Goblet of Fire Teaser Trailer Released

bryan8m writes "The teaser trailer for the next installment of the Harry Potter series has hit the web. The clip begins with a bit of a flashback but quickly turns to the triwizard tournament with some amazing visuals. And there is new director (again): Mike Newell."

Late as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

It was on Apple's movie trailers site a week ago today.

The Kids are aging too fast

[yincrash]

when it comes to puberty, it's got to be hard to match older kids as younger kids.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[dark404]

Yeah, by the time they get to the last movie (whenever she finishes the series) Potter's going to have a beard, three kids, and a beer belly.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Dieppe]

I always cringe whenever anybody says that "the kids are aging too fast" to finish the movies.

Doesn't anybody remember Dawson's Creek or Beverly Hills, 90210???

...

Never mind I see your point...

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[jim_v2000]

I'm not sure what you mean by matching older kids. They've used the same kids through the whole series so far.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

The kids grow at the usual rate of 1 year to a year, and the movies are coming out about 1 1/2 years apart. In the first one, some of them (at least Hermione) were younger than the part they were playing. The kids in the storys are also a year older with each story, so if you consider 7 movies at 1 1/2 years each, that's 10.5 years to finish, which means when the last one is DONE, they'll be about 3.5 years older, assuming they started when they were the same age as their characters. But, again, some actors are younger than their characters, and the first two came out only 1 year apart.

There's also the difference of their age when they start filming a movie and their age when it is released, about a year and a half later. For instance, when I mentioned Hermoine's age (I remember seeing it in the "What Happened Today" column in the newspaper), she was a year or so behind her movie age at the time of release. Even if you don't take that into account, assuming the kids ages matched when they started filming, at the end, they'll be 21 playing 18 year olds. That has happened quite often in TV and film.

So, yes, the actors are aging fast, but you have to remember the characters are aging, too. It is a bit hard to get used to, since we see the characters in "snapshots" spaced a year to year and a half apart, and if you're used to watching a kid grow up, it's so gradual you don't notice it as much. In the latest movie, they should be 14, and I don't think the characters look too far off.

Teens also tend to grow much more when they're 12-16. Often you don't see quite as much of a change from 16-18, so if they look okay for the next movie, I think they'd be fine in the last 2.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

Oops. </b> (I always expect a "preview" to be listed before a "submit" button -- it just seems the check should come before the action.)

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for expecting intuitive behavior from an open-source project.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[TheWanderingHermit]

There's 2 books left, the next one comes out this summer. This means book 6 will be out before movie 5 even starts filming. Movie 5 is due in 2007, 6 is due in 2008, so even if it takes *3* years to write her next book, it'll still be done in time to do movie 7.

Re:The Kids are aging too fast

[fm6]

Actually, they're using the same three child actors they've had from the beginning. they've been doing a HP movie almost once a year, and each story is supposed to be about one year at Hogwarts, so the actors are only aging a little faster than their characters. Right now they're maybe a year ahead; by the time the series ends they'll be maybe 3 years ahead of their characters. Which is nothing as things go -- there are tons of "teenagers" on TV these days who are in their late 20s! What makes these actors

This'll be big

[Gabrill]

Almost as big as Star W. . . .Ahh!!!! Get away you freeks!

obquote

[Psionicist]

http://bash.org/?111338 [bash.org]

direct link

[slashjames]

http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_480.mov [apple.com]

Re:direct link

[Seft]

Actually, the direct link is: http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_m480.mov [apple.com]

Re:direct link

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the first one only gives a small file to the link for the m480 file. People who want to download the actual video needs the m480, not just 480.

Anyway, those who want full screen:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/harry_potter_gob let/hp_gobletoffire_ifs.mov [apple.com]

Re:direct link

[fm6]

As usual "FUD" is a handy excuse for your own ignorance. iTunes does indeed hijack associations, just not the ones you happen to use. Obviously it can't hijack wmv files, since it doesn't know how to play them.

