I haven't read the final book since its release so that may have contributed to this being the best movie in the franchise. I recognized a few small changes but for the most part watchingthe movie was a much more enjoyable experience than reading the book. The rumors that I had heard about certain scenes involving Harry and Hermione ended up being completely overblown nonsense.
I really applaud the screenwriter and director for finally throwing out any appearance that this is a movie for non-HP fans. There are so many characters and new names being introduced that it would be easy to get lost, but all the fans reacted as they should when Bill and Fleur made their appearance or when we caught our first glimpse of Grindelwald.
The acting is by far the best we've seen yet. Daniel Radcliffe still struggles with the rhythm of his speech and a few moments of dialogue reminded me of a Shatner impersonation. But he's really grown from the wide-blank-eyed young actor to someone who conveys some intriguing emotion just with his eyes. Rupert Grint continues to be my perfect Ron Weasley which is particularly impressive given the challenges of his character in this movie. But the humor, the sheepish grin, the hints of jealousy and anger, they all make their appearance in true Ron-fashion. This is also the best depiction of Hermione yet. Emma Watson was incredibly endearing in all of her scenes and did an incredible job playing Hermione's strengths and weaknesses.
The experience overall was incredible. I was in a huge theater of people who were all laughing together and crying together. The Dobby fanclub was out in full-force, cheering every time he made an appearance. Heroic moments and witty dialogue were often rewarded with applause.
The movie isn't without its faults. There's an awkward scene in the tent which was obviously filmed with good intentions but didn't vibe well with the audience who laughed at what should have been a lovely and bittersweet moment. They also took Ron's nightmare a step too far and caused yet another moment of uncomfortable laughter.
Still, the cinematography was incredible (high-fives to whoever found all those great locations) and for the most part, the music and sound were used very effectively. Breaking the story into two movies was a great idea and the 2 1/2 hour runtime allowed for plenty of quiet scenes of heartbreak and desperation. It wasn't like past installment when I felt like I was being rushed from one action scene to the next with some awkward exposition thrown in between.
Bonus points also go to the director, screen-writer, and Tom Felton for understanding Draco Malfoy better than Rowling does. Rickman also shines in his short appearance as Snape and rather than relying on his distinctive voice, the director gives him these lovely long silent shots.
I want to go see it again but it'll probably be a few days before I'm willing to sit through over two hours of a very sad movie. It was bad enough having read the books and knowing who is going to die next. The expectation and the inevitable payoff is torture.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I also thought it was excellent. I think I'd say it's the best of the movie franchise so far. I'll have more to say tomorrow after I go to sleep.
I thought their treatment of Draco was great, however, I did not think it was any better than what Rowling did in the books. Why do you think the movie's treatment of him was better?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was fantastic. Tense, urgent, funny, and emotive. Evocative of the war it is meant to mirror and respectful and honest in the exploration of these teenagers' emotions.
I never compare the adaptations to the source because both are separate works of art. There's nothing wholly original, so unless it says "Official Companion to BLANK", then I don't judge it by seeing how closely it comes to something else. I love the books and still have them.
This is me saying I wanted to kill the whiners I went to the movie with who did nothing but complain that some of the tome was left out. Good thing I'm going to the next movie with a different set of friends.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I plan to see the movie in about an hour. I did read the novel (Deathly Hallows) three times, one as recently as a couple of months ago. I found somewhat to my surprise, that I actually got the most out of the third reading, and maybe even enjoyed it more than I did the first reading.
Of course, I have come to regard the movies as a sort of parallel story, that I can enjoy separately from the "canon" of JKR's novels. It was only after I made this choice that I could really enjoy the "Half-Blood Prince" movie, with its various departures (like the torching of the Weasley Burrow).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some Spoilers (But who here has not read the book?)
Pretty good movie. It ended about where I suspected they would end it--after the death of Dobbie. I was surprised they added one more scene at the very end--Voldemort stealing the Elder wand from Dumbledore's grave. (In the book I thought that came earlier.) But I guess there was no way to end the movie in the middle of the story on an upbeat (other than the fact that Henry Potter and company were able to escape from the Malfoys' mansion). While they did not find a way to end the movie on an upbeat, it would not have felt right to end it with the burial of Dobbie. But where they did end it was on a kind of martial note (even if it was a martial challenge against his enemies by Voldemort) and somehow that worked for me. Of course it was not all that much of a downer, for those of us who have read the book--since we know Voldemort was mistaken in thinking that taking the wand from Dumbledore's grave made him the master of the wand. And ultimately that mistaken belief is what led to his defeat in his final duel with Harry.
