Specifically, I want the heads of director David Yates and screenwriter Steven Kloves to roll.
Now, a little background: I'm a fan of the Harry Potter series. I've read all the books and thoroughly enjoy them and consider them classics of the genre. I've also seen and greatly enjoyed all the movies. At times I've acted as an apologist for the movies to those who criticize the movies and the changes the movies make to the story. As the film series has progressed I've been delighted at the visual flourishes of the directors and the great performances by the cast. My memory of the books is actually pretty fuzzy, so the little plot changes made in the movies haven't bothered me so much, because the main plot points have still been done fairly faithfully in each movie.
So I'm eager and excited to go and see Harry Potter 6. And I watch it, and mostly enjoy it. As a movie it feels a little aimless, but the comedy's pretty funny. And then it gets closer to the end and the momentum starts rolling towards what was one of the most emotionally powerful and exciting endings in the whole series. Harry and Dumbledore get the fake Horcrux, return to Hogwarts and then...
WHAT THE FREAK! Harry is not petrified and hidden under his cloak, but just stands there stupidly as Dumbledore is killed. The Deatheaters come to Hogwarts and somehow meet no real opposition as they galavant around. No epic battle between the deatheaters and aurors. Yes, Snape, gets to do a dramatic pose and reveal he's the Half-blood Prince, but the significance of that, the movie's freakin' title, isn't explained or revealed. In place of the book's beautiful funeral sequence, we just get a quick candlelight vigil. The director and screenwriter somehow manage to drain Dumbledore's death and an action-packed climax of all its weight and excitement.
To me, this botching of the end is mind-boggling. Yes, in adapting a book to a film, certain changes are often called for to make the story more cinematic and to keep it from having an unreasonably long running time. But the changes here make no sense. Harry just standing there when Dumbledore get's killed makes no sense for the character. One of the few strengths that movies have over books in telling a story is in the action department; fight sequences lend themselves to movies much better than they do to written words. And yet, they decide to remove the grand action climax from the movie (can you imagine The Two Towers without Helm's Deep!?). Dumbledore, one of the best and most beloved characters in the series, dies. And yet in this movie we have tons of time devoted to Harry's, Ron's, and Hermione's hormones and goofy expressions, while the Dumbledore's death and its immediate aftermath are all rushed.
Don't get me wrong. The movie has beautiful visuals, the actors give wonderful performances, and the tons of time devoted to Harry's, Ron's, and Hermione's hormones and goofy expressions are funny. But by far the most important part of this story was the ending, and the director and screenwriter royally screwed it up for no reason that I can figure out. I think it's the weakest of all the films. I'll still keep my hopes for the next two films; I enjoyed Yate's work on Order of the Phoenix and Kloves' screenplays for the previous Harry Potter movies. But the damage to Harry Potter 6 has been done, and it's a major disappointment.
There, rant finished. So what did y'all think?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
See, that's why I'm not going to see that movie. Because I hated Goblet of Fire and the changes they made (Come on! No mention of this fellow escaping from Azkaban, dude launches the Dark Mark for no reason in this super public place crawling with Ministry people. That wasn't the worse. The worse was what they did with the end! Same with the Order of the Phoenix. The kids in the book were fighting for their lives, going from one cool room to the next. Not only did they subtract them fighting from the movie, but they made the end so weak and replaced a strong ending with yet another watered down one.
So no, I will not see anymore of these movies. Instead I will read the books. So there.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I liked it. But I see no reason to insist that other people like the movie, or even watch it.
I do agree in that I didn't like them removing the battle at the end. I did, however, understand the justification for Harry not moving to prevent Dumbledore's death.
He had been ordered by Dumbledore to stay hidden no matter what. He was confronted by Snape who indicated he remain silent and did not attack him. Harry knew that Dumbledore always trusted Snape. And, within the world of the film, Harry probably believed Snape would start by pretending that he was going to kill Dumbledore and then turn and attack the Death Eaters. By the time the curse was past his lips it was too late, and Harry was at least partially held back by shock.
At least that's what I thought.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I stopped watching at GoF because of what they did to that one.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
What bugged me was that strange and random sequence at the Weasley house in the middle, where the Death Eaters attack the house? And Ginny ties Harry's shoelace for him? The whole thing just came out of nowhere, and I like it how the Weasleys forget they are wizards and just stand there watching their house burn.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I thought they did an excellent job until after Harry retrieved Slughorn's memory. Then the whole thing went kaput for me. I couldn't believe the ending either; I felt inclined to laugh twice. One because of Bellatrix, who, given, is a bundle of crazy, but pranced around rather hilariously, and two because of the weird candlelight-vigil/wand-raising thing. That was so cheesy to me.