OT: FUD

[Bishop]

A claim of FUD used to be a very serious accusation. It was meant to counter act some of the subtle marketing that the big players were pushing. FUD goes hand in hand with vapourware. FUD is all about promissing that a company's future product is better then a competitor's product. A common claim was that a competitor's product had no future. A important part of FUD is that it is difficult or impossible to varify a company's claim.

Now FUD is claimed by any 13 year old fanboy who does not like a negative co

Re:Quicktime without iTunes here

[fm6]

Already been there -- if I hadn't I couldn't play Quicktime at all. But the standalone player no longer does full-screen.

filerush torrent...

[i88i]

here tis [filerush.com]

... there is new director....

[simetra]

He Ingrish Velly Good.

Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Nova Express]

I was listening to National Pravda Radio when they did an interview with Terry Gilliam. He said that he had been one of the three finalists for the job of directing the first Harry Potter movie, but only because J. K. Rowling had wanted to see him direct it. He said he felt stupid that he'd actually believed he had a chance when the studio was dead-set against it. Then there was the following exchange, which is as close to verbatim as I can remember it:

Gilliam: Eventually they went with another director, and since the film made over $300 million, that was obviously the right decision.

NPR: What did you think of the movie when it came out?

Gilliam: Crap.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[jfengel]

Too bad he thinks that. Cuaron had nothing but nice things to say Columbus on the commentaries. Duh, and if you read between the lines you can see that Cuaron wasn't entirely pleased.

But Cuaron rightly praised Columbus for a number of things right with those movies. He picked a knockout cast, both kids and adults, and an awesome location.

Some of the failings of the first three (yeah, all three) I put on the screenwriter, who seems to have a tendency to substitute action scenes for character moments. That made the first two movies rather long for kids' movies and still leaving out some important scenes from the books. Still, that's Rowling's chosen screenwriter, so I guess it's what she wanted.

I much prefer the gritty realism of the third movie to the first two. But for Gilliam to dismiss Sorcerer's Stone as "crap", given that he's been rather hit-and-miss himself, seems undeservedly arrogant.

Columbus made basic kiddie fare. Gilliam's would have been a fascinating change, though in some ways I like the idea of the first intro movie being a more pedestrian adaptation of the book, to serve as a foundation for the sequels to be more interesting. I'd love to see Gilliam direct one of the future movies, but with an attitude like that there's no way they're going to let him.

Of course, the studio was probably dead set against him from the start. He has a tendency to create truly grand visions and then run over schedule and budget. Baron Munchausen almost didn't make it, and his Don Quixote did fail. He blames it on circumstances and cheapskate studios.

Me, I'm a director myself (stage, rather than film), and I know that disasters happen and you need to be flexible to fix them. The documentary Lost in La Mancha is very favorable to him, and he did have a run of bad luck, but it also sounds to me like he failed to have backup plans and cut things too close to the wire. Under those circumstances projects will always fail, because things go wrong.

He needs a better unit production manager, or he needs to listen more closely to the one he has.

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[moosesocks]

Third movie wasn't directed by Columbus. It was VERY different from the first two, as all the sets were different and didn't have Richard Harris. Frankly, I enjoyed the change, as the first two seemed to run together quite a bit.

However, I disagree with the parent poster in that I think the character moments capture the very essence of the books. The books aren't intended for (very) young audiences, and neither are the movies to an extent. Despite all this, first graders are definitely able to grasp th

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[jfengel]

Richard Harris missed the third movie on account of his being dead. I like Michael Gambon in the role, but I'd happily have Richard Harris back.

The books have been aimed at Rowling's own children, who get older significantly faster than Harry does. So they get darker and more grown-up.

The upcoming book is going to be very dark, I'm sure. I'd love to see them get Cuaron back to direct one of the really dark books. Perhaps this upcoming one, which I suspect will have a serious romatic subplot.

I'd have exp

Re:Terry Gilliam almost directed the first movie

[Balthisar]

Pretty nasty attitude, but still, I'm a fan of his work, and I'd be plenty happy to see Gilliam's efforts at a Harry Potter movie. I'm a fan of the books, too, despite the target audience.

Quicktime install

[HumanTorch]

Anybody know of a way to install quicktime without iTunes?

