Jesus! Harry Potter again ?

Yes. It's like a floodgate! You cannot close a floodgate once it has been opened! Today I would like to discuss three distinct points. They range in topic from book and movie three to book five. The other books I've pretty much ignored. You have been warned. For those of you sick of reading about Harry Potter, here is a monkey:

[Begin Spoiler for Harry Potter. Really. — Highlight to view]

• Point the first. The comparison between Richard Harris and Michael Gambon in the role of Albus Dumbledore.
First of all, let there be no mistake, Richard Harris is dead whilst Michael Gambon is alive. This is undoubtedly the first difference between the two actors. This seems to be more than just an ill advised quip, though, it speaks to the way they portray the character. I have said before that I prefer Michael Gambon, and this is to some extent true. I feel he better captures the inner life of the character. He gets the sort of quirky humor that makes me like Dumbledore so much. Because he's like me!! Weird yet funny! So, yes. However, another important part of the character is the figure he cuts: FULL OF AWESOME AND FEARFUL POWER! This is important. He's silly and fun, yet if you blink at him wrong, he will fucking kill you! He also reminds you of the grandfather you liked. This is a very complex combination of traits, and it's understandable that one actor couldn't get it. But it occurs to me that both men, melded together, would make the perfect Dumbledore. I would never instinctly run to Michael Gambon for protection against my enemies - I would to Richard Harris. I would not be immediately charmed and impressed by Richard Harris - I would by Michael Gambon. I've worked it out: Harris had the better beard and the better height. You see what going silver did for Gandalf, right? In the beard, there is power. So someone needs to get Michael Gambon somes lifts and some frosting gel, and he'll be all set.

• Point the second. Why the time-turner scenes in the movie were far superior to the ones in the book.
I know, right? The movie better than the book? I must be ill. But no, think about it. Now, I don't know that much about time-continuum paradoxes, but it seems to me that the events in the movie are far better resolved in the movie, and it boils down to one thing: Macnair's axe. In the book, his axe is not felled in the second go round. This is important! Hermione is constantly gibbering about how they can't change time, that bad things will happen, but more changes in the book than in the movie, where they seemingly do more to affect the past. In the movie, time seems to be on a loop. The past selves are affected by what the future selves have already done. Or, er ... will do. I don't know, man. Buckbeak is never actually killed in the movie; the axe was always falling down on a pumpkin (ack!). Time is already on a loop, and things have already been resolved. This of course, brings up the question of, "what if Harry and Hermione realized everything had already been resolved and decided not to be that .. active? Since they knew things would already have worked out?" But then, of course, that would have already have happened in the past and ... well, you see the paradox. Anyway, in the book, Macnair's axe does not fall in the revised version of events. This means that something has definitely changed. Buckbeak was actually saved from being killed. So, how does this affect the present-time Macnair, and Fudge? Would he suddenly lose the memory of having killed Buckbeak? Lost the memory of swinging the axe? Wouldn't the alteration in the fabric of time have MADE HIM EXPLODE?!?!? So, in conclusion, while I cannot say with certainty that the logic of the time loop in the film is flawless, it's already improved on what's in the book. Also, you may note that time does loop in both at the scene on the lake. That's just bad continuity on the book's part.

• Point the third. Why Hermione is totally destined to have twenty of Ron's red-headed babies.
Okay, so I'd first like to point out that any debate as to whether Hermione should be eventually shagging Harry or Ron is completely dependent on not knowing who Hermione likes. It should be really really obvious that Ron likes Hermione that way , and if you didn't figure that out well, you're lying about having read the books. I will explain at length the difference between Ron's dislike of Viktor Krum and his dislike of Ginny's suitors if you need me to. You shouldn't. Harry, from everything I have scoured over (er, not that I have) seems to have no interest in Hermione. As more than a friend. I honestly do not believe that J.K. Rowling has planned on writing in a love triangle situation, and believe that though this is kind of obvious foreshadowing, that this is what the foreshadowing predicts. The case then, is proving who it is Hermione likes. It's totally Ron, people. Observe the following from Book 5:
Hermione is counseling Harry on his relationship WITH ANOTHER GIRL. When she gets upset, is she jealous? Hardly. Page 505. "'Harry, you're worse than Ron .. well, no, you're not,' she sighed." Ron is blind to that fact that Hermione TOTALLY WANTS HIM TO ASK HER OUT!

[End Spoiler]

I should stop writing now. I have failed to prove my point!