I found that the movie seems to stick fairly closely to the book, although a few details were left out (mainly tedious details, especially involving extended conversations in the book which were abbreviated in the movie). At least, this movie was a lot better at sticking to the book than was the last one.
The Weasleys' Burrow was evidently under repair at the time of the wedding, with a lot of scaffolding and supporting timbers in evidence. That was not in the original Deathly Hallows novel, but was necessitated by the gratuitous destruction of the Weasley Burrow in the Half-Blood Prince movie. I figured they would have to do something like this.
I missed the exchange that was in the book near the beginning, where Harry thought the Dursleys' regarded him as a "waste of space," and Dudley spoke up, "I don't think you're a waste of space. You saved my life." That was virtually a moment of redemption for Dudley, and I was sad that it was omitted in the movie. It didn't do any harm to the story development. But the movie only ran about 2:13 hours. I wish they had added just a couple more minutes at times, for stuff like this.
I just rechecked the online marqee--the movie is said to run 150 minutes, which would be 2:30 hours. But I checked my watch. The move was supposed to start at 10 AM, but it was preceeded by about ten minutes of previews. And my watch said 12:18 as I was walking out the door.
There was a minor change in the way that Hedwig was killed. The movie gave him a more heroic role, flying in the way to intercept a killing curse aimed at Harry. (In the book he was in his cage in the sidecar of the motorcycle, and got hit by a stray killing curse that missed Harry.) Maybe the movie version of the story was a little better, I will concede.
[ November 19, 2010, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I plan on seeing it tonight, and I hope it moves along quicker than the book. Take out the ridiculous amount of camping Harry and the gang did, and the book would have been under 400 pages.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Ditto on the wonderful location, I could watch an entire movie on top of those bluffs.
Can someone please, descretely ofcourse, explain the scarf around the tree?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Ditto on the wonderful location, I could watch an entire movie on top of those bluffs.
Can someone please, descretely ofcourse, explain the scarf around the tree?
************SPOILER SPOILERS SPOILERS*******
Okay, this isn't really a spoiler. But you wanted discreet. My guess at the time that it was a signal if Ron ever came looking for them, he'd known they'd been there. (Assuming it was Hermione's scarf, and that Ron would know that.) But I'm really not sure.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I'm not sure about the scarf, either.
I took up the book and started reading at the point the movie left off, and I see I was mistaken about the timing of Voldemort getting the Elder wand from Dumbledore's grave. It actually came a little later. I wonder if by doing that, the movie producers have eliminated the dilemma faced by Harry over whether to consult with Olivander first, or Griphook the Goblin (go after the wand first before Voldemort gets it, or go after the horcrux stashed in the L'Estrange vault at Gringotts).
Geraine, they did abbreviate a lot of the camping in tents. The point where they ended the movie was actually about two-thirds of the way through the book. I think the pacing works better that way. I agree with you, I think the camping in tents went on way too long in the book.
Part two when it comes out should have alot of action in it--breaking into Gringotts, riding a dragon out of Gringotts, going to Hogwarts to find another horcrux (and fighting off Draco and his two goon sidekicks in the Room of Requirement), which seques into the Seige of Hogwarts, and then into the final battle when the parents come to the aid of Hogwarts and Harry and Voldemort have their two final confrontations.
[ November 19, 2010, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I thought the movie was great, except for the two awkward moments as mentioned by Shanna. However, I think the first one worked to a degree.
I also think Rupert Grint is the most natural in his part as Ron Weasely. It never feels like acting with. He just is Ron.
I went to a midday showing, with a theater only half full--which is a lot for midday showings. Everyone in the theater, however, was an avid Harry Potter fan. There were a lot of laughs over moments that are that much more hilarious if you've grown to know and love the characters.
I was happy to finally see Bill Weasely and disappointed that he wasn't introduced in any of the earlier movies.
The ending took me by surprise. At some point in the film, I had forgotten it was Part One, so it hit me like a brick when the credits popped up.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the scariest part, thinking as a parent, was when Bellatrix is torturing Hermione. That scene really troubled me.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I don't think that was just you being a parent pooka. I think that was just the darkest and most disturbing part of the film.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Spoilers abound, but really, you have to expect it.
I actually kind of expected them to do more with the torture scene, but it was still pretty disturbing.
On the whole it was pretty good. I wasn't bugged by any of the Harry/Hermione stuff, except for the scene during Ron's self-esteem freak-out. That was a bit over the top, but okay, let's just assume that Ron's fears were REALLY running wild.
