When Umbridge declared herself the new Headmistress, she had Filch take down all the portraits in the schools. That wouldn't really make any sense for the entrance for the Gryffindor common room and the entrance for the kitchens since to get into either one of those rooms you have to do something that involves the painting. Did Filch not take down the Fat Lady or that picture of fruit or did he actually take them down so anybody can easily get into both of those rooms?

Hmmmmm....

Good point, but I would say that those portraits are immoveable, because they are so important.

that's probably true.

btw, I like your signature and avatar. Nice to meet a POTC fan.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember where in the books it's mentioned that Umbridge ordered Filch to take down all the portraits. Could you please quote, or provide me with page and/ or chapter name?

it happened in the movie, am I in the wrong OOTP forum thing?

MM-MMM, this is the movies thread...

(Thankies! 's pirates )

I don't think it was in the book. My guess is that they didn't take down the Fat Lady and all of the other portraits that are required and used by students just so everyone could still get into their common room, etc.

I never really understood why they took all the Hogwarts pictures down either. Umbridge is evil and really doesnt care about the school or the kids so you can just about exspect anything from that old hag.

This little tid bit they added to the film was not in the books. I am not sure at all why they did this, but it was a complete waste of time.

It wasn't in the books, because when you think about it, it doesn't make sense. What would be the point of it? And the house entrances are supposed to be secret, so it would be suspicious to non-Gryffindors to take down all the pictures except the Fat Lady..... I think they just did it in the movie to make Umbridge seem more evil.

I think they take the paintings down to make room for the Educational Decrees. So it doesn't mean all paintings are taken down.

What doesn't make sense to me is...how is it that the twins apparate like a blink, but the Order and the Death Eaters apparate with the awesome swirls and smoke???

that is a very good question...they probably wanted people to be all smoky to make it look cool. Like when Bellatrix and some other Order member (I think it was Tonks, I forget) were swirling around in that smoke was kinda cool

Had they gone by the books they'd have avoided this confusion.
I think, in the films, they probably did it mainly for overall effect. Smoke is a very mysterious thing, and death eaters are, afterall, more mysterious than the Weasley twins.
With the twins apparating "like a blink", or 'popping' it probably accentuates their comic characters. It's a cheeky sound, for cheeky characters

I would imagine she probably wouldn't have been able to take them all down, anyway - I bet some of them had permanent-sticking charms on them.

This thread has possibly run out, but I couldn't resist.
Filch does not take down all the portraits, I'm sure. I always took it as the movie way of showing no gathering of people were allowed anymore - come to think of it, I even think taking down portraits with groups of people in them was in the book -

I agree...
He didnt take down the Pictures of The fat lady...ect..ect..
brcause maybe you cant take them off because they are important.

I would say that the school put a permanent sticking charm on any portrait that had significance, like the Fat Lady, and the Fruit picture at the kitchens entrance.

Good point.

Hmm... I only saw Filch taking down the portraits in the movies, but I don't remember them mentioning anything in the books. If they did say that in the books, then I guess they didn't take down the ones for the entrance to the common rooms.

Those portraits are probably unmovable. That makes the most sense to me...