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

In some discussions I've had about changes and cuts made to the film of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I've found myself thinking where exactly the final two films of Deathly Hallows should be split.

It occurred to me that there's a bit of a wild goose chase before things really get started, at least as far as the title goes. Half-Blood Prince leaves off with Harry determined to locate one of the Horcruxes, having realized the one in his possession is a fake. Once Harry, Ron and Hermione begin their quest in the next book, their first priority is finding more Horcruxes. It ends up taking quite some time for them to figure out who RAB is, figure out what must have happened to the Horcrux, and then go about obtaining it. It take longer still before that Horcrux is destroyed. After that, though, before they discover another Horcrux, they find out about the Deathly Hallows from Xenophilius Lovegood.

Only after that, and after they are captured and taken to Malfoy Mansion, do they get a clue about where to find another Horcrux. This is, of course, when Bellatrix Lestrange throws a hissy fit over Harry possessing the sword of Griffindor, and Harry deduces that they will have to rob Gringotts.

This brings me to about where I expect the cut to be. At the very least, the Deathly Hallows themselves have to be explained in the first film, just so the title will make sense and the non-book-reading audience will know what the point of this part of the story was. The first Horcrux will be destroyed, but we will at least have gotten a hint of where the next one will be, so it won't be left completely unresolved. A major set piece like escaping from Malfoy Manor would make a good climax, and you could break the film there and pick up in the next one with the bank robbery, or you could wrap up the first film with the robbery, and then break it. Whether it will be before Gringotts or afterwards, that set piece strikes me as the perfect mid-point.

 

Are we going to have an official DH thread now?

 

Well why not? I checked the first two pages before posting and didn't see another one.

 

I am of the opinion that they should not name the films 'The Deathly Hallows' Parts 1 & 2, I think movie seven should be called The Deathly Hallows and movie eight should be named 'The Battle for Hogwarts'.

Perhaps the second one isn't a broad enough title as it really only refers to the last couple of chapters, but that's how I would like to see it.

 

Here at Potterwiki you'll find a very thorough plot summary of DH. It's fascinating to read all the plot points in one sitting, and helps give one a good idea of how Heyman, Kloves and Yates might approach a film version.

One question that immediately comes to mind is how they they are going to treat the scenes at the Burrow, now that it's been burned in the film continuity. This is where they all go to recuperate after the Death Eater attack in the air, where the trio receive Dumbledore's effects (Book of Tales, Deluminator, etc.), and where Harry and Ginny have their final love scene. (Probably the script will transfer Harry's "breaking up" with Ginny to this point.) It's also where the Death Eaters come after Voildemort kills Scrimgeour and takes over the Ministry. But where is all this going to happen instead? Obviously the wedding isn't going to occur, so far as we know, since Bill and Fleur are not really characters anymore in the films. Will these other all-important scenes take place at 12 Grimmauld Place instead? That seems the only logical alternative, as they wind up there eventually anyway.

12 Grimmauld Place is also where the trio deduce that Regulus Black is RAB, and Kreacher becomes instrumental to the plot. Will he go and retrieve Muncungus Fletcher as in the book? Or will we be led immediately to knowledge that Dolores Umbridge has the real locket? The creators have an opportunity to streamline the plot here, cutting out both the Burrow and Fletcher and moving directly on to the trio's infiltration of the Ministry to retrieve the locket. They get the locket, Harry finds Moody's eye, Ron is injured and the trio flee to the countryside. AT this point we're barely an hour into the film, if the creators decide to streamline things.

The discovery via Dean Thomas that the Sword of Gryffindor that Scrimgeour refused them was actually a copy, and that DD had used the real one to destroy the ring Horcrux prior to his death. Ron leaves; Hermione cries. She and Harry go to Godric's Hollow to find Bathilda Bagshot, who might have the sword. Revelations about Grindelwald ensue, the plot thickens, Bagshot is actually Nagini, Hermione accidentally destroys Harry's wand, and the two escape back to the wilderness. Harry finds the Sword in a pool and dives in for it, almost drowns from the weight of the locket, and is saved by a returning Mr. Ronald Weasley. This would be the major plot point at the end of Act II. Ron has his moment of being tormented by Voldemort, but destroys the locket. We've only got the 30-minute climax now to go.

