Headscratchers / Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix Film

Return to the main page here.

---

Voldemort in a tux

• In the film, what was the point of the scene where Harry saw Voldy at King's Cross wearing a snappy-looking suit? Was it a figment of his imagination, or was it a mind trick V was playing to taunt him? It couldn't have been real because among other reasons, You-Know-Who wouldn't be caught dead wearing Muggle clothes.
  • It's an Imagine Spot on Harry's part. He's having PTSD flashbacks of seeing Cedric die and being nearly killed himself, so he's imagining seeing Voldemort out in public too. It seems Harry can't tell what's real and what isn't because he's spent so long in isolation. You'll notice that the flashbacks and dreams die down once Harry starts opening up to the others, and letting them help him.

Now, be good little sheep...

• In the fifth movie, Umbridge says, "There will be no need to talk." Hermione mutters, "No need to think is more like it". Umbridge was clearly not out of earshot. Why would she let a comment like that slide, unless she agreed with it?
  • She did agree with it. She wanted them to stick to a standardized method of teaching rather than the students ever actually thinking for themselves.
  • Just a nitpick - "standardized methods of teaching" don't need to be bad or anti-student-thinking. It's just that this one in particular was, since it was conforming to the Ministry's agenda.
  • Sure, standardized teaching looks good on paper and keeps things in a neat little box, but it's also incredibly stifling. It doesn't take into account different learning styles and interests. Teachers who care about their students beyond "do this assignment and pass this test" hate standardized curriculum because it teaches students to pass tests, not actually learn and comprehend.
  • Why would Umbridge want to prevent students from identifying themselves as potential troublemakers? There would be plenty of time for censorship and brutality later when she's in charge.
  • And perhaps that just happened to be a day when Umbridge didn't feel like disciplining. She's not an experienced teacher and Hermione didn't go any further, so she just decided to pick her battles.

We're about to be exposed! Let's just stand around like idiots!

• Why in the movie, as Umbridge is tearing down the wall that is hiding the Room of Requirement, didn't the DA members do something reasonable like in the book and run? As frightening as being discovered is, they wouldn't simply stand still there, and such a room wouldn't have a single exit!
  • If the movie's room is anything like the book's, then it takes time and concentration to make a door materialize. By the time they had created a back door, Umbridge would already be in.
  • In the book they had a head start. Dobby warned them a few minutes before Umbridge got there, which gave them enough time to get out. In the movie they're ambushed while still in there.

Traces of Doubt

• Why is it that in the fifth movie, Harry gets into trouble for casting a Patronus, but a couple of nights later, the Order let him fly on a broomstick through Muggle London? They fly a few metres away from a cruise ship, for crying out loud!
  • Half Blood Prince explains that the Ministry can only monitor if and where spells are cast and not who cast them (which is why Harry is blamed for the Hover Charm in the second book - he is the only wizard in the area, and thus magic activity there would be attributed to him). A broomstick has already been enchanted, so unless someone got pictures or something, there is no way for the Ministry to know he did it.
  • Plus, in the book, Moody used a Disillusion Charm on him, essentially turning him invisible so no Muggle would have seen him.
  • In the book, Moody went out of his way to take them over rural areas and through cloud formations to avoid being spotted. The other characters complain about it. The movie scene is just Rule of Cool.
  • In Quidditch Through the Ages, it is mentioned that brooms are routinely charmed so that, in flight, to Muggles they look like flying geese. In many areas, Canada geese are so common that one's only concern is to not step in goose droppings.
  • "Muggles? They don't see nothin', do they?"

At this rate, they might as well just start using "Flipendo" (which is used in the video games)!

