posted
I'm a bit of a Harry and Luna-shipper, too. But the relationships and who hooks up with who doesn't concern me as much as the story. I liked the 7th book. I felt the story went where I was hoping it would go when I read the very first Harry Potter long, long ago.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So am I missing something here, or is Snape Harry's real father? I mean, it was kind of implied a few different times...
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
God gracious, no! Severus was in love with Lily, who rejected him once he became to show his opinion about mudbloods and started to hang out with death eaters. James is Harry's father, no doubt about that. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they did. I suspect they didn't want to bother searching for a teenager Snape, so we only have kid Snape and adult Snape. They also left out SPOILER * * * * * * * * The part where Dumbledore explains Harry he expected him to be able to come back from the dead, but only if he did believe he was sacrificing himself. That was a bad move, in my opinion; Dumbledore really sounds like a jerk if you leave that part out. * * * * * * *
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Another thing I have wondered about the Elder wand. How did Dumbledore win it from Grendelwald in their "world famous" duel, if no one could defeat the wand? Oh wait--Grendelwald just stole it from Gregorovich the wand maker, so he was not truly the master of the wand, and so the wand did not confer its full power to Grendelwald.
As far as I can see, the Elder wand recognizes as its master someone who disarms the previous owner using Expelliaramus, or a stun spell then takes the wand, or someone who kills the previous owner. Voldemort used the killing curse on Harry when Harry came to him in the forest. But the Elder Wand would not have co-operated in killing his rightful owner.
Everything would have been different if Harry had made the mistake of drawing his wand when he surrendered to Voldemort. He still had it on his person, undrawn, when he stood there ready to receive Voldemort's wrath. Or if Voldemort had searched Harry to remove the wand he was using. But Harry's wand remained tucked away in his clothing, so the ownership/allegiance of the Elder wand was not transferred. Seems pretty "iffy" to me.
Now, to wander even further afield, suppose Harry had drawn his wand, and Harry and Voldemort had dueled. The wand might have done its backflip transit to Harry's hands, like it did in their final duel. Voldemort would then have been dead--but his horcrux in Harry would still be left alive, so Voldemort could not be permanently vanquished that way. Harry would then have had to kill hiself, to destroy the last piece of Voldemort's soul. Or Voldemort's henchmen would have killed him. But in that case, Harry might not have been able to return from the dead. Or maybe he could have, since he still was owner of the Deathly Hallows. Then again, was that legend preserved in a children's tale even true?
The wand logic here is getting awfully fuzzy.
I believe that the Elder Wand while it makes you POWERFUL and isn't ALL POWERFUL, if someone is just a shade more skillful then you are you'll still lose.
My impression is that Grindlewald probably got lazy and relied on bruteforce while Dumbledore was all skill and redirection.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I liked the 7th book. I felt the story went where I was hoping it would go when I read the very first Harry Potter long, long ago.
I feel the same way, FoolishTook. One of the reasons Joanne Rowling will be forever loved is that she truly delivered on the promise of the first novels. You can hardly ask for more from a writer than that!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really never felt like the first two novels really had all that much promise in them. I mean that in the sense that, there was potential, but she wasn't promising anything epic in those two novels. I think with Azkaban she kicked it up a notch, and then there was a pretty serious challenge to make the last four books truly top notch and out of this world. I know that after I read the first two, I was interested, but I wasn't at all invested in the story.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Azkaban changed everything for me. The first two were fine but not life-altering. Azkaban had me dancing all the way and kicked off the adoration.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And lastly voldemort kills/defeats Harry while Harry is its master, but instead of transferring loyalty it decides not to kill Harry but only the part of Harry that is Voldemort.
In the book this was carefully explained. Harry had to go to Voldemort and allow himself to be killed without offering resistance, so that Voldemort hadn't defeated him, only killed him. Since it was on Harry's terms, the wand remained Harry's. In fact, Voldemort used the wand to kill Harry, which shouldn't have been possible if it was Harry's at that time. But the wand was carrying out Harry's wishes, much like the way Snape killed Dumbledore.
And this is my biggest complaint about the movie. The entire battle after Harry comes back from King's cross is wrong. The wand is not obeying Voldemort, and Harry does not duel him, instead, he casts protection spells to block curses from death eaters. And finally, when Harry offers Voldemort the opportunity to salvage his soul (by trying for remorse) Voldemort attempts to use the Elder wand to kill Harry, but Harry merely disarms Voldemort, which gives the wand the opportunity to re-aim Voldemort's Avada Kedavra spell back at himself. Thus Voldemort is killed by his own evil, while Harry is saved by his compassion. I thought that was brilliant.
In general, I was pretty ok with the movie up until the part after Harry comes back to life. My daughter was disappointed with the way they dealt with Helena Ravenclaw, but I was ok with it.