Things I loved that they added but weren't explicitly mentioned in the book:
Actually watching Hermione Obliviate her parents. By the way, there's a continuity error in the book. When Hermione is in the cafe and obliates the goons who came after them, she says she'd never done a memory charm, but before she said that she did one on her parents. Anyway, I got a little choked up watching her blot out the photographs and memories of her from her house and parents. That was such a better way of doing it than just dropping it in, and it's something only a movie could have really done.
Things that were missing that would have been nice to see:
Would have been nice to spend 45 seconds to give Dudley his due, but, as it was I kind of liked them doing a short montage of the three families and the efforts being done to keep them safe.
Would have liked to see the real ending from the scene in the Ministry of Magic, where they send Patronuses flying everywhere, free a bunch of Muggle born wizard and witches, and really heighten the Myth of Harry Potter. It was okay the way it was, but it would have been cool to see it the other way.
Totally not necessary, but it would have been funny if they had made Aunt Muriel do the "get out of my way, I'm a hundred and seven!" line from the book.
Happiest surprise:
I absolutely loved the animation sequence for the Three Brothers story.
In general I thought the acting was a big step up from the past movies. I liked that they did away with a lot of the explaining of the backstory that they already expect us to know. And I liked that they covered so much ground here that Part II is going to be a slam bang finish that will really let them dig into the thick material that's left.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree, that was a powerful moment. Jenni and I went to see it tonight, and we both really enjoyed it.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I really missed the Dudley scene as well. That scene in the book is also why I was disappointed with how Draco's character was handled in the books. I really love how Rowling has all these parallels between various characters like Neville and Harry sharing a birthday and prophecy or Harry and Draco's rivalry mirroring Severus and James when they were in school. And the Dursleys are sort of the Muggle version of the Malfoys, so when we see Dudley not toeing the family line I kept hoping we'd see Draco wake up and realize he can make choices that differ from those of his family. I like how the movie expands the universe past how Harry sees it and instead we get Draco's confusion and fear and how he's struggling with the reality of war and the desperation of his family's situation. His scenes in the last movie were so lovely. However, Rowling always expressed shock that so many HP fans liked Draco. Yeah he's an arrogant brat, but I can't help feeling bad for the kid being raised by a bunch of wizarding Nazis. I'm glad the epilogue makes it clear that he did grow up at some point.
And I would watch an entire film in the same animation style used for the Three Brothers scene. It was gorgeous. I was really nervous when I heard that they were using animation as a backdrop to the storytelling, but it fit seamlessly.
On random side note, I was doing some googling early trying to remember various scenes from the books because it'll be a few weeks before I can tackle it...and I stumbled upon the odd fact that the Battle for Hogwarts occurred on my birthday which is May 2nd.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I really liked Umbridge's portrayal in this one, just enough of her for fans to remember who and what she is without dancing around the truth. Even when we first see her and she just makes that little sound of content, sadistic content.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really enjoyed it, it was a pleasure to watch. Many of the things I wanted to say were already covered but a few quibbles.
I'm not quite sure how I felt about the movie giving Harry license to throw "I must not tell lies" back in Umbridge's face, it felt a bit self serving, not to mention completely reckless and needlessly dangerous.
I was extremely nervous how the ministry scene in the the movie was going to be affected by having three adult actors play Harry, Ron, and Hermione, for a very extended period of time. Their voices remaining the same I think was crucial in keeping my brain from believing they were other people, so the scene was pulled off beautifully.
I like Ron Lambert wish they had added another 15 minutes to the movie just so we could see some of the secondary characters do more things. I was OK with them cutting the scene where Lupin and Harry have a falling out over Harry telling Lupin to stay with Tonks instead of going with him, and I was OK that they cut the part out where Harry goes to the wedding in disguise, most of the scene modifications they made worked better for a movie.
I wish they hadn't cut Voldemort out of the scene where Nagini bursts out of Bagshot's body attempting to hold Harry until Vodemort can get there. I would have loved to add to the terror of that scene by having the camera showing Voldemort suddenly flying towards the house, getting there, heading upstairs just as they burst out the window. They showed Voldemort trying to kill Harry at the beginning, they should have taken the opportunity to make sure the audience remembers that he is a constant menace while Harry is trying to destroy the horocruxes. They do the same thing in at the Malfoy's house when they don't have Lucious activate his tattoo. I'm trying to remember in the books if they did call Voldemort, I thought they did.
Hermione being tortured affected me pretty deeply, as did Dobbie giving his life to save them. I was pleased they worked Dobbie into the scene with Mundungus and Kreacher, that really set him up for the end of the movie, I felt genuinely sad to see him die.