Re:Quicktime install

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone .html [apple.com]

Re:Quicktime install

[HumanTorch]

To the nerf who modded parent as 0, offtopic.. please tell me how installing the software needed to view the trailer is 'offtopic'.

dragon feed

[natedubbya]

It is wise not to meddle in the affairs of dragons...
...for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

sorry, couldn't resist

Slashdot Jr.

[Rasta Prefect]

Slashdot Jr. News for prepubescent nerds, Stuff that would matter if I were 12.

(I kid, I've actually seen all of the other ones).

Direct Link

[HungSquirrel]

Because I hate watching movies in a browser window.

Save dis shiz [apple.com]

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Shea_Butter]

Harry Potter and the Kafkaeque Prison of Self?

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

The books are much better. They are not solely for kids.
I bought the books last summer and read all 5 of them in a matter of days (spread out over a few weekends). Since them I have reread them and I am most certainly looking forward to the next one in ~62 days.
Give them a change, most likely you wouldn't be disappointed.
They are funny, well written and at the end of each book, you hit yourself over the head, because you didn't see it coming. One really can't stop reading them. Rowling even makes a joke in one of her books about a magical book that you can never put down. Well, her books are certainly magical.
They are also kind of a mystery spread out over 7 books. Only two left to go.
But if you can't take the suspense, perhaps you should wait untill book 7 is out in a few years.
What is also surprisingly is that the writing style ages with the characters. While book one is more targeted at 11 year olds, the 5th one is more for young adolescentes. But any age can and does enjoy them.

A decent fansite is: www.mugglenet.com [mugglenet.com]
The editorials are usually good.

Before I read them I just discarded them as over hyped kids books. I was proven wrong, lucky me.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Mashiki]

Agreed, this is one of the few series that I've quite enjoyed my younger sister lent me her set to read. By far better then the movies. The movies are well, trash, total complete ... trash compared to the books.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Councilor Hart]

Well, some of the books are 500+ pages long. Quite difficult to translate that into a movie. Although Jackson did it so good, I like the LOTR movies over the books.
Also, keep in mind that it are just kids acting. You can't expect an 12 year old to be as good as, say, Morgan Freeman.
As they grow older, their acting does seem to improve, save for the boy playing Ron.
The movies are good for young kids, but the books are for all ages.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[LocoMan]

I have to say I love them too (started reading them when my mom, that's a teacher, got the first one from one of her students and I borrowed it), and since then I have read and loved all of them. One thing, though, if I hadn't read the books, I doubt I would have liked the movies to begin with. There's too much backstory and character that's missing in the movies, but that I kinda fill in the blanks from the books.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[roystgnr]

The books are much better. They are not solely for kids.

Big Harry Potter fan? [penny-arcade.com]

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[tylernt]

"They are not solely for kids."

Unfortunately, I have read one of the books. There are a few things in HP that adults can appreciate, but the oversimplified plot and cardboard characters held pretty much zero interest for me (as an adult). I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy. I base this suspicion on the fact that most of the adults that I know who have read the HP books, previously never read any books at all. It's good thing to encourage more a

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[-kertrats-]

Comparing the Wheel of Time series to the Amber series is kind of...completely wrong. Having read both, Amber is on a plane far above WOT in almost every category.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[swillden]

I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy.

Your supposition is wrong, in many cases. Don't get too hoity toity over it, because there are plenty of fans of serious fantasy that enjoy the HP books. The books didn't outsell Tolkien by selling only to kids -- it's the fact that they're enjoyable to such a broad audience that has made them so successfull (well, that plus plenty of media attention).

If you want a real fantasy series, check out Rober

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[STrinity]

I sometimes wonder if the adults that enjoy these books have not yet been exposed to real fantasy.

Well, it's not like she's won any major SF awards [worldcon.org] or anything, so I guess not.

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Lord Apathy]

I hated the very ideal of the Harry Potter books since the came out, until I read one. Four of the books where out when I read the first one. From there I was hooked. I read all four in a matter of days then the 5th one came out a couple weeks later. I innhaled it in a two days. Then I picked up the first one and read them all again.