• Movie complaint: Stupefy is meant to knock people unconscious, not backwards. WTH?
  • No offense, but you could at least explain what "Flipendo" is to people who have no idea. For the record, it's a spell used in the video games that has never, to my knowledge, been confirmed as canon; however, it's effective and shouldn't just be dismissed as a crappy spell.
  • Just like Expelliarmus is supposed to disarm someone, not send Lockhart flying backwards. It's theorized that if a certain spell is overpowered, it can send the target flying.
  • And Avada Kadavera is only meant to make the victim crumple to the ground dead. Launching people is not in the spell description.
  • But the point of Stupefy is to knock people out. It looks okay if you knock someone out and throw them backwards, but they just changed the spell's purpose entirely instead of enhancing it as they did with Expelliarmus.
  • Also, for the record, there have been occasions of Expelliarmus knocking people backward if used strongly enough.
  • Two words. Adaptation Decay.
  • On the movie-related spells, here's another one that gets people's goat: in the final action sequences, many of them, Harry and the DAs included, are using non-verbal spells. Most of them didn't have a clue how to do those yet (save perhaps Hermione). They were fun to watch, though.
  • Isn't it the same part of the Musical World Hypothesis that turns people into deaf-mutes with low-level telepathy every time a Hard-Work Montage happens?
  • What about the fact that people are shown using "Levicorpus"? Harry and the others had no idea the spell even existed until a year later, and Levicorpus is a nonverbal spell only, yet the kids are using it verbally. Levicorpus is defined as hanging someone up by their leg as if it were caught in a hook, while the movie shows them floating as if they were laying on air. It just feels so wrong when the moviemakers screw up the spells like this.

Ka... me... ha... me...........

• So, according to the movie, wizards can have DBZ power battles, which look stunningly similar to "Priori Incantatem" from the previous movie. Now, did that happen in the book?
  • Rule of Cool. In the book it can only happen when two wands share the same core. So, we've only seen Harry and Voldemort do that.
  • Possible extra justification in hindsight for Dumbledore being able to do it with Voldemort. He does possess the Elder Wand, which is explicitly more powerful and more magical.
  • Or maybe the twin cores version is different i.e. with the twin cores it's the only thing that can happen and if someone wins, all that happens is that the loser's wand shows what it's done. With a run-of-the-mill Beam-O-War, the loser just gets hit.
  • Didn't Priori Incantatem refer specifically to a wand showing ghosts of all its past spells, as the words (prior incantation) would imply? Isn't it possible that the two spells clashing is something any two wands can do?
    • Confirmed; in Deathly Hallows, Harry says the Death Eaters will know that his wand was destroyed by using Priori Incantatem on Hermione's wand. So Priori Incantatem isn't the same thing as two wands clashing with each other.
    • Priori Incantatem is a spell that cam be cast on another wand to tell what its last spells were. However, it is also the term used for the same effect that occurs when two wands with the same core duel with each other. The Beam-O-War is not the Priori, rather the ghosts of the previous spells. In the books, only wands with the same core (at least from the same source) can cause a Beam-O-War.
  • And earlier in Goblet of Fire Amos Diggory uses the spell to determine Harry's wand casting the Dark Mark. It's an existing spell; it's just that two wand cores like Harry's and Voldemort's do something with it.

SANDSTORM!!!

• Also a movie gripe, but, instead of letting Voldemort pierce Harry with thousands of glass shards, Dumbledore decides it's much safer to have Harry be assaulted by multiple thousands of grains of glass/sand, and this is better? Has Dumbledore never heard of erosion?
  • Getting hit by a huge pile of sand is better than getting hit by a smaller series of glass blades. The sandblasting would hurt more, but the glass pieces would make him dead more.
  • It's not sand, it's powdered glass. And Harry rolled in it. Poor mister Potter's face and hands should just be raw, bloody flesh now.
  • No it wouldn't. You must never have handled powdered glass. It certainly doesn't tear your skin up if you rub it between your fingers. And sand isn't more than coarse glass powder anyway.
  • And if you powder glass fine enough, it goes back into being sand.
  • If you ever use a glass bead machine (a form of metal finishing that blasts metals with grains of glass at high speed, often using a glovebox), you will undoubtedly get some on you and discover that it is easy to touch without cutting yourself. Hell, even getting hit by a few beads will sting something awful but won't cut you. The glass in the movie wasn't moving nearly fast enough to cause severe cuts.
  • Maybe so, but this is one of these Don't Try This at Home things. Also remember that a lot depends on whether the glass is eroded or not, and inhaling a load of fresh glass dust is a bad, BAD idea. On another note, yes, sand can be sharp, like the sand they use on construction sites.