And the escape scene from Grongotts was beautifully done. You really felt a deep sympathy for that poor dragon.
quote:But his portrayal in Goblet of Fire was SO wrong...Dumbledore was always kind and gentle and friendly and a bit philosophical...Gambon was short tempered, and loud and bossy and not at all Dumbledore...and his hat is stupid!
I didn't mind wheezy and near death...like Yoda said..."Judge me by my size do you?" I didn't judge Harris's Dumbledore by his age nor health, he was a wizard, and I totally believed him capable of opening up some whupass.
quote:My impression is that Grindlewald probably got lazy and relied on bruteforce while Dumbledore was all skill and redirection.
There is a part in the book where (Rita Skeeter?) someone says that Grindelwald just gave up and allowed Dumbledore to take him prisoner. Interesting to note that Rita's sources were usually correct, even if Rita drew her own conclusions from them. But since we've learned that Dumbledore and Grendelwald were lovers, it makes sense on a whole different level.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My biggest issue was with the number of unnecessary and awkward forced jokes. They'd be in the middle of a tense, dramatic scene and someone would try to crack a joke. It just took me out of the whole experience. And I felt the same way about the big Ron/Hermione kiss, like it was played for laughs rather than a moment people have been waiting to see forever!
This was my chief complaint about Part one. Especially when they did it with Dobby. It totally detracted from the Malfoy Manner, I thought.
However, I thought it was much less of a problem in this movie.
I think the Mollie Vs. Belatrix scene was hard to include outside of the context of the battles that every "good guy" was fighting. And yet they had to include it, without context, because everybody in the theater would have been royally peeved if it didn't make the movie. It was a fan moment, not an art moment.
I thought this was the best movie of the series, though. And, I thought, the best at including people who hadn't read the books, especially as far as emotional reactions are concerned.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:My impression is that Grindlewald probably got lazy and relied on bruteforce while Dumbledore was all skill and redirection.
There is a part in the book where (Rita Skeeter?) someone says that Grindelwald just gave up and allowed Dumbledore to take him prisoner. Interesting to note that Rita's sources were usually correct, even if Rita drew her own conclusions from them. But since we've learned that Dumbledore and Grendelwald were lovers, it makes sense on a whole different level.
Possibly, but Dumbledore did say he was a few shades more skillful.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, the fact that Rowling left out any details allows us to dwell on the themes a bit, rather than the facts. We have at least three different versions, Ephias Doge is sycophantic, and tells it like a powerful duel between Gods with Dumbledore winning. Skeeter's source makes it seem like Grindelwald just gave up. Dumbledore says he's a little more skillful.
This is the way I choose to see it based on the information that I have. Dumbledore showed his power in a non-lethal way, but with enough force so that Grindelwald knew that Dumbledore would not allow himself to lose. At the same time Grindelwald realized that he only had an arsenal of lethal spells, and didn't want to kill Dumbledore, so eventually he chose to give in rather than risk killing his lover. This version allows all three witnesses to be telling a true version, but without contradicting each other.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Rowling didn't do more than hint at it in the books, but she said afterward, when asked whether any character in the books was gay, that Dumbledore was. It wasn't relevant to Harry's story, just Dumbledore's history. Part of why he fell for Gridelwald's plans in his youth.
posted
Actually, Olivet, she didn't reveal it when asked if any characters in the books were gay. She revealed it when asked if Dumbledore had ever been in love.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. It's been ages and I honestly never saw much about it except the hysterics afterward, but that makes more sense.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the way JKR did this...Dumbledore's sexual preference never enters the story in a meaningful way...because it shouldn't, either way. The fact that he is gay in no way affects the character in the story...it's just background info.
It shows an acceptance without having to shove it in anyone's face.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Makes me like Harris's Dumbledore even more!
Not that Harris was aware that he was playing a gay character. Apparently Rowling only let it slip in a later movie (I think Goblet) when the director tried to have Dumbledore flirting with a female, and Rowling passed him a note saying "Dumbledore is gay."
But I agree with you, not only about Harris' performance, but also about the way Rowling allowed it to be just background info. After the fact, you can go back and look for clues. They're there, but they're subtle.
I also liked the way that the Patel sisters, Dean Thomas, and Kingsley Shacklebolt's race never enters the equation of prejudice that's so central to the plot.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi all, I've discussed a few of the following issues in HP discussion groups, but perhaps some here will have a different take on these issues.
By the way, so far, I've seen the movie 3 times.
1.) What Killed Voldemort?
The movie is very unclear about this. I know what was suppose to have killed him because I read the books. But in the movies, almost anything could have killed him.
Did he die because Neville killed Nagini (the snake)?
Did Harry kill him? Unlikely because Harry didn't cast a killing curse, though the movie makes it unclear what he did cast.
Did Voldemort's own spell rebound on him? Well we assume so, but the movie DO NOT make that visually clear.