I hated what they did to Ron's character. He served no purpose but to make us laugh. We didn't know, in the movie, why he dated Lavender in the first place.
Cho randomly disappeared, as did Dean, conveniently, halfway through the movie.
I appreciated the desire to give Tonks and Lupin more screen time, and the strengthen Ginny's character and her relationship to Harry, but that scene over Christmas simply didn't do it for me. And, you'd think they'd at least follow up on the Weasly's house going up in flames. But no. We never hear about it again.
Ginny wasn't like she was in the books, for me. She was gutsy, had a reputation around the school and didn't care, cast bat-bogey hexes on people who annoyed her, and in the end, completely acknowledged that Harry was going to end the relationship because he was going to hunt Voldemort. I believe, in the book, she said something to the effect of "You're going to be all stupid and noble now, aren't you?" And Harry appreciated it.
And Snape! He just did something that he desperately didn't want to do, was called a coward by Harry, and had his own spell used against him, and he reacted so calmly. Why? This was one of the only moments where Snape was supposed to truly lose it. Instead, we just got a snide remark.
And there was no chaos in the end. They just walked in, killed Dumbledore, and then pranced out. Ugh.
This movie was so great until after Slughorn's memory was retrieved; why couldn't it have stayed that way.
<sigh>
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fyfe: I like it how the Weasleys forget they are wizards and just stand there watching their house burn.
I haven't seen this movie yet, though I plan to take my kids this weekend, but this section quoted is exactly what I *despise* about every one of the HP movies so far. The characters might not be "expert wizards" or whatever, but they're still wizards, yet have ANYTHING happen even remotely unexpectedly and they just stand there with their mouths hanging open. Then they get into even worse trouble due to their inaction, and finally go "Oh wait, I can use magic!" Unless of course they don't have their wand in their hand, and thus are still completely powerless.
Posted by K.T. (Member # 8665) on :
I know many will disagree with what I am about to say but...
I rather enjoyed Harry Potter 6! More than any of the others! I don't think they did a better job at it than the others, well, maybe in places, but mostly I just changed the way I viewed it. I am an avid fan of the books!! However, in order to enjoy the movie I had to stop comparing. Instead I went in with no expectations as far as making it true to the book or anything. When it was done I asked myself, "Did I enjoy my time?" Yes! "Was I entertained?" Yes! Then I didn't stop and analyze every little thing that was missing or different! The movie that takes place in my head while I read is way better than anything they could put on screen. And, in some small way I have this satisfaction in knowing that people who just watched the movies didn't really get it! They have to read the books to get the full feast! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't like them destroying the Burrow. That seemed a little unnecessary, though I have to admit that the wholly made up scene was pretty good. It felt right at home.
There were some minor changes that I didn't totally like, but on the whole, for as much as they had to cover, they did okay, and Jim Broadbent was an excellent Slughorn.
I thought the wandlight vigil thing for Dumbledore was actually pretty moving. Yes, they could have done a long funeral sequence, but the simple wandlight and removal of the dark mark was moving all by itself, in a much less ostentatious way.
I'm looking forward to the last two movies, and felt this was a good way of getting is to the final sequence of events.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
They didn't have to have a "long" funeral sequence, but they still could have shown the scene. It would have been visually beautiful and would have given better closure and power to the death of one of the best characters of the series. And it's a good setting to have Harry, Ron, and Hermione discuss the future and Harry's plans, instead of just doing the same old "Harry, Ron, Hermione chat for a bit on top of a Hogwarts, look sad, then hopeful, look out at the horizon." It just kills it when you cut a scene from a book and replace it with a scene that's even less cinematically appealing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What bugged me most, and I know this is kind of a quibble, but when that bridge was destroyed at the beginning of the movie, you could see it wobble while people were all across it, they started running, and the bridge collapsed. But in the actual CG when the bridge breaks you can't see anybody on the bridge except on the very edges just clearing the bridge before it falls into the water.
Then there is a newspaper article mentioning the bridge collapse and the body count. Near as I could tell, not a soul was on the bridge when it failed.