Dude, you have pockets

• In the movie, Harry, while running for his life, carries the prophecy in one hand. He was wearing jeans. Other people had pockets, too. Put the prophecy in a pocket. It's a wonder he didn't drop it.
  • Eh, the prophecy doesn't look like it'd fit into a jean pocket. Not easily, at least. Harry would have to set aside time in the heat of battle to squeeze it in.
  • It's also a good idea to keep the prophecy in his hand, and in full view of the Death Eaters, to remind them of what he'll do with it if they let fly with any spells. And in the book, one of the Death Eaters tries summoning the prophecy from him, which only fails because Harry has such a tight grip on it. Putting it in his pocket would take away that defense.

Mad-Eye's wand

• During the battle at the Ministry in the movie, Mad-Eye Moody cast a spell at a Death Eater that looked like it originated from some sort of walking stick. Is the stick meant to be Moody's wand? If so, why was Barty Jr. seen using a different one while in disguise in the fourth movie? Even if the wand he was using that year was his own, wouldn't it have been smarter to have used what others knew to be Moody's? (Especially if he'd already overpowered Moody, meaning his wand should've switched allegiance.)
  • The wand-allegiance thing only works with the Elder Wand, you know. This matter aside, it's not "his wand", but it does presumably contain a wandcore and he can use it as a spare wand. It's just like Mad-Eye Moody, Mr Constant Vigilance, to have both a normal wand he lets his enemies know about, and a spare one that looks like a simple walking stick just in case his enemies steal the first one. Note that Lucius Malfoy also has both a wand and a cane that can cast spells.
  • The wielder allegiance is a trait of all wands in this setting. What makes the Elder Wand special in that regard is how how unwilling it is to make allegiances to multiple wielders and quickly it will drop allegiance to someone compared to the others.
  • Also, Lucius didn't have both a wand and a magic cane. It seemed more his cane acted as a sort of sheath for his wand.