The animation depicting the story of the three brothers was really well done as well. It was better to keep them faceless as to be honest this movie already has an abundance of characters.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
You kidding? The movie was boring, boring, boring!
Emma Watson acted really nice though, the animation of the three brothers tale was also quite nice. Ralph Fienes too, as always. These are the reasons why it wasnt a complete disaster.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Amazing they can get away with this in this day and age.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That does explain the strange cloud formations that day.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I agree Lyrhawn, the acting ability of the three young lead actors has greatly improved over the years--and Emma Watson especially in this latest movie. The one scene where Emma was at her worst, I felt, was in HP V ("Order of the Phoenix"), and Harry enters the upstairs bedroom where Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger are waiting for him, and Hermione rushes up to Harry and throws her arms around him and says in a voice that sounds sort of out of breath or emotional, "It just isn't fair!" Somehow the way Emma read that scene just wasn't convincing. It sounded too faked. Maybe it was the director's fault. The rest of the movie she was fine, it was just that one scene she did not sell very well. But as I said, Emma is a much better actress now.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
On the way home from the movie I mentioned to Niki how impressed I was with Emma Watson's acting. She's really turned out to be quite talented. Her chemistry with Harry was really good.
I too enjoyed the movie, better than I expected. Certainly better than I enjoyed reading the first half of the book.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think I enjoyed Rupert Grint the most. I think Emma Watson has always embodied Hermione pretty well, and her acting has progressed apace. Grint though, did a great job of making Ron look like the dork he always was, but in the last two movies, he's done a great job with a pretty difficult character to act. Ron is equal party whiny/wimpy/yet increasingly mature/pining for Hermione/and above all in DH, pouty. It's hard to balance all the different character crap that Ron has going on, but he did it rather well I felt.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yeah, but I still feel Harry should have married Hermione. (How could Hermione possibly love Ron Weasley? Unless she's the kind of woman who is attracted to witless charity cases.) Ron should have married Luna Lovegood. And Neville Longbottom should have married Ginny Weasley.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I liked it, but I am looking forward to the next more.
I thought Emma Watson did an awesome job. Her scenes after Ron came back were just beautiful.
I also thought the 'Hi I'm Bill, look a werewolf named Greyback bit me and boy howdy do I want some revenge' scene at the beginning was laughable. Plot exposition at its worst. I wish they had just included that scene in the Half Blood Prince movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it ended in the best possible way as far as pairings. Ron was quirky, he had a lot of heart, he also embodied the wizarding world, which Hermione loves. He also doesn't have half of the problems that Harry had. Plus, Ron had to try a lot harder than Harry, who had a lot of things come easily to him. Ron could be a refuge from a lot of the crap that came pinned to Harry. Also, Harry was a lot more unstable. Plus I think Hermione was always a little too bossy, too fussy, too OCD for Harry, while Ron, having grown up in a house of crazy, could really appreciate that.
And Harry ending up with Ginny meant that they were all in the same family.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I admit that I havent read the last two books, so I dont know how Ginny changes as a character over time but I think Harry should have been alone in the end and become an Auror. How do you live his life and then go quietly into the married life with a girl I only know as the silent shy one?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:How could Hermione possibly love Ron Weasley?
Hermione consistently values courage and nobility of character more than she does intelligence -- that's in character from the very first book, and has remained consistent since.
So I have no problem with Hermione getting together with Ron. But Harry should have gotten together with Luna and Neville should have married Ginny.
I don't understand what *Ginny* sees in Harry. He left her behind -- he's attracted to her, but he doesn't trust her to let her share in his adventures. It's Neville and Ginny that should have gotten together during their common struggles in Death-Eater controlled Hogwarts.
quote:How do you live his life and then go quietly into the married life with a girl I only know as the silent shy one?
Ginny's not really that silent or shy -- where romance is concerned she's actually had more romantic pairings (three: Michael Corner, Dean Thomas, Harry Potter) in Hogwarts, than any other character, while being a year younger than most of them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Ginny's an odd duck; she's plotted as a real firecracker, but we never actually see her display any of that ferocity of character -- it all happens off-"camera" -- whereas the best qualities of Luna's personality are always at the fore.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
That scene with Hermione and Bellatrix was extremely creepy -- sort of coopting the creepiest thing that Umbridge ever did, and making it even creepier yet. Poor little Hermione.
The one change from the book that bothered the hell out of me. But it is very spoilery SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS.