Overall I liked the movie, it was definitely one of the best, I wish the Half Blood Prince had actually been explained, but it would have been difficult to do that without destroying the pace.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Yeah, I can't say I thought the movie was great. I didn't think it was awful, but then I say that because I'm inclined to give a lot of grace to book to movie adaptations. This one wasn't that bad, up until the end where it fell completely flat. I pretty much agree with the OP. My wife is laying next to me complaining about Ginny as well, how they changed her character, both in attitude and in role. I thought Dumbledore was kinda funky too. He just seemed very standoffish, whereas in the book this is sort of the culmination of Harry and his relationship, where they finally get to be mentor/mentee, teacher/pupil, Obi-Wan/Luke, Gandalf/Frodo. I know, I know, they didn't have enough time or space, but they could have at least tried. It's the little things that make movies, especially movies like this, and I thought while some little things were definitely done right, other were done quite wrong, and some big things were messed up quite badly too.
Oh well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
BTW I'm still holding out that in 5-10 years there will be a Harry Potter BBC series that will be just fantastic.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
My biggest issue is that Harry currently has NO IDEA what the other horcruxes might be. Nowhere in any of the lessons did they have Dumbledore tell Harry what the others were. By the end of the book, Harry knew all but 2 and he had an idea about one of them. Where is he going to get that information? Isn't that kind of crucial to the plot of Deathly Hallows?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
It's going to be a lot more than 10 years before the BBC can do a series.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: BTW I'm still holding out that in 5-10 years there will be a Harry Potter BBC series that will be just fantastic
Me too.
I saw the movie and was tremendously underwhelmed.
My main problem is as the books gets longer the movies seem to just pick scenes and throw them together with no real cohesive story. It requires you to have read the books so you can fill in all the missing detail in your head.
I understand they can't tell the entire story, so they should pick one or two plots and fill it out. In this movie there really is no reason to care that Snape is the Half Blood Prince. I tried to imagine myself as someone who hasn't read the book, and when Snape revealed himself my reaction would have been, "Oh...ok. *sigh* I guess that's where the name of the movie came from."
For being kinda long and boring, I think a talented script writer could/would take out 40 minutes of boring and add 20 minutes of context.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they are saving the First Battle of Hogwarts for one of the two sequels. In fact,I'll bet there will only be one Battle of Hogwats.
I suspect that they didn't freeze and hide Harry for the end because Draco had already done that earlier in the movie. I love the wand vigil and the light dissapating the dark mark.
Yep, hated the ending, but I liked the 90% that came before and I hold out hope that the scenes I miss will come later, so it's okay.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I thought the wandlight vigil thing for Dumbledore was actually pretty moving. Yes, they could have done a long funeral sequence, but the simple wandlight and removal of the dark mark was moving all by itself, in a much less ostentatious way.
I agree. I thought it was just right. I remember how moving it was in the book, but IMO I think that would have translated poorly to the screen and been, quite frankly, too long and boring.
I liked the humor. I laughed more during this film than any of the others, and there were tears in my eyes when Harry (while tripping on Felix Felicis) mimicked Aragog's fangs. I think the humor was a nice contrast to the dark moments (the girl cursed being tossed around, for instance) and enhanced the emotional impact of each. It's the same reason that I like Scrubs; the humor mixed with the heavy stuff seems to make everything more poignant.
I wish there was more to Draco's character. He seems kind of hollow. I felt that in the books too, so I can't blame the actor. I think he did what he could.
And it's a shame. I had just gotten to like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. His uber-calm demeanor didn't meld with how I pictured Dumbledore for the third, fourth, and fifth movies, but finally now it felt just right. And he had to go and get killed. Jeeze.
Oh, and the kid they found for the Hogwarts version of Tom Riddle was creepy. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:There is a scene in this movie in which Death Eaters, led by Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) and Fenrir Greyback (Dave Legeno), attack The Burrow where Harry, The Weasley's, Lupin, and Tonks are staying. This particular scene was not in the book, but was made just for the movie to serve as a representative of all the news reports, which are scattered around in the source novel, about various attacks by Death Eaters on the wizard community. It was considered to provide better pacing for a movie to have Harry actually experience one such attack first hand, rather than hearing/reading about those that kept happening to some other students, or their relatives.
I think overall, this was a good move.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I enjoyed the movie. This is the first one I watched after reading the book. There are differences and a lot of stuff left out. But that is always the case. I would have rather seen Harry petrified under the invisibility cloak, but such is life.
This was my favorite of all the books.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I liked the movie more than I liked the book, mostly because I got tired of the romance themes in the book and snogging is a lame word. In the movie, as soon as I think of craving action, mystery, darkness, combativeness, comedy, or good old fashion frinedship, it's there.