I'm hard core SF and Fantisy. Stuff that makes most peoples head hurt. JK Rowlings is an icredible writer. If she can write a book that kids will read and I can't pu

Re:I've seen 3 Harry Potter movies so far

[Destoo]

1. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
* Story time: 1991-1992
* Release: June 26, 1997
* Note: Both the book and the film were retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S., with similar alterations to the text
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
* Story time: 1992-1993
* Release: 1998
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
* Story time: 1993-1994
* Release: September 8, 1999
4. Harry Potter and

Audio Books

[henni16]

I can recommend the audio books read by Jim Dale [jim-dale.com], they are amazing.
He won some awards (including a Grammy) for them and a Guiness Book entry for "Most Character Voices in an Audio Book".

Re:the reason

[Pete]

Source?

For, well, either of those (a) baseless, and (b) totally illogical assertions? :-)

Re:the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The first two were both directed by Chris Columbus.

Re:the reason

[bjprice]

there's been a new director for every film so far

Not true.

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone [imdb.com] and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [imdb.com] were both directed by Chris Columbus (this one [wikipedia.org], not that one [wikipedia.org]).

Re:the reason

[fireboy1919]

Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.

What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?

And for that matter, why have the characters in what is essentially an old English boarding school wearing modern and eventually dated clothing rather than uniforms?

Re:the reason

[Blackeagle_Falcon]

What were they thinking getting rid of a director who successfully translated books to movies?

They didn't exactly "get rid" of Chris Columbus. He chose not to direct the Prisoner of Azkaban in order to spend more time with his family (he was still an executive producer though). According to the IMDB [imdb.com], he wanted to come back and direct the fourth film, but Warner Brothers chose Mike Newell instead.

Re:the reason

[zebs]

Well...that explains why the first two movies are so much better than the third.

Which movies did you watch? The scenery, sets, characters, and acting have got progressively better with each film.

Re:the reason

[fireboy1919]

Read the books. This is a natural side effect on basing it on the books.

The books get darker each book, so the movies should get darker too.

On the other hand, the last movie wasn't actually as good. It told a very small portion of the story the book did, and the things it focused on weren't nearly as interesting as some of the things it left in there.

Like, for instance, they didn't even mention some (IMHO) crutial plot things - SPOILER OF BOOK WARNING-:

1) all the new adults in the third movie went to

Re:the reason

[Detritus]

She's doing something right. The quality of the films has been reasonably consistent, unlike George Lucas, who will be lucky if he scores 3 out of 6 on Star Wars.

Re:the reason

[TrevorB]

Actually I'd argue that the third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuarón was vastly superior to the previous two, which came across as long and a bit dry.

When asked to do the fourth movie, Alfonso said no, we wanted to spend the time to get the third one right in post-production. The result? An excellent 3rd movie, but I'm worried that the 4th won't be anywhere near as good.

Re:the reason

[deanj]

I would have to disagree about the third movie being superior. If you read the books, the story made sense because you could fill in the blanks. Otherwise, all you would see is a disjointed series of events. "Harry does this" "Now he does this". The narrative was nearly non-existant, and made the movie a big disappointment, even for fans.

Re:the reason

[henni16]

I have to agree with you; I think the third movie was worse than the others.
IIRC there were some big plot holes for people who didn't know the story;
the Marauders Map (looking very nice) was put very much into the foreground, but it lacked some explaining - for example who created it:
Lupin knew what it was, but there was no explaination why he - but not Snape - did know how to use it
(no explaination of the creators' nicknames and that Lupin was one of them).
That could have been nicely integrated with a

Re:the reason

[Nogami_Saeko]

but I sure didn't like that the students ran around in Jeans and Sneakers instead of their robes most of the time.

Actually, this was one of the things that I thought was a brilliant idea. It really helped to show that they really ARE kids, and helped decrease the "fake fantasy" feeling that tends to permeate the other two movies.

The third movie felt "real" (for lack of a better word). Ordinary kids thrown into extraordinary circumstances.

N.

