Ron's Rat.... or was it???

[GulPlum <plumeski@yahoo.com>]

erisedstraeh2002 wrote:

> I must comment since the rat-goblet transfiguration is one of my 
> greatest gripes with the movie.  I've only seen the movie once, but 
> IIRC, I thought each student had their own pet with them (I think I 
> remember Neville with Trevor and Harry with Hedwig, but I'd have to 
> watch it again to be sure).  

I don't think we got a look at the animal in front of Neville, but 
Seamus had a toad, and Harry's bird was most emphatically NOT Hedwig 
(it had some black feathers). Hermione had some kind of lizard.

> While it's possible that each student was given an animal that was 
> not their own, since we *know* that Ron has a pet rat, it's a 
> logical conclusion to think it's Scabbers.  Even if you've only 
> watched the movies and have no familiarity with the books, since 
> Scabbers was in the first movie, it would be a logical conclusion 
> to make.  Of note is that in PS/SS (both the movie and the book), 
> the spell that was supposed to turn Scabbers yellow failed.

Logical, but not necessarily correct! :-)

Have you considered the possibility that this was deliberate? 
Scabbers gets no screentime in this movie except for when the car 
lands and expels the cage. The scene was a clear reminder for the 
benefit of non-book readers that Ron has a pet rat; however, as Steve 
said there is no indication that the rat being transformed IS 
Scabbers.

As I pointed out above, we see Harry with a bird in front of him (but 
you need to look closely to establish that it's not Hedwig); Seamus 
has a toad in front of him and movie-only viewers will recall that 
there was a toad in PS/SS but not necessarily to whom it belonged.

The way I look at it, the whole thing is a wonderful bit of 
misdirection. Why should only the HP books be entitled to such 
narrative devices? The movies are just as entitled to allow us to 
jump to conclusions and believe one thing while another is acutally 
the case...