In the book, Voldemort goes to see Grindelwald to ask him about the Elder Wand, and Grindelwald says he never had it. Voldemort doesn't believe him and he still breaks into Dumbledore's tomb, so it doesn't matter ultimately, but I thought it was a really nice moment, that Grindelwald was trying to protect Dumbledore all those years later. And in the film he gives Dumbledore up with an evil wicked grin! I hate that! They ruined one of my favorite bits!
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I agree that Harry should have ended up with Luna rather than Ginny. I feel like Luna has alot more to offer Harry. Ginny spent most of her years at Hogwarts treating Harry like a celebrity, just like everyone else did. But Luna, who also got alot of attention for being unusual, is never bothered by it. She has a confidence in herself that he could learn from and she's probably more honest with him than any other character in the series.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I also always felt that Harry/Luna made a lot of sense. And the way they are portrayed in the OotP movie kind of cemented that for me. I think Harry would be surprised with himself to realize he had feelings for her, and she would be pleasantly surprised by that, too. Surprise is fun.
I had no problems with Harry/Ginny, though. And Ron/Hermione is fine. Ron was never as much of a loser in the books as he was in the movies. The only movie that got it right, IMO, was the first one. (Keep in mind that I haven't seen the most recent.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The problem with Ron Weasley is not lack of intelligence. He is not a scholar like Hermione, but he is capable of being clever at times. And of course he has the Gryffindor spirit of loyalty to his friends. His real problem is his social ineptness, his general dorkiness. Like Hermione said in HP 6, Ron has "the emotional range of a teaspoon." For him to marry Hermione would mean he would be forever downtrodden and dependent. It would be like he married his control-freak mother. I do not think Hermione would enjoy a relationship where she is so completely dominant.
Harry is worthy of Hermione, intellectually, socially, and emotionally. Ron is not. Harry is the Chosen One who saves the Wizarding World, and Hermione is the brightest witch of her generation. They are both stars, and belong together. That is just the way I see it. I know JKR saw it differently.
I would put Ron together with Luna, because Luna's most outstanding quality is her sweetness of spirit, and I think after growing up with a control-freak mom, he would most need and appreciate Luna's sweetness of spirit. Of course, courage and loyalty are qualities both of them share.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
What makes you describe Molly Weasley as a "control-freak?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think EITHER of them would have liked being with Luna. Neville was the best choice for her.
Luna has a couple great qualities, like not being into appearances, and having a sort of second-sight in noticing things that others miss, but she's also socially inept to a very high degree, and she's far too out of sync for guys like Harry and Ron who prefer someone more alive and down to earth (hence, Hermione and Ginny). I don't get the Luna shipping.
What I liked about the Ginny/Harry relationship was that both of them had to grow up before it could work. I think Rowling's biggest mistake with that was neglecting Ginny's development. We spent a lot of time watching her as a kid, and then all of a sudden one day she was a mature woman beyond her years with a beyond-her-years understanding of Harry and his travails. Anyway, Ginny needed to see Harry as Harry as not as her idealized child-version of him, and Harry needed to see Ginny as an adult. I think Harry also really needed someone very well grounded to give him a stability he lacked in his life. Luna certainly wasn't going to give that to him.
quote:I would put Ron together with Luna, because Luna's most outstanding quality is her sweetness of spirit, and I think after growing up with a control-freak mom, he would most need and appreciate Luna's sweetness of spirit. Of course, courage and loyalty are qualities both of them share.
I agree that Molly was a bit of a control-freak. I don't know how successful she was at it given her crazy family, but I think she was easily the queen bee of the family. And that's exactly why Luna was wrong for Ron, and Hermione was perfect. Hermione was a control-freak perfectionist too. I think that would attract, rather than repel Ron.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I don't think Molly was a control freak. She didn't want her kids getting mixed up with Voldemort, but fair does there, he's the most evil murderous wizard ever in the whole history of the world. Mostly it seems like she's a high-anxiety person whose kids are in dangerous situations a lot. Not a control freak.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Lyr: The Luna shipping is because Luna is awesome and, in the books at least, for me, had way more chemistry with Harry than Ginny did. At least, I think she did. One never can be entirely sure with that one.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ron, I won't argue with you that Harry/Hermione works. I still have a soft spot for that pairing. I mean, I was a Ron/Hermione shipper from the beginning, but there were times when I felt like Hermione was so right for Harry.
That said, I think your interpretation of Ron/Hermione is a little off. It's hard for me to explain why without getting too personal with details from my own life, but suffice it to say that being a control-freak, or however you want to word it, is usually a mask for self-confidence issues. Hermione might be a great witch, but she definitely has failings. She has emotional weaknesses, and Ron smooths some of those out for her. And I don't think that Hermione would be better off having a man in her life who's as intense as she is.