I loved it, and Order of the Pheonix.
Also couldnt the fire set to the burrow have been magic fire that the Weaskeys cant remedy?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Also couldnt the fire set to the burrow have been magic fire that the Weaskeys cant remedy?
Either that or the fire spread so quickly that there was nothing they could do. Either way, I don't think it matters. There house was destroyed by DeathEaters.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
They don't even try though! They just stand there, aw hell, there it goes, those Death Eater sure are bastards. I just don't think the sequence works, on any level.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Since Dumbledore, earlier in the movie, with just a wave of his wand, did what took Mary Poppins an entire song sequence to do, with the added bonus of repairing the actual structure, the Weasleys I'm sure could simply do the same thing.
They were clearly dumbfounded as to what the death eaters had hoped to accomplish by doing something that was so easily reversed!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The way I remember it, it could have happened off screen. There was time in between the death eaters attcking it and harry/lupin/ginny running back.
and magic fire.
Posted by HandEyeProtege (Member # 7565) on :
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I'll opine that whatever weaknesses in the movie were due to weaknesses in the book. Perhaps it's its position as the penultimate in the series, but the story just sort of simmers in preparation for the big finale. I think the title is evidence of that: the "Half-Blood Prince" mystery is not that interesting and it's solution is barely relevant to the rest of the book. I did find it sort of odd that they never bothered to explain it in the movie, but I didn't miss it.
That all being said, I'm a huge fan of the book and loved the movie--including most of the things they changed. For instance, in some ways I thought Harry not being petrified in the astronomy tower was even more effective. It demonstrated how Harry had grown over the course of the movie: he was Dumbledore's man, and he finally chose to trust Dumbledore against all his own instincts. Plus, it made it that much more wrenching to know that he could have done something to stop Snape, but he didn't.
I thought the wandlight vigil was exactly the right memorial to Dumbledore. The funeral from the book was effective, in large part, because of the huge cast of characters that came to it. Many of those characters either don't exist in the movies or wouldn't have been recognized by the casual viewer, and I think the impact of it would have been lost. What I did miss was the phoenix song and Fawkes departure. While they showed Fawkes flying off, I don't feel like they translated to the screen the meaning behind it.
And Ginny...what can I say? I liked movie Ginny. I liked book Ginny better. I knew it was too much to hope for, but I really wanted to see Ginny playing quiddich, just once, because I just know she's an even more kick-butt seeker than Harry.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I actually prefer the candlelight scene to the funeral. Funerals are boring and your at war.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think the vigil at the end of the movie was better than the funeral in the book. I haven't read the book in awhile but I remember thinking how stuffy and formal it seemed for a practical, eccentric character like Dumbledore. I think he would have been honored to see his students and colleagues show their strength and support by dispelling the Dark Mark from the castle.
I prefer the paralysis version to Dumbledore's death. I agree that Harry is grown but I think he's still very practical himself. In the cave, I felt that he did was he was told because he saw the same "big picture" that Dumbledore saw. In the book, they made a bigger show of how weak Dumbledore was and it was incredibly painful to be in Harry's mind as he lay there helpless. Harry is the kind of person who would have wanted to fight alongside Dumbledore, protect him, even while outnumbered. I think Harry's recklessness, temper and distrust of Snape are still huge parts of his character at the age of 16. And its all stuff that we're going to see him overcome during the course of the seventh and eighth movies.
While the romance scenes were hysterical, I would have preferred to see more of the back story that made the book so important. In the book series, there's such an emphasis on how people can overcome or succumb to their past. Rowling writes this great parallel between Harry and Voldemort and after several movies seeing how Harry is mistreated by the Dursleys, it would have been nice to hear more about Voldemort's backstory. They couldn't even be bothered to throw in a line regarding Voldemort's design and planning for the Horcruxes. All Dumbledore says is that they would seem like ordinary objects, but that's not true for Voldemort. He chose powerful objects, important victims, and personal hiding places for so many of the Horcruxes. This is all part of his character and we can't even get a quick line about this!
And just as there's Harry and Voldemort, we have the parallels between Harry and Snape, and Snape and Draco. So many great characters with complicated childhoods who have all made good and bad choices. And of the four, Draco is the least realized. Personally, I'm still angry at Rowling for not giving his character the attention he deserved. But I applaud David Yates and Tom Felton for how they depicted the character in the movie. Felton's facial expressions were lovely. Especially after the Death Eaters begin to emerge from the cabinet, you can see the relief and the regret both there at the same time. Brilliant!
