Wait a Moment!

[[deleted user]]

Ok, who when watching the Harry Potter movies noticed this-

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Our buddy Harry is at the Dursleys at the start of the movie. In bed. Under the covers. Using Lumos Maxima. A lot.

Question- is this NOT under-age magic? Huh? Hmmm?

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Our buddy is at the Burrow with Ron and Hermione, laughing about how old Dumbledore is. And if I am not mistaken, there is an enchanted, burning ball of newspaper in front of them. If this is not magic, tell me what is.

Any thoughts? Also, please share any errors you noticed in the movies!

[[deleted user]]

Thoughts, peoples?

[Lunar]

Heck yeah that's underage magic. I was always moaning about how Harry wouldn't have been able to get away with that, though I never thought of the one in the Burrow.
I think it started when the directors changed; he payed a lot less attention to the actual books, I think. Isn't he the one that also added the icky shrunken heads?

[[deleted user]]

Yeah. The Azkaban director was Spanish I think.

[Anna]

After the first and second movies, the quality and tone completely changed. It became much darker and stranger. When I was reading the books, of course they got a little darker as the series progressed, but not as dramatically as the movies portrayed them. The tone of the first two movies was more in compliance with the books. I wish it had stayed the same. So many things were changed, from plot developements to character relationships.
And the underage magic thing? how could Hermione fix Harry's glasses in Diagon Alley? That's underage magic, Miss Granger. And this is isn't anything to do with underage magic, but where did the Burrow ever burn down? Which book? Somebody tell me.
Anyway, the movies were changed so much it was harder to enjoy them. Forgive my rambling. :)

[Kristen]

Anastasia Inkyfingers wrote: "Ok, who when watching the Harry Potter movies noticed this-

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Our buddy Harry is at the Dursleys at the start of the movie. In bed. Under the covers. U..."


Yes, the movie people screwed up on the underage magic thing. They messed up some other things too, but I forget the specifics at the moment...

Buuut, at the Burrow, Diagon Alley, or anywhere else in the magical world, there was no way to tell specifically who used magic. In a house where there are adult witches or wizards, any magical activity would be attributed to them or to their allowed use of it. Basically, the ministry wouldn't have really cared about those things since there were adults present who were supposedly supervising the kids.
That was the thing they were all miffed about when they finally were allowed to used magic - that they were led to believe that the ministry knew who was doing what spells and that they would get kicked out of school if they did anything.

In Harry's case though, he was the only one at the Dursley's who could have been doing magic, so the ministry would know it was him.
Or so they thought anyway. They didn't count on Doby, of course.

[Kristen]

Eliza wrote: " but where did the Burrow ever burn down? Which book? Somebody tell me."

I can't remember if it was actually in the book....but in #6 when the Death Eaters attack them over Christmas break.

[Raevyn]

Kristen wrote: "Eliza wrote: " but where did the Burrow ever burn down? Which book? Somebody tell me."

I can't remember if it was actually in the book....but in #6 when the Death Eaters attack them over Christmas..."

No offense, but I'm PRETTY sure that WAS NOT in the book. Right? 0.o

[Kristen]

lol, no offense taken. I really don't remember.

[[deleted user]]

It wasn't in the book.

[Anna]

Exactly. The books are much better than the movies.

[Jeni]

My understanding is that Lumos, Nox, and Lumos Maxima are not considered doing underage magic, necessarily. The spells are pretty simple and are probably not even picked up by the trace spell because it's so close to a flashlight.

Secondly, no it's not in the book; it's just an introduction to the movie.

Thirdly, before the age of 11, underage magic is largely dismissed because most kids can't control it. After they get their wands, their magic is restricted to Hogwart's (or whatever school they attend) and probably, by extension, the train. (Ginny uses scourgify on the train and isn't reprimanded.)

Fourthly, using the movies as canon for the world of Harry Potter is a spotty proposition. There were great liberties taken in the name of movie magic that cannot be found in the books. When in doubt, open the book. Another good resource is http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ where every question about everything from spells to animals is listed and explained. (Some of the essays are dated, but the lexicon itself is great.) Also, the Harry Potter Wiki is great.

