Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts I & II (Spoilers)

You don't "have" to do anything. I was looking for a discussion about the structure etc., and you didn't want one. End of debate, let's move on.

 

How much time each scene will take was not the discussion I brought up, merely how far, from a story perspective, needs to be covered for the first film to make sense. I was seeing if anyone else had given any thought to this, and, at least initially, you agreed that Lovegood was needed in the first film to explain the story. That was the reason I started the thread in the first place.

 

I think the first film should end with Xenophilius Lovegood saying, "You mean the sign of the Deathly Hallows?" When they point out the sign.

Then the second film should begin with the Tale of the Three Brothers, then the ambush, so that the film gets directly to the action.

 

I'd like to see the first movie open up with the tale of the three brothers as retold in the Tales book.

 

I think that could work nicely! It's a split I hadn't considered before, since it defies the rather sweeping, epic quality of the other films' endings. But the break has to come somewhere, and I like the idea of leaving the audience on a verbal cliff-hanger.

 

That could work, so long as the audience is not left, after the first film, without any explanation of why this film is called Deathly Hallows in the first place.

It appears, however, that it will end with the trio being captured by Death Eaters.

Listening to the audiobook, I was struck by how long The Prince's Tale chapter is, and how it could be cut down. If there's one thing that I can see going, it's the bit about Snape blasting off George's ear. It really serves no purpose, IMHO, other than to have yet another action by Snape that appears to show he's a traitor but really proves the opposite--and must therefore by explained in great detail long after the fact.

 

Yeah. Its a rough seven years Lucius Malfoy, especially as he spends a good year in Azkaban.

 

But somehow he manages to steal every scene he's in.

... or that's just Jason Isaacs being brilliant.

 

Yes, yes he does.

So much so, that by the end I was hoping for a more thorough redemption for him and his family, instead of the half-measure they got in the end...allowed to party with the victors, but had to sit at the childrens' table.

 

Im going to have to reread the last 100 pgs or so of DH as I dont recall really what happened to everyone at the end anylonger.

 

Yeah, I just re-read DH as well to refresh my memory. I will probably see it next Mon or Tues at a matinee since it costs less during the day (and the kids are still in school next week). Not sure if I will go for 3D or not. When I saw POTC4 in 3D it costs almost £10 during the day.

 

It was interesting to see vizualised the 19 years later... part; I always wondered how they would age the actors.

It's not that convincing, aside from a few different hairstyles ... amazing what a part will do for Ron!

The only actor/ress that truly looked aged, was Ginny - she looked like she had a few too many gins and had settled into the life of a Middle-Class Suburban Housewitch quite well!

 

It's really sad that this is the last movie but I am confident that J.K. Rowling will continue the book series with Harry and Ginny's children specifically Albus as the main protaganist since she said she likes him the best. This will then lead to another film series, and many happy people.

 

Everything after Harry "Died" was a joke. They should have stayed truer to the book. Honestly, Neville's scene was so much better in the book than the movie. The Voldemort/Harry "battle" was also better in the book. It had far more tension and I lvoed how Harry asked Tom to feel remorse and then went on to tell him how he was the true master of the Elder Wand. And of course having the duel take place in the Great Hall with every one was watching was epid. To bad the movie screwed up. Heck, after Harry killds Voldy all he gets are a couple nods from wizards who seem to be more intrested in discussing the weather than congratulating Hrayy for saving the world.

 

See, this is one of my big problems with the movie in fact my brother thought the same thing. The Resurrection Stone is actually a misnomer. The tale of the Deathly Hallows states that the stone doesn't truly birng the dead back to life, but only brings a shade for a while. Harry used it in the forest to bring back his parents, Lupin, and Sirius. The reason Harry didn't die is actually entirely different. In the book, Dumbledore claims (during Harry's visit to limbo) that since Voldemort used Harry's blood to return himself to life (as seen in the fourth film); Lily's protection countines to live on in Voldemort which tethers Harry to life. In fact, it acts in a fashion similar to a horcrux. Furthermore, Voldemort was using the Elder Wand and it can't truly hurt it's master.

 

Quest. I assume you mean Fred.