Re:the reason

[fm6]

Nonsense. Chris Columbus, who directed the first two films, is still Executive Producer of the series. Directing a film is hard work, and it's not unusual for somebody to launch a series, then delegate that job in later films.

There are lots of silly rumors about J.K. Rowling. The only conflict that has any real basis in fact is that she's not producing more Harry Potter as quickly as the publisher would like. One reason for this is the novels are getting progressively more bloated. Which I personally find a pain, but which most fantasy fans seem to love.

The big problem with the HP movies was not that the movie people didn't get along with Rowling, but that they got along all too well. So the first two movies were very literal adaptations of the first two books. Not a good way to make a movie, because you end up with a shortened version of the book that doesn't take advantage of cinematic story telling. Which is why I enjoyed the first two books, but found the first two movies utterly boring.

Re:the reason

[TychoCelchuuu]

Wouldn't it spoil it if she told the director who would die? I mean, we're not supposed to know, and the characters sure as heck don't know, so why would it be foreshadowed?

Re:the reason

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Erm, no. Chris Columbus directed the first two films, and is still on board as executive producer. Alfonso Cuaron (who directed the third) was never intended to direct the fourth, although he has stated he'd like to come back later and do at least one more. Neither Columbus, Cuaron, or Newell have ever hinted at being displeased with Rowling's involvement.

Re:How long...

[-Harlequin-]

How long are they going to make these things for?

If I was in her shoes, I'd keep doing it for as long as it took for my paychecks to drop down to 5 figures, then I'd retire. After buying an island to retire on. :)

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[hb253]

I agree that Haryy Potter is not a Slashdot type of subject. However, I would recommend you read the books. They're enjoyable by both adults and older kids.

Re:Ahem, wrong site

[beuges]

The movies are most definitely aimed at kids, however, as many others have already pointed out, the books are very enjoyable to adults as well. JKR has done an awesome job of sticking in subtle humour and wit that would completely pass over childrens heads, but which make the books alot more enjoyable for older readers.

Also, the books contain the entire story. Important parts of the plot aren't discarded to make time for an extra 30 seconds of pointless special effects. I've found it surprising that JKR has ok'd the scripts for the first three movies because in each of them alot of important info has been cut out of the movies. Which is a pity because she spends alot of effort going back to her stories to add hints and clues as to what might happen in a future book.

In short, the books rock. I've had the 6th one pre-ordered for months now

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

OK you sickos.

She's underage. You're going well over the line in making remarks about panty shots.

If you don't respect the fact that she's jailbait, at least respect the fact that she's a human being. I remember reading somewhere she actually was quite shy about a scene in which she was supposed to HUG one of her fellow actors. I can't imagine how I would feel being in a film knowing that pimply, greasy nerds and other creepy people were trying to picture my genitalia.

So in short, grow up and get a life. As for the guy with the "coming of age" clock - anyone who produced something like that about my daughter gets his CPU reprogrammed with a softball bat and rightly so. Get it? Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner, I would accord the same respect to Emma Watson and to her father as I would expect shown to me and my own kids.

When did we as a society decide this kind of sick crap was OK? Fatty Arbuckle's career was ruined by the suggestion he was a diddler. R. Kelly, of whom we have VIDEO EVIDENCE he's a child molestor and kiddie rapist, is top of the charts. Go figure.

Re:Emma Watson

[Anonymous Coward]

> She's underage.

She is a fully physically mature woman.

> Even if I was creepy enough to look at a little girl in a sexual manner

Oh, nice strawman. Sure, she's a 'little girl'. Sure.

What I hear from you is "baa baa, 17 years 364 days = little innocent kid, 18 years = full grown responsible adult woman, baa". to which I submit that you're just proving you can't think for yourself or independently of what society tries to tell you. Plus, you obviously don't recall high school, or you just never got

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Perhaps in your part of the world, but not in many others. [ageofconsent.com]

WTF? In some parts of the world I could kill you for looking at me funny. Does that make that right, too?

RE: Why? Because you say so?