The bathroom fight scene could have used more dialogue and should have been more shocking/violent. Harry nearly kills Draco but it doesn't fully appear that way in the movie, especially since Harry is kissing on Ginny minutes later rather than feeling horrible and guilty.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
Yeah, both my older sister and I agree that Tom Felton did fantastic as Draco in the movie. In fact, I really enjoyed all the performances, but especially Felton's. Part of it's because we haven't really seen much of him at all since the first two movies (which actually were cuts that made sense to me) and it was just good to see his character back in the thick of things; but Felton really did take the material given to him and rocked it; so much of the performance was not with words, but just his eyes and face and body language, and he nailed it.
Jim Broadbent was really great too as Slughorn. At times I thought maybe they focused a little too much on his squinty-eyed mugging, but his drunken monologue about Harry's mom and his plea for him not to judge him as he gave him his true memory were really touching.
Rupert Grint was hilarious, and, as with Draco, it was really nice to see him finally getting something to do in the story.
And I was very pleased with Emma Watson's acting, because out the three leads, I felt her acting the past couple of movies was the weakest. In GofF and OotP she seemed to either overact or just felt flat in her delivery; I think she finally struck the right balance wiht her character in this one, and I loved her jealous expressions when Harry outdoes her at potions.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Emma has finally outgrown acting with her eyebrows!
I'm with you on all the casting and performances. Rupert has amazing comedic timing, but I'm really eager now to see him do something deeper with the character. It seemed like all the "serious buddy" scenes where with Hermione and Harry only. Even in the final scene, Ron's sitting off quietly away from the group for the most of it.
The conversation in Hagrid's hut between Slughorn and Harry was absolutely one of the high points in the film. Broadbent was wonderful and I really felt Dan capture Harry's character in that scene. I'm starting to feel as if Dan isn't growing into the part as much as the others are progressing in theirs. Dan just doesn't feel genuine in his role as Harry, it just feels like he's trying too hard. But he just WAS Harry in that scene with Slughorn.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Emma has finally outgrown acting with her eyebrows!
I'm with you on all the casting and performances. Rupert has amazing comedic timing, but I'm really eager now to see him do something deeper with the character. It seemed like all the "serious buddy" scenes where with Hermione and Harry only. Even in the final scene, Ron's sitting off quietly away from the group for the most of it.
The conversation in Hagrid's hut between Slughorn and Harry was absolutely one of the high points in the film. Broadbent was wonderful and I really felt Dan capture Harry's character in that scene. I'm starting to feel as if Dan isn't growing into the part as much as the others are progressing in theirs. Dan just doesn't feel genuine in his role as Harry, it just feels like he's trying too hard. But he just WAS Harry in that scene with Slughorn.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I understand they can't tell the entire story, so they should pick one or two plots and fill it out. In this movie there really is no reason to care that Snape is the Half Blood Prince. I tried to imagine myself as someone who hasn't read the book, and when Snape revealed himself my reaction would have been, "Oh...ok. *sigh* I guess that's where the name of the movie came from."
See, this is pretty much the way I felt when that information was revealed in the book, as well. I largely agree with HandEyeProtege's post above. I always felt that the "half-blood prince" theme was a half-baked plot to keep the inclusive mystery elements that each previous book had had.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
I'll admit the Half-blood Prince is probably one of the weakest mysteries from the book, but it's funny for something in the title to be treated like an afterthought in the movie.
Like Emreecheck, I was also really disappointed that the movie didn't have Snape flipping out at Harry when he's called a coward. It's a great character moment for Snape, one of the few times he really shows his vulnerability, and it would have given Alan Rickman a little something different to do with his performance.
As for Daniel Radcliffe, I've had no real problem with him the past few movies. Ever since PoA, he seems to keep growing as an actor, getting better at both the drama and comedy (the Luck Potion acting was great). I hope after the series wraps up that he's able to break out of the Potter type-cast on film, cause I think he really does have great talent as an actor and he seems like a really down-to-earth guy in all his interviews.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Wasn't it supposed to be Tonks and not Luna that saved Harry on the train? That seems to be a dumb change.
I don't remember what did happen at christmas break during this book but I didn't really like the scene they did.
I also liked the wandlight vigil though I wish some other people had been there. I think Aberforth, Tonks, Lupin, Moody.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Also couldnt the fire set to the burrow have been magic fire that the Weaskeys cant remedy?