The trio go to Xenophilius Lovegood's house to find out about Grindelwald's mark, which keeps showing up. We learn about the Deathly Hallows. Then the Death Eaters come -- Lovegood betrayed them for his daughter Luna's sake! -- and the trio must escape yet again... only to be captured when Harry accidentally says "Voldemort", which of course has a taboo charm on it. The film could either end with their escape and pledge to find the Hallows, or with their capture by Death Eaters. I vote for the latter.

 

One question that immediately comes to mind is how they they are going to treat the scenes at the Burrow, now that it's been burned in the film continuity. This is where they all go to recuperate after the Death Eater attack in the air, where the trio receive Dumbledore's effects (Book of Tales, Deluminator, etc.), and where Harry and Ginny have their final love scene. (Probably the script will transfer Harry's "breaking up" with Ginny to this point.) It's also where the Death Eaters come after Voildemort kills Scrimgeour and takes over the Ministry. But where is all this going to happen instead?

They do have half a year to rebuild it. It may not be complete, but it could do.

Obviously the wedding isn't going to occur, so far as we know, since Bill and Fleur are not really characters anymore in the films. Will these other all-important scenes take place at 12 Grimmauld Place instead? That seems the only logical alternative, as they wind up there eventually anyway.

Clemense Poesy has been confirmed to return, and Bill will be played by Domhnall Gleeson, the son of Brendan "Mad-Eye Moody" Gleeson. So the characters are there, even if the event of their wedding is not. Moving the Weasleys into Grimmauld Place would be problematic, as the quest separates the heroes from the Weasley family. That would also make it difficult to have that opening "attack" once the Death Eaters are in control, as there's nowhere else to go if Grimmauld Place itself is hit.

12 Grimmauld Place is also where the trio deduce that Regulus Black is RAB, and Kreacher becomes instrumental to the plot. Will he go and retrieve Muncungus Fletcher as in the book? Or will we be led immediately to knowledge that Dolores Umbridge has the real locket? The creators have an opportunity to streamline the plot here, cutting out both the Burrow and Fletcher and moving directly on to the trio's infiltration of the Ministry to retrieve the locket. They get the locket, Harry finds Moody's eye, Ron is injured and the trio flee to the countryside. AT this point we're barely an hour into the film, if the creators decide to streamline things.

Andy Linden has been cast as Mundungus, and as the character has little other purpose in the book, my guess is that his role in the story is intact. As Rowling also made sure that Kreacher was included in OOTP, one can only guess he's there as well. What with there being too film, I don't expect a great deal of streamlining.

The trio go to Xenophilius Lovegood's house to find out about Grindelwald's mark, which keeps showing up. We learn about the Deathly Hallows. Then the Death Eaters come -- Lovegood betrayed them for his daughter Luna's sake! -- and the trio must escape yet again... only to be captured when Harry accidentally says "Voldemort", which of course has a taboo charm on it. The film could either end with their escape and pledge to find the Hallows, or with their capture by Death Eaters. I vote for the latter.

The latter will certainly get us closer to finding the next Horcrux on account of Bellatrix.

 

It would seem a bit of a waste to bring back the character of Fleur and not show a wedding. I am kind of surprised though that Victor Krum doesn't appear to be returning. Isn't his recognition of the Deathly Hallows symbol kinda significant or can that be worked around?

 

I don't think Krum's recognition of the symbol is important, or at least not essential- he doesn't know what it means, only that Grindelwald used it. Hermione or one of the adult characters could almost certainly be used instead to convey that knowledge. Xenophilius is the one who does all of the really important exposition about the meaning of the sign much later on. So long as they keep that in, Krum is something that could easily be dropped.

 

Xenophilius is the one who does all of the really important exposition about the meaning of the sign much later on. So long as they keep that in, Krum is something that could easily be dropped.

I agree. It is X. Lovegood (sorry, I just don't feel like typing out the whole name) who wears the symbol and exlpains it later on, it doens't necessarily require Krum to point it out.

 

And not just the symbol, but all the Deathly Hallows and the story too.