I say so, the law says so, most people say so. I tell you what. You get caught in a compromising position with a 14 year old, and when you get to jail, you can tell the fellow inmates all your palaver crap about how it's OK because they do this in Cameroon. If you live, write me back. Looks to

Re:Emma Watson

[One Childish N00b]

For the record, I'm no dirty old man, I'm 17.

Right, a basic fact: The human body is biologically designed to be attracted to anyone who is past the age of puberty.

Sorry, but that's the way it is - we're designed to start breeding as soon as we hit puberty so we can further the species - this comes from the days when humans barely made it past 25 if they lived to their old age, and babies and such were likely to die before they got anywhere near double-figures, thus it was important to pump out as many k

Re:Emma Watson

[swillden]

Now shut the fuck up about it. Your american ways dont apply here. Die, filthy american.

Ah, the genteel, erudite discourse of slashdot.

Re:Emma Watson

[Raul654]

I can't tell you when it started, but I can say that it was already going [wikipedia.org] in the 50's

Re:Emma Watson

[m50d]

She's underage. You're going well over the line in making remarks about panty shots.

What if she's of age where the OP lives?

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Where would that be? Canada?

Emma Watson lives in England, and the movie was made (to the best of my knowledge) there.

It was not made in Thailand, she isn't Thai, she doesn't come from a culture in which she's expected to be a sex object long before the age of consent.

She didn't sign up to do bikini scenes, she isn't topless in any scene - she's playing a repressed, bookworm nerd.

What you're in essence arguing is "don't project your mores on my society". Well, matey, she's English, and in England she's j

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Barely: and if she'd been born on a council estate she'd have a couple of kids of her own by now. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that underage sex isn't a regular occurence in the UK.

Underage with underage, fair enough - though I don't think it's the perfect state of affairs it happens. I can of course have a problem with adults shacking up with kids. And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

"Underage with underage, fair enough"

What makes you think the father is underage? In many cases they're probably in their 20s or older: certainly the few specific cases I know of they mostly were.

"And I dunno about you but where I came from the 25 year old who knocked up the 15 year old ended up razor scarred and fleeing the province for his life."

And you talk about _decency_?

Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies lookin

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: Frankly, I think you have more problems than the majority of people posting here. I sure don't watch 'Harry Potter' movies looking for panty shots, but if you've never seen a fifteen-year-old you wanted to shag

Nope, sorry. I see a bunch of kids standing by the bus stop, I want em to be kids. But then again I don't go around looking at everyone as potential sex objects, either.

RE: then I can only presume you're deluding yourself or have no libido...

No, just a sane libido. I don't find men attractive e

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

"No, just a sane libido."

Hardly. Men are genetically programmed to find teenage girls attractive, because they can have lots of kids... you can dislike that if you want, but fighting genetic programming is usually a losing battle.

I don't really have any interest in shagging fifteen-year-olds, but that's because I wouldn't have much of anything to talk to them about afterwards, not because I'm a prude.

"Tweren't me, that was the rest of the estate."

But you seem to be the one having masturbation fantasies

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

There's a difference between thinking someone's cute, or attractive, and/or sexually so.

I think babies are cute, and dogs are cute. I think certain works of fine art are pretty and beautiful as well.

But that doesn't mean I'm into doing babies, dogs, etc.

ROFL!!!

[absurdist]

Yes, yes, of course...

YOUR kink, whatever it may be, is just fine and good. MY kink, however, is sick and twisted and disgusting.

I would point out to you that the age of consent in much of the world is 14, not 18, as you seem to believe. With some places as low as 12. So "underage" is a mere matter of location, at best.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ [ageofconsent.com]

I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get over it.

And this post is courtesy of a 49-year-old married man with kids of my own, but, unlike you, with a rational view of human sexuality. So much for your idea that anyone who thinks such things are OK must have problems with adult relationships. As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

Re:ROFL!!!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.

As a Libertarian, you probably also are not living in the real world. Here in the real world, laws concerning age-of-consent are entirely necessary. Sure, in the worldly sense, they are arbitrary... but I also like to think the west has advanced since the days of, oh, I don't know... people getting married at 12.

If you feel otherwise, I suggest you keep an open mind when your 1

Re:ROFL!!!