They lived in the wizard version of a trailer. Those things go catch fire quick.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I finally got to see the movie last night and I've been waiting to see what you guys have been saying in here. First off: movie was fantastic! Easily, honestly, and earnestly I can claim that this is my favorite intallment of the frnachise. And HBP isn't even my favorite book. The ability of the actor and actresses showcase their maturity and their understandnig of less is more. They seem to now realize that acting doens't require them to look like they're acting(kudos to Watson for getting those perptualy moving eyebrows in check.) Thank you David Yates, as I am convinced you're the best thing to happen to Harry Potter since JK herself. The cinematography, the subtle use of music, that opening scene! It felt not like a Harry Potter film but an actualy quality film that almost, if not for the need of a backstory, could very well stand own its own. While I do understand some of the gripes that have been expressed here I can't agree with most of them.Any issues I would have with the movie are so overwhelmed by everything done so right that I can barely even care, but there ar ea couple of things that either: A.Weirded me out or B.confused me.
A.Dumbledore constant need to get updates on Harry's pimp status. & "Shoelaces". B."I'm the Half-Blood PRince"...okay, so?
I couldn't stop smiling the entire time I was watching, I've never actually laughed while watching a Harry Potter film. Last night I finally got to see the movie I've been anticipating for a long time now and I can say that it delivered compelety for me and I can't wait to see it again.
If anyone wants to gush on how much they loved this please do, it's so much more fun than criticism.
[ July 17, 2009, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Trent Destian ]
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I thought the Half Blood Prince part was one of the few things thoroughly explained. The book that was making Harry do well in Potions was property of the half blood prince, Hermione looked it up and found nothing, then Snape says it was him. There wasn't that much more about it in the book.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Explained perhaps, but I imagine people who haven't read the book would wonder why it mattered that the book was his.
In the book Harry was connecting with the author and was almost being mentored by the HBP. He idolized him as a briliiant wizard and found solace in his words while others shut out his concerns about Malfoy. All of this only to discover that the HBP is not only someone whom he despises, but also the traitor and the villian that killed his greatest protector is quite a blow to Harry. This isn't brought out in the movie.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
First of all, lemme say that I am shocked, shocked I say to discover that HP fans are angrily complaining at what a bad job was done on this film!
----
I think the portrayals of Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, and Ron were dead to rights. Thought those parts were great. Ginny too, though it's strange to me that she seems so much more...aware and mature?...than Harry-I don't recall exactly if that was a feature of the book or not.
I think it was a mistake to omit the part of the HBP potion book actually being directly helpful, as opposed to just having thousands of lines of notes. For instance, the Bezoar scene just didn't make much sense. Having read the book, I knew how strange it was Harry knew to use that as an antidote, but it was just flat in the movie. Oh, Ron's poisoned-trouble. And Harry knows what to do right away almost.
I was, however, very disappointed with the confrontation between harry and Severus at the end of the film. I think it worked, but it could've been so much better-and wouldn't have taken much more time either, I don't think. I was very impressed with the Draco stuff, especially the confrontation at the end.
Ron was lots of fun in this film, more than I remember him being in past films. Harry's Felix-personality was great:)
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I separate the book from the movie.
And I LOVED the movie.
I can't remember laughing harder at a scene than when Ron sat in the middle of Harry and Gennie with the pies.
And The Weasleys joke shop was amazing.
The was the most enjoyable trip to the movies in a long, long, long time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Ginny too, though it's strange to me that she seems so much more...aware and mature?...than Harry-I don't recall exactly if that was a feature of the book or not.
I think you could make an argument that Ginny was more mature than Harry in HBP and DH. I reread HBP and DH over the last two days and I'd say that's a fair characterization. They way she took Harry by the hand after Dumbledore was killed, and a lot of her actions in general in the book make her seem mature beyond her age, with the only exception being how she acts around her family, but looking at my own family, that's 100% normal near as I can tell.
And I agree on Snape, Draco and Harry/Felix.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Beyond her age? I think Rowling was just making the point that girls are more mature than boys.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
HBP was my favorite HP book, they butchered it....
But the movie was quite good on its own merits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Beyond her age? I think Rowling was just making the point that girls are more mature than boys.
And then we have Hermione...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Beyond her age? I think Rowling was just making the point that girls are more mature than boys.
Given the examples that come to mind of Ginny's maturity, I don't think that was the point she was making, though that seems to be a theme in general early on between Hermione and the others.