Yet more Adaptation Decay: Occumlency Lessons

• In the movie, why did they change Harry's discovery of Snape's worst memory from within the Pensieve to from Snape's own mind? True, Harry did manage to penetrate Snape's thoughts during the lessons in the book, but that was different. It was during an intense barrage of mental intrusion from Snape, and he was only able to see fleeting thoughts in retaliation, not coherent long-lasting memories and much less his worst one. Furthermore, Snape actually showed some grudging respect for this effort, indeed it was probably the best application of mental defence (or at least counter-offence, it seems kind of like a game of tug of war between minds) Harry managed whilst taking the lessons so Snape had to give him credit there. And finally we can assume that Snape was still able to put up some measure of a Occumlency barrier because he was apparently the greatest Occlumens that ever lived (what Yoda is to Force powers, Snape is to mental shielding) Harry's inexperience with Legimency nonwithstanding, so the really painful memories wouldn't come to light. Then, Harry being able to witness the memory within the Pensieve is an example of an uncharacteristic lapse in vigilance by Snape, rather than failing as an Occlumens to defend his own mind. And we can't blame him for ending the lessons as punishment, because Harry became nosy in a way which goes outside the parameters of the class. Then in the movie, not only is Harry able to view the whole memory as a novice Legimens (and emotional enhancement of magical skills only goes so far) versus a Grand Master Occlumens (no way would Snape allow that memory to be witnessed in his own mind!), not only does Snape view this as an unforgivable, lesson ending offence (your fault for not using your 1337 skills, buddy!) but there isn't even a mention of why Snape didn't use the Pensieve instead (if Dumbledore in the book was willing to loan his memory container to his most trusted ally, why wouldn't the film do the same?). It definitely undermines Snape's characterization to make this change, which is a shame because in most other ways the movies nailed it as one of their finest aspects of adaptation.
  • They decided to streamline the scene, without realizing that they're ruining it, since Snape leaving Harry along with the Pensieve was, probably, not a lapse in vigilance, but a sign of trust, which Harry violated, which was what most enraged Snape.
  • Agreed. Not only did this change undermine Snape's character, for the reasons stated above, but it also undermined Harry's characterization; by sneaking a peek in the pensieve, it showed his willingness to intrude on others' privacy and break their trust to satisfy his own curiosity. Ending his lessons should have taught him a lesson, that there are consequences for breaking other people's trust. Instead, Harry ends up looking super badass, getting a jab at the Master Occlumens (even though he's a novice legilimens), and Snape looks like a crybaby when he loses for the first time.
  • Everyone here is so obsessed with pointing out things the films did wrong, you won't even acknowledge any of the things they do well. Harry saw Snape's memory so he could learn not to put his father on a pedestal and that he had a lot of flaws in his youth, as well as explain why Severus loathes him so much. Plus, it's a bit of a stretch to assume Severus left Harry alone with the Pensieve as a sign of trust, and your complaints about this scene hinge mostly on that.
  • It's not so much that the film did it "wrong", it's more that they changed a scene that didn't necessarily need to be changed, and as a result the artistic quality was damaged. Not condemning the movie at all, not in the slightest! It's just that, of all the things that got lost or changed in adaptation, (as they have to be, given the limitations of movies compared to books), this one seemed pointless. It's not like it would have been any more difficult or expensive for them to shoot a scene of Snape walking out of the room and Harry sneaking a peek in the pensieve. So why this change? Especially considering how it impacted both Harry and Snape's characterization, for the reasons stated above.
  • Understandable, but not all adaptions should follow the source material 100%, and the fifth film actually has a great change - how Harry comes to learn about the Thestrals, and how it serves as a sort of resolution to the always-yelling-at-people issue he had throughout the book. In any case, though, and as stated above, both set-ups work well. Maybe there are some bits of character that were left out, but Harry forcefully using Legilimency on Severus, while vehemently defending his father's name, only to discover through it how Severus had been bullied by James as a child serves the story just as nicely, even if it is a bit different, and the outcome - Snape not trusting Harry and cancelling their lessons as a result - is still the same.

Don't just stand there, do something

• In the film, Umbridge blows open the Room of Requirement and everyone in the DA is captured offscreen with no resistance (we seem them later being forced to carve words into their hands). Why couldn't the DA try to escape by shooting their way out? They outnumber the Inquisitorial Squad three or four to one, and are more trained in combat (I can't expect Umbridge to be training the Inquisitorial Squad to take down students given how she is about people being able to defend themselves).
  • Y'know, this is sorta like asking, "Why don't you get out of detention by punching your teacher in the face?" In the book, they had time to escape the Room of Requirement before Umbridge got there, but things happened much more quickly in the movie. All Umbridge needed to do was see them coming out of the room, and they would've been caught - trying to attack her would've only gotten them in more trouble.
    • As has been discussed before (mainly with the SNEAK thing) it isn't as simple as teachers shutting down a student led club, they were actively calling themselves an Army, it may be distasteful that they were child soldiers but, let's face it, Harry and his friends have been doing this stuff for 4 years by then, and aside from the OoTP they were the only line of defense against Voldemort because of the Ministry, it may have been a better tactical decision for Harry and his loyalists to follow the Twins example and taken a stand there and then.
    • And unless Umbridge and Inquisitorial Squad were specifically mentioned as potential adversaries during the training sessions (which wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense anyway), Harry's order to attack would never even been heeded by all or even the majority of the DA members, which is a straight path to playing into Umbridge's hands by creating a rift within the DA itself. At least by complying they were all together in it and actually emerged from the ordeal more united than ever (Marietta aside).
  • What happens is the room starts shaking, the hole in the wall is blasted open, Umbridge says "I'll make short work of this" and then has them cornered. It was too quick for them to do anything.
  • They had around 15 seconds between when Umbridge blows the wall open and when she says "Get them". That's plenty of time for them to start shooting their way out.