The Burrow wasn't destroyed in the books, but it WAS used as the temporary headquarters for the Order after Dumbledore's passing. When the snatchers found Ron, the family was compromised and abandoned the Burrow for Aunt Muriel's Shell Cottage until the war was over.

[Kristen]

I'm pretty sure that any spell would count as underage magic. Even the little ones like Lumos.
Kids under the age of 11 wouldn't really be worried about getting kicked out of school. Plus, they usually didn't know what they were doing when they used magic.

Also, I think they were allowed to use magic on the train, just like they were allowed to use it at school.
The entire point for the rule was so that regular people wouldn't see them doing the magic, so it wouldn't matter on the train.
And again, there would be so many people present who could do magic, they probably wouldn't be able to figure out who was doing it. Or they just wouldn't want to waste the time figuring it out.

[[deleted user]]

Eliza wrote: "Exactly. The books are much better than the movies."

ya

[[deleted user]]

Still...Occulus Reparo is SO definitely underage magic.

[Anna]

Magic is magic. If you're under seventeen and perform magic outside Hogwarts, you're performing underage magic. That's my logic. But the movies did take a lot of liberties with the books. :/

[Bethany]

I had read a theory about this someone online when I was looking this up myself. Someone had brought up the fact that the Trace picks up Muggle anxiety or something when they see magic being done. In the second book/movie when Dobby was trying to keep Harry Potter from Hogwarts, he levitated the cake, causing Harry's family to become anxious. This would be how he was able to do Lumos Maxima and not get notified. Then, when he accidentally blew up his aunt, the Trace activated again because everyone was freaking out about it.

Another theory I had thought of myself was that maybe it was part of their summer homework and the Ministry is notified of what spells students would be practicing, and they'd just write if off if Muggles didn't notice anything.

[Anna]

I din't really like the movies much. The only ones that I feel are true to the books are the first and the last. The others there were so many things in that made me quite frankly angry! The third is the worst! He breaks all the rules, which is NOT ok. Leaving out stuff, Taking liberties with who tells who what, and maybe other minor plot points, is (up to a certain point) understanable, but you HAVE to accept the rules and limits of the universe in which you operate.

Another thing that annoys me is how Dobby is more or less left completely out of the movies except for the second one, where he is introduced, and then he returns in his saviour role in the last one. Oh, yeah, and I HATE Dumbledore in GOF movie. He is completely out of character when the goblet produces Harry's name.

[Jared]

Books are way better than the movies.

[Somerandom]

I agree with the above post. It was part of homework, thus the teachers would let the Ministry know, thus keeping Harry safe from the Lumos spell.

I also think the Ministry wasn't as strict with the enforcement of underage magic, they just didn't say so.

I mean in PoA Fudge lets on that there are certain allowances made, in certain circumstances. Such as when Harry is upset that he will be expelled for blowing up his aunt, only to have Fudge gently warn him and laugh it off as just a little accident. It isn't until Fudge becomes frightened and paranoid that Underage Magic, particularly Harry is really targeted. (I mean as far as Movie canon is concerned.)

As far as the Burrow, there's adult supervision. So the Ministry would just leave it up to the parents.

[Khyati]

Somerandom wrote: "I agree with the above post. It was part of homework, thus the teachers would let the Ministry know, thus keeping Harry safe from the Lumos spell.

I also think the Ministry wasn't as strict with ..."

exactly

[Khyati]

Somerandom wrote: "I agree with the above post. It was part of homework, thus the teachers would let the Ministry know, thus keeping Harry safe from the Lumos spell.

I also think the Ministry wasn't as strict with ..."

exactly

[Hannah]

Anastasia Inkyfingers wrote: "Yeah. The Azkaban director was Spanish I think."

Alfonso Cuaron. Yep. Personally his vision and creativity added the darkness to what I consider a pivotal transitional book.