Besides, I think as society continues on its downward spiral, the mental maturity factor becomes harder and harder to easily discern.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I know this is a spoilerific thread already and the warning is in the title, but this comment is going to have spoilers for people who haven't read the book as well. (Possible Deathly Hallows Book spoilers too.) Fair warning.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: First of all, lemme say that I am shocked, shocked I say to discover that HP fans are angrily complaining at what a bad job was done on this film!
Personally, I think that the movie was great. It managed to be funny without making the tragedy of the story any less. It was beautifully filmed, and the added scene did what it was supposed to, bring home the tragedy that was surrounding the wizarding world, rather than having the characters constantly reading about it in the newspaper.
However, I think it could have been better. There were things that I think were important to the plot that were left out. Specifically, at no time did Dumbledore discuss what the remaining horcruxes were with Harry. By the end of the book, Harry knows, with only one exception, what it is he is looking for. He doesn't really know where to look for them, but he knows what he's looking for. This was left entirely out of the movie. We now know that Harry destroyed the diary and Dumbledore got the ring. We also suspect something about Harry. That still leaves us with four others though. The fake locket, the snake, Hufflepuff's cup, and something of Ravenclaw or Griffindor's. Harry hasn't been given this information in the movie, which means that either Harry is just going to miraculously know what to look for at the start of the next film (please no) or there will be some kind of cheesy letter from Dumbledore telling him what else to look for (umm...) or there will have to be some other plot twist like a little dialog scene telling us about what he learned in the lessons that we didn't get to watch in the previous film (probably the best option fan wise maybe accompanied by a flashback).
I was also disappointed in the lack of a battle scene at the end, though this is more personal preference and less important. We've heard nothing about Bill and Fleur's relationship or upcoming wedding. Indeed, Bill and Charley have both been summarily dismissed from the films though they have been mentioned, which begs the question, whose wedding is going to be interrupted by Death Eaters and the killing of the Minister of Magic? For a book that had so much in it that they just couldn't decide what to cut out and therefore had to split it into two movies, there's a really big chunk missing right there.
This ended up much longer than intended. Suffice it to say, I enjoyed the movie. I've already seen it twice and will probably see it a third time in theaters. But it could have been better. Particularly in the explanation of the horcruxes, it wouldn't have taken much more for us to get the whole explanation. Just a tiny bit more exposition would have done it.
But then, I am neither the screenwriter, the director, or Rowling herself. And ultimately, Steve Kloves is likely not lurking on this board waiting for my input on how to write his scripts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to be clear, I wasn't shocked because I thought it was bad. I was being sarcastic-fans of a book that gets transcribed into a major Hollywood studio film will always, always, always complain (with some justification).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some things that might have helped, like explaining about how Harry got the bezore and knew what to do with it, may have wound up on the cutting room floor--edited out to reduce the film length. If so, I hope they add those deleted scenes when the DVD is released.
But then why did they put in the scene involving the firefight in the cornfield, and torching of the Weasleys' burrow, which were not in the book? In fact, the latter creates problems because unless the house is rebuilt fast, then it causes problems for the wedding at the start of the final book. And the creature that masqueraded as Ron while he had Harry and Hermione were running around looking for horcruxes and trying to avoid capture, lived in the attic of the Weasleys' house, and presumably would have been killed in the fire.
The first time I saw the movie, I was comparing it to the novel, and that caused me to feel a lot of dissatisfaction. But now that I have that out of the way, maybe if I go and see the movie again, it will be more entertaining. I'll have to see.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I read online that the reason for the addition of the torching of the Weasley home was that, throughout the book the kids are constantly reading about tragedy in the newspaper. Rather than have the kids constantly reading newspaper articles about everything that's happening, they added a scene to bring it all home to Harry. I thought it worked well.
And I don't think we're going to be seeing Bill and Fleur get married at this rate. There's been no mention of it and it was all through the Half Blood Prince book. What they'll do to get us some of the important information given out at the wedding I don't know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for the home being torched, I explained that away by saying to myself, "Psychotic muderessess like Lestrange aren't just going to soak the place in gasoline and light a match, it was some spooky evil magic fire, too dangerous to fight for those who were there when it started, and too far advanced by the time the others returned."
As for Bill and Fleur...honestly, I'm a bit surprised anyone is surprised they're being (apparently) cut. At least out of this film. Just because they appeared repeatedly doesn't make them anything other than secondary characters, and the film was already 157m long.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I'm not surprised they're being cut, I just don't know what they are going to replace the wedding with at this point. After all, movie viewers have never seen Bill at all (if they haven't read the books). They don't know that he and Fleur have been seeing each other since book 5 and so a wedding for the two of them at the beginning of the next film doesn't seem like it would work well. It just seems to me, that considering the statement that was made when it was decided to make Deathly Hallows into two films, that that's a long scene to cut out. Particularly since they stated that they couldn't figure out what to cut.