Ooh, I've been hit! Hey, I'll just walk through this shiny veil thing!

• In the book, Bellatrix hits Sirius with a non-lethal spell (Fan Fic writers love to play with this one), which causes Sirius to lose his balance and stumble back through the Veil. Fair enough. But in the movie, she audibly uses the Killing Curse, and it's a green beam of magic that hits him. Rather than causing instant death, as was shown by every other time it had been used, Sirius in the movie looks shocked for a few seconds, turns to look at Harry, and then slowly walks backwards through the Veil. WHAT???
  • Again, massive Adaptation Decay. It makes sense in the book, but much less in the film, unless due to his close proximity to the Veil, it wasn't actually him moving and reacting, but his soul moving and reacting.
  • Have you ruled the possibility that he stumbled and fell?
  • Um, no. The point is that in the film he is hit directly with the Killing Curse, AKA, the thing which causes everybody else to die instantly. In the book he stumbles and falls because of the force of an unnamed spell, however in the movie he's hit clearly with "Avada Kedavra" yet seems to survive for a few seconds before floating, not falling, back into the veil. Anyway, my interpretation is he's already dead as soon as the curse hits him but since he's standing on the border between the life and death (the veil) you see him "leaving the world of the living".
  • The Veil reaches out like a living thing, pulls Sirius in, and absorbs him. So maybe the director was trying to hint at its true nature as a portal to the land of the dead or a representation of it in our world. Besides all that, the slowness comes from the entire scene going into super-slow-motion for about fifteen seconds until Bellatrix runs off.
  • My personal guess is that the director was trying not to give a damn about the accuracy but to instead get a movie that would be watchable. And he'd succeeded. And now people who mostly just watched the movies but had time to think have their minds boggled.
  • It's also worth noting that the killing curse wasn't used when they originally shot the scene. The battle was heavily edited down and it's obvious that Bellatrix's "Avada Kedavra" was dubbed in. Perhaps people were confused as to why Sirius had died like that and they just used the killing curse to make sure they understood it.