[[deleted user]]

Yes! Of course it was under aged magic!! Plus, I couldn't sworn I saw a flash light in the room when Harry was using his Luminous charm.
And I totally agree with the darkness in later movies. Sorcerer's Stone was a cute and friendly movie, with good potential and heart. It really sparked wonder of magic and warlocks. Chamber of Secrets was probably just as good, and the detail in the animation with the basilisk scene was phenomenal. Prisoner of Azkaban, I'll admit, was a little spooky towards the end. They made it all realistic and eerie, but was a little more intense than I thought it would be. Goblet of Fire had soooo many problems. 1st of all,


The sweet, wise Dumbledore turned into a stressed screaming old guy. He was way too intense for the character, in my opinion. 2nd of all, I recall exactly in the book and movie that nothing else but wands were allowed in the tasks, and Harry used gilly weed, (WHICH IS NOT A WAND) and they never called him out in it. They even announced him using it. WHAAAA??? Thirdly, the last scene was suppose to be super tragic and all, I get that, but they made it so dark disturbing.
In the Order of the Phoenix, they start it out with a harry who looks WAY too old, and its all depressed and dark. I know he is suppose to be all stressed out with the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulders, but he just being wimpy about it, moping around making everything bad. That just kinda ruined the movie for me. I'm just not sure I want to see the next 3 movies at all. :-/



This is just my opinion, and if you don't like it, that's your opinion. :-)

[Izzy]

Thank you for pointing that out. It's been bothering me too! I think it's stupid that he almost gets expelled for saving Dudley's life in the sixth book, but doesn't almost or get expelled for using those spells.

[[deleted user]]

Actually, if anything, I think the films became more light-hearted after the first two. Certainly, The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets captured a sense of wonder, but they also had some very dark and frightening moments, like when they explore the forbidden corridor or when they run into the spiders. The films that followed- although darker visually- seemed almost more like the books themselves as far as the atmosphere goes. They were less serious- almost two-dimensional. That being said, I personally prefer the original style, which although less focussed on attention helps to compliment the mysterious nature of the wizarding world.

[[deleted user]]

Well said.

[[deleted user]]

Thank you. :)

[[deleted user]]

:)

[Keri]

I realize a lot of the first posts in this thread are quite old but I am surprised that so much misinformation was given and not corrected when the books explained it all quite clearly and it would have been easy to find the info. Underage magic is underage magic it does not matter whether it is a big spell, a little spell or whether muggles feel anxiety over it. It is not allowed at all whether it is in a muggle household or a wizarding one. The only exception being when the witch or wizards life is in danger and that is the one and only exception. When a witch or wizard is underage they are unable to control it and they are not being trained (in school) yet so the accidental magic is overlooked. It is quite clear that once a wizard has his/her wand and is in school the trace detects the magic. The problem is the trace can not detect who does the magic only that it was performed which is why Harry was blamed for the magic Dobby did in book 2. Since it can't be determined who preformed the magic the ministry relies on the parents in wizarding households to enforce the rules with their children. Homework given over the summer wouldn't include practicing spells as they made sure to send home a note at the end of every year reminding students that they weren't allowed to use magic outside of school. The reason Fudge overlooked Harry blowing up Aunt Marge in 3 is because they were more concerned about Sirius Black getting at Harry at the time than to punish him for it. Not because the frequently overlooked minor matters. And the fact that it was magic that was performed accidentally from emotion(as with young wizards), he did not have his wand and perform as spell on her after all. If he had pointed a wand at her and cursed her or something, I am sure he would have been in trouble, anxiety over Sirius or not. The reason they made a huge deal out if it with the dementors is because they were trying to persecute Harry so they used the fact that he performed a charm, with a wand right in front of a muggle, which was definitely a no no. They just ignored the fact of the life saving rule so they could get him. So, it has nothing to do with the practice of bending rules or not bending them.
As for the movies, they got it wrong plain and simple. Which was obvious since in the same movie, Harry was concerned about using magic outside school in the scene with Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron and the fact that the 2nd movie made it quite clear that it wasn't allowed. I am surprised that things like this were overlooked in the movies here and there and there wasn't consistency with it from movie to movie.

[Julia]

Anastasia Inkyfingers wrote: "Ok, who when watching the Harry Potter movies noticed this-

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Our buddy Harry is at the Dursleys at the start of the movie. In bed. Under the covers. U..."

You are correct, that is underage magic. They f'd up a lot of things in the movies - too numerous to waste my time mentioning - and especially in Prisoner of Azkaban.