This was a scene in the book. In the book everyone and their mother literally joins the battle through the portal in Hog's Head. Including the entire Weasley family which includes their estranged brother Percy. Percy and Fred are fighting off Death Eaters and have a conversation and right in the midst of a break, Fred is killed. It's one of the big shocks in the book as it is so sudden and unexpected. Lupin and Tonks are even more so as we do never see their death but just see the bodies in the book. In this movie, they chose to do the same for Fred. Which is unfortunate since they brought back the actor who played Percy!



And melkor: They completely blew the horcruxes and the hallows. One of the reasons why Half Blood Prince will be one of the weakest if not THE weakest film is the fact that Yates failed utterly at getting across the most essential information needed for the final two films to progress quickly. Book 6 established the following that we did not know until then: Voldemort survived because his soul had been split. He split the soul into 7 horcruxes. The diary was the first. The ring was the second. Dumbledore then comes upon the theory that Nagini was one and as we learn in 7, Harry was the other. BUT he sets Harry on the path to find the other 3 and he and Harry specifically KNOW that these are the Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff cup. ALSO, Harry sees the Ravenclaw diadem in 6 when hiding the book. Instead, Yates uses that scene for a cheap "Did you and Ginny do it?" joke instead of having Harry SEE the diadem which would not have been that hard at all and STILL would have Yates have his joke. So they have this whole 'sensing horcruxes' thing instead.

He also failed to explain why Dumbledore touched the ring. This is really important to Dumbeldore's character and Snape's character. Dumbledore realizes it's the resurrection stone and so, overcome by his desire to see his sister again, he foolishly puts on the ring. The curse hits him and he destroys the ring and retreats badly wounded to Hogwarts. Snape is too late to reverse the curse. He can only contain it. That's when they set the final plan into motion. Now that part was at least covered. But not at all touched on was how Dumbledore came to learn the dangers of power and how he purposely refused positions higher than Headmaster. It served as a foil to Voldemort's quest for power and his sacrifice.

 

Well, at least that's the last sub-par/mediocre Harry Potter movie out of the way. Sorry, I'm a book purist so I always dislike when they change stuff around, or just waste time on flashy effects instead of explaining stuff... which sadly is most of the movies (although its gotten especially worse in the last few movies, like when they burned down the Burrow in one movie). Its not just due to time constraints, but I just dislike their interpretation. I understand that even with two movies its hard to fit everything from a massive 700+ page book in a movie, but that doesn't excuse all the flaws and stupid moments.

Book Seven's story is especially complicated with how the title mentions Deathly Hallows but... aside from the Deathstick they're not really that important to Harry's quest. The Deathly Hallows are more about Dumbledore's backstory than anything else, and they skipped most of that in the movie. It was barely brought up when they met Aberforth.

Neville and the final battle were a huge disappointment. He gets the Sword of Gryffindor, and instead of taking down the snake when all hell breaks loose and everyone is distracted, he's sent flying and barely wakes up in time to kill the snake right as Harry duels Voldemort. I had seen the scene in trailers when he and Voldemort fall off the castle together, which struck me as kind of stupid, but I had hoped it would just be a nightmare or imagination or something. Instead of the epic duel between Harry and Voldemort in front of everyone, they just shoot red and green beams at each other in an empty courtyard after they spent five minutes punching each other. What is this, an anime?

Also sad they didn't fix Harry's wand. And would it really be that simple to just snap the Elder Wand in half? Although its arguable in the book that Dumbledore is still too obsessed with the Hallows to just snap it, but it just seemed too simple.

Mostly I'm just disappointed with the way the battle played out. The shield was ok (anybody else have flashbacks of Episode I's ground battle?), but then the crowds clash, and it takes forever for Harry to get the truth out of the Grey Lady, then there's that big lull where unless you read the book you won't recognize all the dead bodies (I was looking forward to Percy joining them or seeing Fred's death, but its barely given 30 seconds after the fact). Heck, more time is wasted on having big demonic explosions whenever they destroy a Horcrux. I actually laughed when that big water explosion acted like a signal for Ron and Hermione to kiss, yet when Snape is trying to give his memory it looks like they used a few eye drops for that.

And everything is always dark or dim. I know that's just how the films look since the third one, but to go from that to the heavenly version of King's Cross was almost blinding. Too bad they couldn't have used King's Cross, although shutting down that area for filming probably would've been a bit much, but even if it had been the Hogwarts Expression platform wouldn't have been as... bland as the white area).