[BluedemonX]

He's not thinking of the 39 year old seducing his 12 year old daughter, who of course, thinks she knows it all, etc. and naturally when she gets pregnant at 13 and "Chevy" takes off to find a younger woman and it's the poster who gets saddled with the bills (cause tho the 13 year old's parts all work, she can't drive the kid to the doctor's and is still at least seven years away from enough schooling to realistically support herself never mind a kid) ...

He's more likely to be secretly wishing his 12 year o

Re:ROFL!!!

[bwalling]

I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are.

If you think you know a 12 year old that is capable of understanding the consequences and is willing to consent to having sex with you, then you are mistaken. Finding some country that tolerates slavery does not make slavery okay.

Re:ROFL!!!

[BluedemonX]

Thank you, bwalling. I was feeling like the lone voice of sanity, here.

Well it's a funny country, the US...

[Kjella]

...I mean, you got plenty of kids being trialed as adults, but not one that can screw like an adult. This has lead to silly stuff like a 12yo girl being charged with molesting two 11yo girls, or the teenager (how old was she? 15?) charged with molesting herself.

So if the underage person is the "molester", she understands everything, but if she is the "molestee", she understands nothing. That requires a few leaps of logic, but that is the way it is.

We're approaching the same kind of sillyness here. A 16yo can screw as much as they want with whoever they want, but if you take a picture of it it is child pornography. It's like saying you can smoke weed, but not take a picture of it. Go figure

Kjella

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

You certainly have a point. Whenever you draw a line in the sand, there are bound to be circumstances that seem ridiculous when judged by that line. For example, does anything really think that age-of-consent laws were drafted to prevent 17-year-olds from dating 16-year-olds? Of course not. And when you look at situations like that, of course the whole thing sounds silly.

But in the end, a line still must be drawn. Those grey areas in between - let a judge figure it out... there are going to be some good

Re:Well it's a funny country, the US...

[danila]

Age of consent laws are wrong. Why don't you live it to the judge (or jury) to determine whether the kid was molested and harmed? If there is evidence that there was rape, that the child was forced to have sex - guilty. If there is evidence that the adult tricked the child, lied to him, intimidated him - guilty. Basically if the child was harmed - guilty. But if a 10-year old kid had a healthy sexual relationship with an adult with the consent of the child's parents, why is it wrong simply because the child

Age of Consent

[ansible]

I find this entire concept of "age of consent" somewhat tenuous, at best. It seems to imply that there is an age at which one magically is able to make intelligent, rational decisions about their own body and their sexuality, and below that they're just too stupid and/or immature to make any such decision. If that were actually the concern, I know plenty of 30 year olds who aren't able to make said intelligent, rational decisions... and plenty of 12 year olds who are. People mature at different ages. Get o

Re:ROFL!!!

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

This should be modded up. I ripped on libertarians in my other post on this thread, but that was probably more of a response to the typical libertarian you hear speak their views - not the "real" libertarian stance. After all, I never heard Badnarick say that age-of-consent laws should be revolked (please, correct me if I'm wrong and indeed this is an official stance).

As a Green-party kind of guy, I can relate to people often misrepresenting your party. I see the Greens as Libertarians in terms of civil

Re:Emma Watson

[Fyz]

Hey, this is just in: you can tell if someone is a pedophile by tossing them in the water. If they float, they're pedophiles. If they drown, eh, we had to make sure.

Now, I dislike pedophilia as much as the next guy, but the sort of furious demagogue rhetoric I hear from some people in this forum sounds like someone trying to inflame a mob to lynch a witch to me.

Further more, Emma Watson [wikipedia.org] is 15 years old, which makes her below [wikipedia.org] age of consent, but only barely, so you are actually justified in your moral out

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

RE: However, expression of sexual attraction to a physically adult human being sounds vulgar to me, but not nearly as vulgar as your threat of death by softball bat that you spewed

It was the server I threatened with a bat.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I wouldn't look at something like that Harlequin, but if you're right then I take back my comment about his clock. Anything that makes stuff like that revolting is OK in my book.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I have a problem with that too.

