpse Into the World of Harry Potter 2001 International TV Special. Deleted Scenes, Trailers and TV Spots
Disc 5: Digital Copy of Theatrical Film

So with discs 1, 2 and 5 there are three versions of the movie? And how is disc 5 different from the other two??

And the deleted scenes in disc 4, are they the same deleted scenes that have now been integrated? I imagine so.

---

Orion - Sep 21, 2009 10:21 am (#343 of 353)

It would be lovely if they included one whole DVD of outtakes and behind the sceneses. But it sounds quite buyable, though. Would that be stuff which is on Youtube already on DVD 4? ROTFL journeymom three disks with the same film!

---

Madam Pince - Sep 21, 2009 1:52 pm (#344 of 353)

Edited Sep 21, 2009 2:53 pm
I think it sounds like it actually is three discs with essentially the same film! I agree with whomever posted elsewhere -- probably Disc 1 is what we all saw in the theater.

Disc 2 probably has the "deleted scenes" that were on the "deleted scenes" section on previous DVD releases (so we've seen them already), except they're inserted into the movie where they "should" have been, had they been done properly in the first place. (A lot of movies have been re-done this way and re-released under the subtitle of "The Director's Cut of blah-blah-blah..." implying that the director was hog-tied by his editors and/or the payroll people, apparently.)

Disc 3 is a digital copy, which I've heard of, but I'm not exactly sure what it is. I think I've seen movies for sale that advertise that they include a "free digital copy" inside like it's some sort of premium or something. I think it lets you play the movie on digitally-converted mediums, like for example your cell phone or whatever. But I'm not entirely sure, because I don't use such things. SquidMike would know, I bet.

I don't have Blu-Ray, and I'm sure not going to pay another $40-$50 for another copy of any movie. But I will say that I think it would be super-neat to have the movies with the "deleted scenes" un-deleted and put in there where they should've been in the first place. In particular I wish they'd left the mid-Yule-Ball scene with Snape and Karkaroff talking in the courtyard where it should've been. The whole part with Harry walking in looking dazed and Hermione snapping "Where have you been?" made no sense in the context of the way they aired the movie in theaters. That added bit would've explained so much. Alas earwax.

Journeymom, I think you should e-mail your questions to Warner Brothers! They're all good questions!

---

Solitaire - Sep 21, 2009 8:53 pm (#345 of 353)

Edited Sep 21, 2009 10:04 pm
I do not have a wide-screen or HD television. I have a plain old 27-inch Sony with an excellent picture and a 4:3 aspect ratio. With my Panasonic DVD stereo player, it sounds pretty darn good. I'll wait a few years. The Blu-Ray version will probably be half the price in a few years that it is now. I'm patient!

I am going to invest in a small flat-screen TV that can be mounted on the wall in my bedroom with the cable box and VCR/DVD player. It won't be a 60-inch, I can tell you that ... probably a 32-inch or smaller. I am just tired of the teetering tower of TV, VCR/DVD player, and cable box that perches on my chest of drawers. The chest is rock-solid, and so is the TV. But one of these days, the VCR/DVD and cable box are going to fall on my head ... or someone else's. Ouch!

---

Madam Pince - Sep 22, 2009 2:15 am (#346 of 353)

We're in about the same boat, Soli. I think we may be getting ready to get a new flat-screen for our main TV, though. One thing you may want to keep in mind when you're getting your bedroom TV -- Consumer Reports says that something like 90% of the people who buy a new flat-screen wish that they'd gotten a bigger one once they get it home, so... you may want to go one size up from what you think you'll want. Their advice sounded to me like "buy the biggest you can afford in your budget." Also apparently some brands (I think Sharp, maybe?) only fit on their own proprietary brand of wall-mount (which is naturally expensive) rather than a less-expensive generic wall-mount, so be sure to figure that into your cost comparisons...

OK, economic lecture over.

---

The giant squid - Sep 22, 2009 5:41 am (#347 of 353)

The "digital copy" is specifically formatted to be loaded onto iPods & other portable devices. Since I don't have one, this disc usually just sits in the case collecting dust. I don't see why they need 2 separate discs for the theatrical & extended editions, unless they have separate commentaries & such for both. Blu-Ray discs have plenty of room otherwise.

I'll look at it, but I'll see if they just have an Extended Edition version without all the bells & whistles.

---

Madam Pince - Sep 22, 2009 6:52 am (#348 of 353)

See, that's how dumb I am -- I thought iPods were just for listening. You can watch things on them too? Wow, before long I bet they'll put a man on the moon.

---

Solitaire - Sep 22, 2009 7:05 pm (#349 of 353)

Thanks for the heads-up, Madam Pince. I did see the 32-inch TV in the local hot spot this weekend, and I think it will be fine. My current bedroom TV has only a 19- or 21-inch screen, so 32-inch should be fine. Eventually, I plan to get a flat-screen for the front room, and it will probably fit into my armoire, which means it won't be too large. My house is small, so I do not need a huge one anyway. I suppose I could get a 60-inch and mount it over the fireplace ... but why?

---

PeskyPixie - Sep 23, 2009 8:52 am (#350 of 353)

"Wow, before long I bet they'll put a man on the moon."

Ha, ha, that just made my day, Madam Pince!

---

---

Madam Pince - Sep 23, 2009 5:42 pm (#351 of 353)

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses...

I suppose I could get a 60-inch and mount it over the fireplace ... but why?

Why, for watching all the weekend football games, of course! ( again... since I know how you looooove football...) And movies you missed in the theater would be like having the theater in your house! (I for one have always regretted not seeing Finding Nemo in the theater because I bet it was amazing...)

Or maybe it would make the HP movie-watching experience more divine than it already is (to get back on HP-movie-topic... ahem. )

---

Solitaire - Sep 23, 2009 8:54 pm (#352 of 353)

I do not know how to make a yucky face smiley, but if I did, I would use it now, Madam Pince. Football bores me to tears. Besides, my front room is small ... I do not need a big, giant screen. I think 36 inches is as large as my armoire will accommodate, anyway.

---

Puck - Nov 2, 2009 9:36 pm (#353 of 353)

Actually, according to Mr. Puck, the distance you sit from the screen determines the proper tv size for your room. I'm not sure of the exact calculations, but the engineers have worked out some formula, I'm sure.

---