And yeah, the Resurrection Stone hidden in the Snitch didn't have anything to do with Harry surviving. It can just bring back shades (or sorta-ghosts) of anyone you want. Harry just called his parents and their dearest friends for one last pep talk before his own death (or so he thought). As Dumbledore speculates, since Voldemort used Harry's blood for his new body, his mother's blood, Voldemort himself acts as an anchor to keep Harry alive. So Voldemort's killing curse hit (and killed) a fragment of his own soul rather than Harry. The Hallows' powers are all explained much better in the book. Did they ever confirm in the movie that Harry's Invisibility Cloak was a Hallow too? I know the book said it outright, but the movie probably moved along too fast to the next explosion. Not that the Cloak was ever used all that much anyway.


I'm not entirely sure how much stuff they skipped over but probably shouldn't have as I have a pretty good memory of the b

 

As someone who loves the books, I actually thought the film was rather good. I approved of many of the alterations made and some of my favorite scenes/moments/developments are below:

Voldemort being able to feel the destruction of his final Horcruxes was a nice touch; it added another facet, a sense of fear and insecurity, to this nearly all-powerful wizard and unstoppable force of nature. The Dark Lord might be the blackest wizard in history, but for all the enchantments and transformations he endured since his Tom Riddle days, Voldemort is ultimately human and, even on the most basic level, capable of emotion. I don't mind the occasional Complete Monster, but it's not that Voldemort is truly incapable of feeling, it's that he tries like hell (with great success) not to. As Dumbledore once said, it is our choices and not our abilities that define us; Voldemort could choose to repent, to feel remorse, to stop what he's doing, but he won't.

As weird as this is, I felt a genuine moment of pity for Voldemort when he hugged Draco. The guy had no clue what he was doing and it was simultaneously funny and tragic.

The Hogwarts staff took actual precautions against Voldemort's forces in the film, erecting a super-mega-ultra shield charm across the castle, animating the suits of armor, etc. rather than merely just have staff and students placed in strategic locations.

Snape's death was far more horrifying in the film than the relatively mild version in the book. The thoroughly brutal method by which he dies embodies the fact that Voldemort's considerable cruelty has been magnified by his increasingly frantic situation; he believes Snape is the master of the Elder Wand and, desperate to harness its power, not only kills his "faithful servant" but absolutely crushes him in order to get it. It was shocking and mood-setting.

On that note, I really must praise Alan Rickman's limited screentime here. This was his finest performance; I don't cry easily but the moment that Harry's desperately applying pressure to Snape's neck and Snape is crying "Take them [tears]..." was heart-wrenching. In a lot of films I see, the hero will take his mortal injuries with a sense of grace and serenity. That's not here. What made Snape's death so poignant is that it hurt. We actually saw tears and agony not just because of fear and emotional distress, but resonant physical pain. I did, however, enjoy the line "you have your mother's eyes" and its delivery: for one bright shining moment, Snape was neither bitter nor caustic, but heartfelt.

Hermione's reaction to Harry's decision to sacrifice himself and Ginny's outburst upon seeing his "dead" body were heartbreaking. Another great Ginny- & heroes moment was when Pansy Parkinson threatened to turn Harry over to Voldemort and, rather than raise their wands as they do in the book, we see something much more primal and personal: Ginny steps bodily in front of Harry, shielding him from Slytherin with her own body, echoing the decision made by Lily. Ron, Hermione, and the others follow suit. It was a tasteful moment.

The Elder Wand resisting Voldemort by splintering was great; you get the vibe that the wand finds Voldemort repellent and is eager to be free of him.

Lastly, I enjoyed the final act: Voldemort's "triumphant" return to Hogwarts and the recommencement of the battle. Neville's confrontation with Voldemort was epic, but even more awesome was the big duel. I, for one, hated how the book ended things between Voldemort and Harry. To me, it felt as though Harry's victory was assured, that he was never in any danger, and it made the book lose some of its luster. In this sort of genre, tension is essential; the crux of that requires that the protagonist must be in danger; we must feel that he could very well lose the battle and, worse, his life.

The book seemed to keen on tossing Voldemort into the depths of badass decay and when you weaken your central villain, you weaken your story, period. The film seeks to rectify that: Volde

 

Don't get me wrong. I did manage to enjoy "DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2". But it turned out exactly what I had feared . . . with all but 30 minutes of the movie focused solely on the Battle of Hogswarts. Oh well.