I have always felt that the natural cutting place would be after Christmas when Hermione and Harry return from Godric's Hollow. It's at a natural break in the story, even if a little sad, and straight after there's the part with the doe and Ron and the plot gets moving again. There's also plenty of things that happen before (Grimbauld Place, Godric's Hollow, the Ministry) and plenty that happen after (Xeno Lovegood, Malfoy Manor, Gringotts and the Battle of Hogwarts)

Also, in my book, you divide the book exactly in half and you're about at that point anyway.

 

Katana, without the Lovegood house in DH1, we don't know what the Hallows are, effectively ignoring the title of the movie. Also that way, the climax would have to be at Godric's Hollow. A climax that early would mean that only three action sequences -- the air attack, the Ministry infiltration and the fight at Godric's Hollow -- will have occurred. That's far too few, especially considering how loaded DH2 will be with action as a result!

It makes more sense to climax after Christmas with the Lovegood betrayal, because now we will have heard about the Deathly Hallows, and we'll get one more action sequence for a total of four.

Since DH2 will have four set-piece "battles" -- escape from Malfoy Manor, Gringotts mission, Battle of Hogwarts and Duel of Voldemort and Harry -- the structure plays much better with Lovegood topping off DH1.

 

http://www.mugglenet.com/

According to Mugglenet, Stanislav Ianevski is returning, so one can only assume it will be he who raises the issue of "Grindelwald's Sign."

At present, I would say all signs point towards the wedding being shown--all the major figures are there. The only question is will it be set somewhere new, or at a rebuilt Burrow. (It has been several months since the attack, and they do use magic after all. If Dumbledore can repair a Muggle house in a matter of seconds, rebuilding the Burrow should be short work.)

 

Let's talk about the Burrow. Most fans seem to agree that the burning sequence was an unnecessary sidebar with no evident repercussions or advancement of plot or characters in HBP. I would contend that if the Burrow were shown re-built in DH1, providing a locale for the Bill/Fleur wedding, then the burning sequence would seem even more pointless in retrospect. Sure, Dumbledore rearranged the riffled chambers of Professor Slughorn with the wave of a wand, but it does not follow that an entire house and all its contents can be reconstructed out of ash. The plain fact that the good wizards stood there gawping at the blaze is all the on-screen evidence one should need to accept that a magical conflagration is not so easily fought or doused. All of this combined means, to my mind, that the Burrow will not be seen rebuilt in DH1, and that another locale must be substituted for the wedding, if that (again, sidebar) plot point is even depicted in the film.

 

The destruction of the Burrow shows that the magical world is not safe, and that protective spells are failing. It serves much the same purpose as in the seventh book. It is also a concrete example of things that are only read about in newspapers in the sixth book.

It seems to me there are three options: have the wedding at the Burrow, have it at Grimmauld Place, or somewhere new entirely. Grimmauld Place seems unlikely since that spell doesn't fail until later, and its essential to finding out who RAB is. Shell Cottage stands as a maybe, with one problem they need to work around: when Harry and company return there later, in preparation for the hit on Gringotts, the other Weasleys need to be somewhere else.

 

I wonder if they'll go with a cliffhanger thing. They do that, they might go with... the capture where they're all locked in the cellar? And Dobby's fate might be a nice dark way to open Part 2.

Not to mention they have magic.

 

Doesn't replace the fact that it was a blatantly stupid and irrelevant way to go about showing this.

The first film should end after Ron returns and the two destroy the first horcrux. If handled right, it could be poignant and rather lovely. I don't like the idea of ending on a cliffhanger, nor going so far as to the Lovegoods. Just look at the structure by chapter. The destruction of the locket is in chapter nineteen, already over halfway through the book. The capture of the trio takes place in chapter twenty two. There are only fifteen chapters left in the book at this point. Think about it.

 

The deciding factor isn't the page number or the number of chapters left to tell. It's about pacing and story. We have to know something about the Hallows otherwise the title is meaningless, and that happens at Lovegood's house. Also, the number of action sequences is too end-heavy if the Lovegood betrayal occurs in Part 2.

And I disagree the Burrow burning is "stupid and irrelevant". It's an exciting sequence that will no doubt have repercussions in DH.