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

Well, I can go you one further.

Imagine someone in the 1950s proposing that thongs be marketed to five year olds.

Imagine someone, even in the swingin 60s, proposing that stiletto heeled hooker boots be made in four year old sizes.

Think they'd have kept their jobs, if not their front teeth?

So why is it acceptable today?

Re:Emma Watson

[0123456]

Bah, she'll be legal in the UK next year :).

Re:Emma Watson

[BluedemonX]

I'm sorry to hear that.

Maybe you should consider changing that state of affairs.

Re:Emma Watson

[-Harlequin-]

she's 15. if anyone over 17 goes looking for that, they might have a problem.

I really want to put a link to the Jason Killingsworth Hermione Countdown here, but the domain is gone. Too much hatemail I guess.

Re:Very interesting.....!

[Turn-X Alphonse]

erm.. people took the joke wrongly it seems. It was a freaking joke, you know how many people get dragged to these things for little kids? At least star wars has Padame.

this has started a huge flame war over nothing :/

Re:Very interesting.....!

[-Harlequin-]

I do think you're over reacting a bit. I agree that sexualising children is wrong, but surely you're aware that a lot of children are taking cues from older segments of society and sexualising themselves quite happily without any conspiracy of "kiddie diddlers". Go out on any Friday night, and you'll see that not a single 25 year old dresses as sexually provocatively as the average 14 year old, not even the prostitutes.

I can't tell you how many times I've been out and seen a girl where I honestly couldn't work out the faintest clue as to how old she was - anywhere between 15 and 26. I'm in my 20s and not the least bit interested in anyone under 21, but in some cases, you genuinely can't tell from looks alone.

It's a pain in ass, but it's life, so I think going near-ballistic because someone dares observe that 15 year olds can be (and often are) sexual is a little baffling. I know one very sexy, gorgeous 24-year-old night-clubbing girl who has even commented out-of-the-blue that she really doesn't like going to all-ages events because the 14 year olds make her feel so unsexy and plain in comparison.

And I guarentee you she isn't creepily projecting fantasies on those girls. Many, if not most 14 year olds are NOT asexual chidren. They are sexual beings. You don't have to like it (I don't, she doesn't), but that's the way the world is.

Re:yo yo ma

[KajiCo]

No, you're pretty on topic, I submitted a year ago the teaser/trailer of Prisoner of Azkaban and it was denied posting because it was noted as "Off topic/not relevant".

Re:yo yo ma

[Mr Bubble]

Is the Slashdot Main Page some sort of temple that must not be defiled?

What if the story was about a new video card, is that pimping?

I think Slashdot should cover geek things in general - be they scientific, technical, or cultural.

Re:yo yo ma

[novakreo]

Not only is this old, but it hardly seems fitting for the /. main page. I realize the books are much-loved and all, but let's be serious. Do we really need Slashdot pimping movie trailers? I'm sure a good majority of us hit apple.com/movies often enough anyway. I prefer /. to report on cool tech stuff, not hollywood bullshit.

I'd prefer /. to go without the endless Microsoft-bashing and Apple/Google fanboyism, but one can't always get what one wants. The great thing about the internet is that you get to decide what you click on. There's plenty of other stories on the front page, if you don't like this one, why whinge about it? You could always try submitting something you'd like to see on the main page yourself.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the fourth movie after seeing the trailer. I wasn't very impressed with the first two, but I think the third made up for them and then some.

Re:yo yo ma

[bw5353]

Your post is currently marked "Flamebait", and I think that is highly unfair, as your opinion is clear and obviously honest, but I do disagree with your comment.

Slashdot has plenty of news in different areas, and in many of them I have absolutly no interest, but other people obviously do. There is a visible interest for StarWars, StarTrek, Lord of the Rings, HitchHiker's guide and so on. Harry Potter isn't far from that category of films. If it had been "When Harry met Sally" I would have jumped, but Harr

Re:This was the book where it stopped being kid's

[TekMonkey]

The fans of the books/movies are growing older each year too. I'm still a big fan of the books, which I started reading when I was 11 or 12. That was 5-6 years ago.