Harry and Voldemort's wands have connected again in the final courtyard scene. Neville kills the snake, and the connection between the wands breaks. Then they re-cast spells at each other, and suddenly Voldemort turns to ash, but why? It is not clear that he was even hit with a spell.
Considering the millions they spend on special effect, one more flash of light at the critical moment would have been helpful.
2.) Next an extremely minor quibble. When Harry meets Voldemort in the forest, Harry still has his wand in his hand. That is a dramatic moment lost. And the extension of that is, what happens to Harry's want when Voldemort hits him with a Killing Curse? Logically it falls to the ground.
That is more of a continuity error or internal logic error, but it still bothers me.
3.) Molly vs Bellatrix - pathetic. One of the beautiful part of the books was how powerful this scene was. We get to see that despite being the stern doting mother, Molly is an extremely powerful witch. I mean the stone floor around them boiled from the power of the spells they were casting.
I can understand why the movie change it, this is not Molly's story, it is Harry, and the focus needs to stay on Harry, but again, a powerful and dramatic moment is lost.
4.) The Diadem of Ravenclaw - I couldn't see how they could possible resolve this issue. It seemed to me the movie makers had painted themselves into an impossible corner by having Ginny hide the Potions Book. Still, they did a fair job of pulling their butts from the fire. And speaking of fire, excellent Fiend-Fire.
But still, it felt rushed.
5.) The Elder Wand backstory and Resolution -
Disappointing, it seemed to me, Voldemort's miscalculation with regard to the Elder Wand was pretty critical to the story, and the movie makers really gave a highly truncated version of it. If Harry has mentioned it right after the spell broke in the courtyard duel, then Voldemort would have died with some uncertainty and fear.
The explanation after the fact was much less satisfying. And, Harry destroying the Elder Wand without fixing his own, was ridiculous. The movie was the shortest of them all, they couldn't spare another minute to get it right?
Overall, I was satisfied with the result. I knew there would always be aspects of the adaptation that annoyed my, but I've learned to live with that.
My criticisms are minor, and I don't envy the person who had to make all the decisions about how the story would play out. You can sit and debate forever, but at some point, someone has to say, we do it this way, now let's move on.
I think David Yates has high potential as a director, but I don't think he has realized his full potential just yet. He does get a complex story across, but he simply doesn't take the time to build dramatic tension, or build sympathy for the characters. Everything feels too rushed. A little pause to build dramatic tension, and a few more small details would go a long way to making these movies better.
posted
Voldemort died WHEN Neville killed Nagini, but did he directly die BECAUSE Neville killed Nagini?
Personally, I think his own rebounding curse, per that book, killed him, but it is very unclear in the movie that anything killed him. From what I can tell, after three viewings, he just spontaneously turned to ash.
posted
As someone who has no particular emotional investment in the Harry Potter story and has never read The Deathly Hallows . . . I thought it was a pretty terrible movie. I'm not commenting on the story (I'm willing to accept that the parts that didn't make sense are explained better in the book)--just on the cinematography, the lighting choices, the camera angles, the directing. Too many scenes where the actors' sole instructions appear to have been "stand in the background and keep your face completely blank," too much low and blue lighting, too many glowy streams of light taking the place of recognizable and distinct spells.
The Battle for Hogwarts was so unengaging to me--too dark, too many people stumbling around more or less at random, too much mumbling--that I fell asleep. That pretty much sums up my movie-going experience.
Too bad; I did mostly like Part 1.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Neville killed Nagini, that meant that all of Voldemort's horcruxes had been eliminated. Seven parts of his soul that had been invested in horcruxes were now gone. Even before Nagini was killed, the horcrux that had been in Harry had been destroyed, so that even at that time, Voldemort was left with a soul equivalent to the mewling, bloodied, helpless, shrunken infant-like thing that Harry saw on the floor in his vision of the train station. Losing his last horcrux with the death of Nagini meant that there was hardly enough "soul" left in Voldemort to keep him alive, let along maintain his magical power.
Since the Elder wand left Voldemort and flew to Harry's hand, the wand attacked Voldemort with the same curse Voldemort had tried to cast against Harry. So the Elder wand killed Voldemort.
Or something like that. Anyway, I was satisfied with the fact that Voldemort was dead and gone. I only question the special effect that was used, which made him (and Bellatrix before him) look like they were crumbling into comfetti. How could there be no blood?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: As someone who has no particular emotional investment in the Harry Potter story and has never read The Deathly Hallows . . . I thought it was a pretty terrible movie.
It's easy to see why; the movie was following a format of being a kiddie ride through visual representations of important visual parts of the book, like a whistlestop tour.
Without the benefit of having the expectations you have from reading the book, the movie is just a weird dissection that flows about as gainly as Golden Compass. However, unlike Golden Compass, the visual narrative 'works' for the intended audience and does what it more or less intended to do, so it is well received.
I haven't decided yet whether I think it's better for the movie to have aspired to that model, or to have gone for a more cohesively cinematic model.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