 

Bacon didn't say that the scene was stupid or irrelevant, but that it wasn't the right way to go about showing that safety is slipping away...a major point of the book that has serious repercussions in DH, but which was relegated to the Burrow scene and a couple of offhand comments within the first twelve minutes of the film.

The issue that I see with part 1 ending on Lovegood is that it doesn't leave much to fill up the second part with. It also isn't a very climactic finish and doesn't segue particularly well into any big set-piece style hook that part 2 could start with. The tone of the six films so far has been remarkably consistent, with triumphant endings (in a manner of speaking) and a generally sunny feel, even in the darkest moments. The films also maintain a notably consistent pattern of excitement leading to fluff leading to exposition and back. It looks to me like the direction that the screenwriting has taken points to part 1 ending after seeing Voldemort and Harry on screen together, in Godric's Hollow, and after the triumphant return of Ron. No doubt the story of the Hallows is going to be smeared around enough that there will be plenty of hints and references to the Hallows even early on in part 1. Also, it's not like the movies have focused too heavily on the sub-title or any given film. "Order of the Phoenix" is a glaring micro-entity. Hell, it almost looks like they forgot to finish the Half Blood Prince story in movie #6 at all, given the complete non sequitur that was Snape's reveal at the end.

 

To reiterate, the sequence is neither stupid nor irrelevant, though Bacon is certainly entitled to his opinion.

"A couple of offhand comments"? How 'bout the destruction of the bridge? That's a rather substantial demonstration of "safety slipping away", wouldn't you say? Honestly, many of the criticisms against this film seem to be based on forgetfulness. I realize it was a long movie, but this is absurd. And the whole point of the Burrow sequence (a sequence is a number of scenes linked by a through-line in the story) is to show that same idea, which in the book HBP is "relegated" to being talked about but never shown (in the sense of being described or narrated for the reader). Here are two very big, very visual events to convey this to the movie audience, but you must have fallen asleep or gone to the lobby for a moment, because you seem to have missed their significance.

Disagree, disagree, disagree. I've already answered these objections in previous posts and have no wish to write them all out again.

 

To reiterate, the sequence is neither stupid nor irrelevant, but it is a stupid way to go about showing how the situation had changed, considering what could have been done.

No, no, in fact I'd say that, from the perspective of a filmgoer, it would have been impossible to mentally connect the bridge with the declining security situation had I not read the book.

I'd hardly call several paragraphs of discussion in every single chapter of the book as 'relegating' the subject to a lesser position in the book, especially compared with its' role in the film (which includes 1) Olivander's kidnapping, 2) Hermoine's mentioning the kidnapping very, very briefly, 3) an offhand comment about how the Weasley's business is doing well compared to their neighbors, and 4) the Burrow scene. I intentionally left off the Bridge sequence, since one would have to have read the book to know the connection).

I also fail to see how any of the rest of your paragraph is relevant or based on reality, nor can I divine why the concerns that some have with the film implies that they are mentally insufficient, as you imply. Some of what you've said here is damn near offensive to me, and no doubt to others as well. Please watch your tone.

 

We'll just have to disagree, then. I find I have no will to write out a point-by-point rebuttal, which you'll reject in turn in any case. In short, I recognize the failure of the Burrow scene to achieve its intended aim -- namely, to ratchet up dramatic tension and to remind the viewer that the Death Eaters mean business -- but I do not think it's in any way stupid or irrelevant. On its own it's a quite exciting sequence; its failure is in having no immediate repercussions within this film.

 

After recently re-reading DH I feel that the most logical place to end the first flick is with the Death of Dobby.


Malfoy Manor seems like a pretty good Semi-finally.

If not there, then directly after Gringotts...

But that's just where I would cut it...


-T_S_R

 

I didn't know that they were spliting this book into 2 movies......

Does anyone know what kind of release structure they are going to be released in? Are they filming them back to back or waiting a yr or two?

 

Part One in 2010

Part Two in 2011

EDIT: According to IMDB, Chris Rankin will be returing as Percy. Interesting. I wonder how they will explain his falling out with his family over Harry and the reliability of his account of Voldemort's return to his body. After Prisoner of Azkaban, Percy just drops off the face of the Earth.