Giving out love in all the wrong places

• Isn't the relationship between Harry and Sirius written as being much stronger from Harry's point of view than it would be in Real Life? Of course Harry should care a lot for Sirius, but in the books, he seems to consider him a surrogate father, despite the fact that he has actually spent little time with him (regardless of the reasons for this). Yes, Sirius is his godfather, but that shouldn't count for that much, should it? Also, it's rather insulting of Harry to hero-worship Sirius as a mentor and father figure in this way, when Arthur and Molly have treated him like a son to them throughout the entire series. In the film, he hugs Molly awkwardly when he arrives at Grimmauld Place, and then brushes past her to enthusiastically greet Sirius, a man he met on precisely one occasion previously.
  • Why isn't Harry nearly as close with Remus as he is with Sirius? He doesn't seem to have been as interested in keeping in touch with him as with Sirius. Sure, Sirius is more exciting and offered him a home, but he had known Remus a good while before meeting Sirius.
  • In the movies at least. In the books, he met Sirius two more times in the Goblet of Fire. Harry might put his faith in Sirius because he's the only one that ever offered to give Harry a home away from the Dursleys. To Harry, that was one of the best things that could ever happen. Harry always saw Arthur and Molly as his best friend's parents above possible surrogate parents. Yes, they're kind and close, but then he can't get past the fact that they have seven kids to love while Sirius has none. Sirius also fills a link for Harry because he was best friends with his father and can tell him about him. It's all about perspective, and getting the perspective of an eleven-year-old orphan that's never known anything about his parents is a bit difficult.
  • Also, Sirius is a fellow adventurer who is on the run from the law. Arthur is an office government bureaucrat and Molly is a housewife. You can see who is more exciting to Harry, who prefers to get into the mystery/fight of the day rather than study for future careers.
  • You both raise good points. It makes sense Harry might think that it's selfish to expect the Weasleys to consider him a son, and Sirius is seen as a fun and exciting person for the teenaged, adventurous Harry to be around, as well as the knowledge Sirius could provide about his parents.
  • The movie, as normal, skips a lot of the development. Harry wrote several letters to Sirius, and they certainly talked for a reasonable amount of time at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban. Not to mention that Harry would be just fascinated with anyone that knew his father like Sirius did.
  • Not only did Harry see Sirius as a more kindred spirit than the Weasley parents (close to his dad, mistrusted by the wizarding world, kept out of the loop after Voldemort's return etc) but keep in mind also that while the Weasleys were parenting Harry mostly from the comfort of their own home, Sirius was doing it while on the run from the law. In dog form. Eating rats. It's hard not to feel more affectionate to a guy in those circumstances.
  • As for Remus, although he was James' close friend too, they weren't inseparable kindred spirits in the same way as Sirius and James. The whole 'godfather' thing probably did have an effect too, because it's a name to put to someone who's your guardian, not just a feeling. It has a physical presence (such as Sirius being able to sign permission slips or offer a home). There's also the fact that Harry might feel more emotionally safe with Sirius because he needs Harry emotionally in the way the other characters don't (especially in that he seems to view Harry partly as a replacement James). Remus on the other hand (although unwillingly), did walk out on Harry (when he resigned). Lastly, as someone else (Dumbledore?) points out, Harry sees Sirius as a mixture of father and brother, whereas Remus will always be Harry's teacher (even in the narrative, it takes ages for Harry to refer to Remus by his first name instead of 'Lupin').
  • Also, Molly, Arthur, and Remus are much more responsible authority figures than Sirius. Sirius still acts more like a teenager in some ways. In other ways, he's rather reckless. It could be that Harry subconsciously feels the need to be more protective of Sirius - he has a protective streak in general, and it's not uncommon for a child to take on the adult role when their parent figure fails to. It could be that Harry felt responsible for Sirius's safety on some level - even more apparent when he wanted to go save him in the Ministry of Magic, to the point where it was more impulsive than well-thought through.
  • Harry says getting no more getting letters from Sirius was the hardest thing to grapple with (and admits that it's a stupid thing to fixate on), so their written correspondence must be more far-reaching than what's on the page.
  • And Harry doesn't write regularly to Arthur, Molly or Remus. And for Arthur and Molly, perhaps Harry might feel a little disconnected since he's not officially part of the Weasley family - and they do have seven children to keep track of. Harry might like the idea of Sirius being someone who's just for him - he's not 'sharing' him with anyone. And perhaps in the back of his mind, he still holds out hope that he can one day live with Sirius and leave the Dursleys. It's not until the end of this book that he realizes the real reason he stays with his aunt and uncle/
  • Agreed that Harry seemed to love Sirius more than he should have considering their lack of true connection that a boy would give to a surrogate father he only knew for less than two years and rarely saw. His connection with Molly was obvious as Molly was the motherly type and immediately showed him the love he had been lacking since his parents died. He had gone to stay at their home for parts of the previous three summers and got to feel like a family with her as his surrogate mother. As for Remus, he was Harry's teacher and didn't get the same kind of fatherly love from him while Arthur was just a different kind of fatherly figure, more fun than emotional.