To put this another way, "dominance" is quite frequently a public facade. It's not uncommon for a woman to be a tiger in public and a kitten at home.
Two words:
Molly. Wobbles.
And I'll just leave it at that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Lyr: The Luna shipping is because Luna is awesome and, in the books at least, for me, had way more chemistry with Harry than Ginny did. At least, I think she did. One never can be entirely sure with that one.
I like Luna as well. I think she's great. I didn't see a shred of romantic chemistry between her and Harry, or Ron.
I still think Molly Weasley was highly controlling. However, I also think a lot of that is based on the basic powerlessness she feels in her life. Her family is targeted by evil forces, half her children are either estranged or off doing dangerous work beyond her control. The half that she has left to her, she keeps a firm hand with because they are the only thing she can control, and because she fears so much for their safety in an ever more dangerous world.
I also think she's a badass, and a fantastic parent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Molly Weasley is the stereotypical hard-working, iron-boned, lower-middle-class Irish hausfrau. In every way. She's controlling, but she's controlling in a way that is more nurturing than smothering -- until the kids get old enough to really resent it, at which time they're basically hurled out of the nest anyway, since there's no room for them.
Ron and Hermione actually work pretty well together, for reasons completely opposed to the reason Harry and Hermione work. Basically, Ron gives Hermione the appreciation and listening ear that she needs, and she provides for him the authoritative opinion on his own central goodness and value that he needs. Both of them very badly want to feel like they're living up to their potential -- and, for that matter, that they have a lot of potential. They're classic codependents.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I contrast the way Molly tried to prevent Harry from being given the news that was every bit his business to know when she protested "He's just a boy!" (in OotP)--with the way that Narcissa said pleadingly to Snape concerning Draco, "He's just a boy!" (in HBP). Narcissa was actually the concerned parent, whose son is "targeted by evil forces," etc. Molly was being a busy-body, butting in when she wasn't even Harry's mother.
By the way, Tom, "hausfrau" is a German word, not Irish. But your meaning is clear. Perhaps you could even call Molly a "Jewish mother." (With apologies to the Jewish among us who love their mothers.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, I know "hausfrau" is German. And there is a reason I didn't call Molly a "Jewish mother."
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: I like Luna as well. I think she's great. I didn't see a shred of romantic chemistry between her and Harry, or Ron.
Maybe one of the Weasley twins, if only to ensure that everyone marry's redheads in the end.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Harry/Luna always made the most sense to me - I agree that the characters had a connection that felt unique, one that I wish had been explored more thoroughly (rather than being kept mostly in the background).
Ginny as a character always kind of irritated me, partly because, as Tom said, her traits are mostly just talked about rather than shown ("Oh, she's so good at those bat bogey hexes!"). Mostly, though, it was that she came closest to feeling like Rowling's own Mary Sue, at least after "Chamber of Secrets." She's the impossible superwoman of the series, all positive attributes (smart, confident, powerful, able to "tell it like it is") and no flaws. It just felt too "set up" for her to end up as Harry's love interest.
I also never got a sense of organic development from their relationship. It basically goes from "Ginny is obsessed with Harry" to "both characters ignore each other for four books" to "Harry is madly in love with Ginny," with no real gradation between each stage.
It probably wouldn't bother me as much if Rowling hadn't actually done some a great job setting up Harry and Luna as two damaged people with unique insight into each other's flaws and weaknesses. Ah well.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I liked Hermione and Luna both a lot in the books, though I guess I never cared enough about Ron or Harry's love life to root for either of them to get one of the two.
My feelings for Ginny were pretty neutral throughout. I never really saw the appeal.
[ November 22, 2010, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes, I know "hausfrau" is German. And there is a reason I didn't call Molly a "Jewish mother."
But you were thinking it!
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Lyr: The Luna shipping is because Luna is awesome and, in the books at least, for me, had way more chemistry with Harry than Ginny did.
This.
I also thought the two had a lot of chemistry in the movie. I never really got a feel for Luna until she was portrayed by Evanna Lynch in Order of the Phoenix.
And this:
quote:I also never got a sense of organic development from their relationship. It basically goes from "Ginny is obsessed with Harry" to "both characters ignore each other for four books" to "Harry is madly in love with Ginny," with no real gradation between each stage.
Fine points.
In that instance, Harry's motivations switched from believable to merely a means to an end. Otherwise, I have no trouble with Harry/Ginny.