SNEAK

• In the book, one of Cho's friends rats Harry and co. out, telling Umbridge and her cronies exactly how to get into the Room of Requirement. Understandably, Harry's a little hacked and gets angry at her, while Cho defends her, part of what breaks up their relationship. But in the movie, Cho is captured and given verisaterum and forced to show them where it is for some reason (despite the fact that earlier, Filch, Malfoy and the other Slytherins were not only shown to know where it is, but actually saw Luna and other students enter). Now, despite the fact that this was completely beyond her control, Harry decided to hate her. She didn't rat them out, she was forced to and had absolutely no control over the situation, and Harry blames it all on her? What the hell Harry?!
  • Adaptation Decay. It can be said again and again, but the fact of the matter is they have to fit it in time wise. Changing the person that gives the secret up seems to be a questionable change, but then they don't have to cast another actress for Cho's friend, build up her character, or show her at all during the movie. If you want to get down to it, you can fault Harry for thinking she could have done anything about it.
  • Harry is at fault. The problem is, he has no reason to act like such a jerk about it. He's seen its effects on an adult Death Eater, so he knows how powerful the stuff is, and he suddenly expects a teenager to fare any better?
  • If you stretch the reasoning, you can see the possibility that he thought that she shouldn't have drunk anything Umbridge offered, but it's not clear how she got Veritaserum in her system at all, nor does he giver her the chance to explain.
  • But why would he assume that she drank anything willingly? They all know how bad Umbridge is. The fact that he doesn't let her explain just makes things worse.
  • Cho was waiting next to the door when the other DA students had to write blood-lines. So we have to assume she is a traitor (Draco is happy to brutalize her, but he's Draco, he will be brutal rather than letting her follow willingly). So, we have two hypotheses: she betrayed the DA, but was given veritaserum anyway because Umbrige doesn't trust spontaneous confession. The other possibility is Umbridge not giving lines to Cho specifically to make her look like a traitor and Harry buying it. The former reads bettter.
  • But why would she betray them? Any possible reason given?
  • The movie played Cho's confession as out of the blue, more like Umbridge was using it to tear the group apart. Only later, when Umbridge catches the group in her office does Snape explain that the last of the truth serum was used on Cho. Harry hadn't given Cho time to explain earlier, and despite the revelation, he wasn't in the best mindset to think of apologizing to Cho later.
  • He saw her being manhandled by Malfoy, that doesn't exactly scream "traitor", that screams "forced against her will"... although it probably would seem like she had been threatened into telling them, even though they knew where it was. He still should have apologized at some point.
  • Adaptation Decay, that is all. It was downright idiotic for the movie to change it to Cho and Harry's falling out being due to Cho selling out the DA when she was forced to by truth potion, and Harry knew this later on, but never bothered to reconcile. The movie should have just left it as Cho sold the DA out on her own accord, if they felt they didn't have a sufficient enough time to play out Harry and Cho's falling out as in the book.
  • Actually, it's mentioned offhand. Umbridge was threatening Cho's parents' jobs. Hermione mentions it at one point. (This is another thing they take from Marietta's character when they composite Cho and Marietta together for the Movie.)
  • The thing about this scene was that the movie didn't give enough attention to how it was Cho who was the one who told Umbridge. Plenty people are bad at recognizing people just based on their face, so that could definitely be part of it. Umbridge and the IS finally got into the room, gave everyone lines, and then Harry acted like a total prick towards Cho. It can be hard to spot that Cho was even in the group.
  • Harry was perfectly fine with Hermione causing Marietta to be disfigured for life and didn't want to listen to whatever reasons she may have had. He may have just had it out for Cho for not being able to somehow "resist" Umbridge's interrogation. It looks like a strategic move by Umbridge to make Cho look like a traitor by not giving her lines - spread distrust amongst the group. They wonder if they can trust each other and stop them from reforming the DA? Cho does try to explain herself to him as they're coming out of detention but he won't listen. Let's face it, Harry isn't exactly the humble type. It's not completely out of character for him to simply ignore Cho after finding out Umbridge used Veritaserum on her. Although they seem to get along fine in the last film so perhaps they did patch things up offscreen but decided to be Just Friends instead?
  • When Snape tells Umbridge that the last of the truth potion was used up on Cho, we do get a shot of this funny expression coming to Harry's face as he looks back at his friends. The implication is that he didn't know she was forced to snitch on them until that point, especially since she wasn't made to write lines like the rest of them. He thought she'd done it of her own free will. He could've just made amends with her offscreen after that point.

Voldemort's right there, just take a shot

• In the Ministry after Dumbledore and Voldemort's battle and Voldemort being forced out of Harry's mind, Voldemort is standing right next to Dumbledore, looking down at Harry and gloating while about twenty feet away, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna are watching. No one decides to take a shot at Voldemort to stun him or disarm him?

---