I think the Ron/Hermione pairing is dead on. They make up for each other's deficiencies.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
For all Harry/someone other than Ginny shippers, here is the authoritative reason Harry likes Ginny:
"She's got nice skin" - HP6 movie
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: For all Harry/someone other than Ginny shippers, here is the authoritative reason Harry likes Ginny:
"She's got nice skin" - HP6 movie
It's telling that that's the only thing he could come up with. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Harry said it was Ginny who had nice skin. "It's a contributing factor."
It was Ron who asked "Do you think Hermione has nice skin?"
Harry merely agreed with that.
When Harry first met Ginny she was a child. She had to grow up and become an attractive young woman before Harry would notice her. So it is no surprise that their romance blossomed late.
But it is still incredible that Hermione fell in love with Ron, and that Harry did not fall in love with Hermione. J.K. Rowling is a great novelist and story-teller, but I would never hire her to be a match-maker.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is it incredible? Do you fall in love with a list of traits or something?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes--and or something. There are certain basics for compatibility. I would have never bothered dating someone with 50 points less IQ than I have--what could we talk about? So average ladies need not apply. She would have to be college-educated. I would prefer not to date someone who was not a member of my church--for some religions, this may not matter as much as others--but for my religion, it matters greatly in terms of basic cultural as well as spiritual compatibility. Some people do not even consider spiritual compatibility, and do not learn how much it matters until too late. Musical tastes should not be too far apart--so that we can at least stand each other's preferred music. I prefer classical, but can stand some pop music, down to the level of Simon and Garfunkel (when they were together). But I would make the sign of the Cross with my fingers and back away from any lady who liked rap "music." I also would not date a lady who was coarse-spoken, nor someone who was obviously selfish and even worse, manipulative control freaks.
Of course, even then, there are no guarantees. You can only hope to optimize your chances.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I would have never bothered dating someone with 50 points less IQ than I have--what could we talk about? So average ladies need not apply.
Are you claiming an IQ of 150 or higher?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes. That is what it was measured at back in college. But I never took any of the advanced tests they give to people with higher I.Q.s to measure it more exactly. I only missed two questions on the whole test. My mother took the advanced tests just after graduating from high school (it took two days for all the tests), and her I.Q. was measured at 185.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I would make the sign of the Cross with my fingers and back away from any lady who liked rap "music."
Whereas I strongly suspect I would enjoying hanging out with a lady in her late '60s who likes rap music.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But I would make the sign of the Cross with my fingers and back away from any lady who liked rap "music."
Whereas I strongly suspect I would enjoying hanging out with a lady in her late '60s who likes rap music.
Same for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How much experience with rap music do you actually have, Ron? Measured in, say, minutes listened seriously listened to with a critical ear.
Because let me tell you, nothing screams intelligence like a man in his 60s who rejects entire genres of music out of hand. Like anyone, really, but man in his 60s is a nice stereotype for that sort of thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, let's be fair. We're talking about somebody who can tolerate pop music down to the level of Simon and Garfunkel, but not Paul Simon or Art Garfunkel individually. I'm not surprised that rap is off his radar.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, rap is on his radar. It's on as uniformly not just unlikable but religiously unlikable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For the record: I cannot believe that I put an apostrophe before "60s" in that post above. *slaps self*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply I am in the market NOW for a date. I was talking about back when I was dating. Granted, a woman in her 60's who liked rap music would have to be very strange by virtually any measure.
Rakeesh, has it occurred to you that in 64 years I have heard all kinds of music, and have formed settled preferences? In addition to classical music, I do listen to many movie soundtracks done in a classical vein--like Lord of the Rings,Dances With Wolves,Titanic,Superman Returns, all the "Harry Potter" movie scores, etc. You see, my settled conviction is that I enjoy good melodies with good harmonies. That to me is what Music is, by definition! Rap has neither. To me it is all rhythm, and shows no creativity that I feel is worthy of being called Art. You could probably transmit rap by telegraph. (I hope I haven't just inspired a new genre!)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, has it occurred to you that you didn't actually answer my question? The one where I asked how much time you've spent listening to rap music, to actually form an informed opinion, instead of relying on a settled one?
Your lack of a response actually is a response, really, and serves as the one I expected.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm surprised at you Ron.
You say you can not imagine why Hermione would fall for Ron since their intelligence levels are so far apart.
You make two assumptions that I would not expect to come from you, but from some elitist.
1) Booksmart is the only smart. Ron's success at Chess, and to a lesser degree his success as a goalie are based on his intelligence. Don't forget that he was raised in a family that already had one book-smart older brother who bored the daylights out of everyone. Ron turned away from being book-smart--from reading all the time, but he has a natural intelligence that Hermione found.
2) Intelligence is the most important aspect of a person. Hermione does not fall in love with Ron's intelligence. She falls for his heart--his loyalty, friendship, bravery, and all around Griffyndorishness. Remember that Hermionie for all her book smarts, was not put in Ravenclaw. She was put in Griffyndor because she had a heart that responded and reflected those traits--brave, honest, caring.
The semi-consummation of their romance did not occur when Ron suddenly spouted some arcane bit of intelligence. It was when he proved his heart by caring about the safety of the Hogwartz House Elves.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Why you all talkin' about Ron's love life? Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
See, I think Ron is just a terrible person. He's just a jerk really. He's just a mean guy. Harry will respond with sarcasm and derision if someone provokes him and messes with him first. Ron is constantly just making fun of others in really quite heartless ways.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What would Hermione and Ron Weasley ever have to talk about?
Rakeesh, I would have to be very limited in my intelligence if I could not discern how utterly disgusting and unmusical rap is very quickly, at least to my tastes. Some people take 25 years of life (or more) before they really begin to "find" themselves. If they get married before that point, their marriage is probably doomed. Each person is different in how long it takes to find themselves. But as old as I am, I have had time to decide for all time and eternity what I like and dislike in most things--particularly music. I "found" myself long ago, and confirmed and reconfirmed it.
If God allows you into Heaven, and you still like rap music when you get there, then of course I would be glad to be your neighbor. Make that distant neighbor.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'm not a fan of rap generally speaking, but I think your problem is that you are working with too narrow an idea of what constitutes music.
quote:You see, my settled conviction is that I enjoy good melodies with good harmonies. That to me is what Music is, by definition! Rap has neither. To me it is all rhythm, and shows no creativity that I feel is worthy of being called Art.
There's no real basis for that definition, and while you may not prefer any one type of musical style over against another- to say that it is not art is foolish in the extreme. What about things like atonalism or other non-Western styles of music that focuses less on issues like harmony? Are they also not music?
Just the basic Wikipedia definition of music:
quote:Music is an art form whose medium is sound. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.
Also it concerns me that even after the eschaton has been fully realized and broken into reality- you'd want someone to remain distant from you simply by virtue of their preference of music. That seems antithetical to the values of the kingdom.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Somebody should change the name of this thread to the "Harry Potter Shipping debate."
Seriously, In most ways I liked the movie better than the previous ones, but they should have spent more money on CGI for Dobbie. There were times when I could tell that the actors were shaking hands with/holding a ragdoll or marionette. And his facial expressions were absolutely plastic.
I was also disappointed in his death scene. Radcliffe has shown before that he just doesn't have the emotional range to carry that kind of scene. It should have been handled differently from a directorial standpoint. I would have had Griphook watching and noting Harry's treatment of Dobbie's burial, for one thing. (and my daughter points out that Harry's line "Bury him without magic" was an unnecessary telegraph. Better to let Griphook inform us of that than Harry.
Also, although the scene with the knife going into the disapparating effects was visually effective, it telegraphed the upcoming death and destroyed the scene on the beach where they are looking around to see if everyone is ok.
And finally, the part of the book that hit me the hardest was Dobbie's epitaph. How could they leave that out?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
P.P.S.
And Dobbie should have been wearing clothes, not a pillowcase. At least two hats and three socks.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's all well and good, but who do you think Dobbie should go out with?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Hermione should have to deal with an increasingly awkward attraction for him. Unfortunately Dobbie is clearly gay for Harry.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Here is a fan-made song and video, well done and pretty funny with a bit of Twilight hate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I finally obtained the DVD. Hooray--it does include the deleted scene I wanted to see, where Dudley Dursley walks up to Harry and holds out his hand and says, "I don't think you're a waste of space." (He did NOT add, "You saved my life." But that was OK. He said enough.) Harry then replied somewhat bemusedly, "See you around." Too bad they then made Dudley walk in such a goofy, uncoordinated way, back to the car where the Dursleys were about to leave. It was a redeeming moment for Dudley. They should not have had him tripping his way back to the car like an uncoordinated goof, since in previous episodes it was made obvious that Dudley was involved in sports, and had replaced a lot of his fat with muscle. Too bad the scene was left out of the movie.
The running time for the movie on the disk is 2:25:56.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I just read the book. I was pretty satisfied with it despite the last three hundred pages being a little wonky, but whatever.
Pleasantly suprised about how focused it was on Dumbledore. Need to see the movie.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)