Scenes at the Burrow such as Harry's birthday and the wedding, make up nearly 100 pages of the text. This seems like a lot to cut out, particularly since they stated that the reason the book is being divided into two films is because they couldn't decide what to cut out (I could totally help with that, there is a lot of unnecessary wandering around in the book, that could go). Some of it can probably be moved to somewhere else. But, if it is to follow the book even a little, they can't move it to Grimmauld Place because the trio spends their time there alone and because Snape can still get in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'd be far stranger if they were cut out of the next film.
As far as this film goes, they lift right out.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I expect they'll use Tonks and Lupin's wedding instead of Bill and Fleur's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If they do, I think it'd be a great choice. While Tonks is secondary, and so is Lupin, the latter especially was a 'main secondary' or whatever the term is for an entire film. Same can't be remotely said for Bill or Fleur.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
They already treated Tonks and Lupin as a couple at Christmas though they left her out on the train.
Since Tonks works for the ministry it will even make more sense that some of the people came and Kingsley's message. I'm not sure if they'll find a reason to have it at the Weasley's anyway.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I've been out of town for a week so I'm a bit behind all these posts, but I did watch the movie while I was gone and have an opinion.
My opinion is that I need to watch it again.
Like most of you, I read the book before watching the movie. In fact, I read it more than once (probably 3 times, but it's been a while). Therefore, no matter how hard I tried to go into the movie in acknowledgment of the fact that a screen adaptation can and will be different from the book (probably even should be), I had expectation...preconceived notions.
This was true of each of the first 5 movies as well, and also with each of the first 5 movies I had a better sense of how well they did after I REwatched it with a new set of expectations. The first two were better than I thought they were at first, though they still seem like choppily edited pictoral summaries of th book.
Most of the movies have had the problem of being a bit choppy and disconnected as they try in vain to fit as much of the books into the movies as possible. They seem to jump from scene to scene without proper segways. Some of the actings has been superior and some of it has not. The Weasley twins, for example, have not been to my liking, nor has Dumbledore.
But my biggest problem with the movies, even as they have dared to leave the exact content of the books behind in an attempt to create a better screen adaptation, is that I don't feel the movies can be fully understood without the books.
I'm not sure where the sixth movie will fall because, as I said, I need to rewatch it, but a few things stood out to me:
1. At the beginning, Harry is in a diner when Dumbledore finds him and takes him on the mission to get Slughorn. Dumbledore makes some comment about Harry taking risks all summer but does not explain this statement. In this case, not only does it not make sense if you haven't read the books, but it doesn't make sense if you have. I have no idea what Harry was supposed to have done all summer.
2. After visiting Slughorn (a rushed summary of the visit in the book which made little sense without having read it), Dumbledore randomly drpos Harry in a pond. Huh?
3. Following this is a nearly painful scene in which the entire Weasley family plus Hermoine go on about whether or not Harry has arrived. Not only is it stupid, but it doesn't make sense. Security is high in the wizarding world and Harry's arrival being unexpected is completely unbelievable.
4. The train ride to Hogwarts was actually well done. I rather liked that they didn't introduce the Slug clup right away and that Dumbledore asks Harry to let himself be collected. I also rather enjoyed Luna finding Harry under the invisibility cloak thanks to the nargles (or whatever).
5. We learned VERY little about Tom Riddle in this movie. This was the biggest part of the STORY of the sixth book, not just the biggest part of book six. The whole point of the story was that we learned about Voldemort's past in preparation for learning about the Horcruxes and how Voldemort needed to be destroyed. Yet all we saw was a short scene in which Dumbledore gets him at the orphanage and then the one in which Riddle asks Slughorn about the Horcruxes. Um...so now how do our heroes know anything at all that will help them find them? How do we know what kind of person our bad guy really is? We learned a lot of Riddle's character, how he killed at a very young age, and how he never really had any friends nor wanted any. All of these things were critical to the story and their absence left me feeling as if the movies were pointless eye candy.
6. Harry and Ginny made little sense. For all the painful references to the monster in Harry's chest in the book, I at least understood why he had finally come to like her. There was no catalyst in the movie. And that scene in the room of requirement...Ugh! Also, at the end Hermoine tells Harry that Ron is ok with he and Ginny getting together. Ummm...shouldn't Ron have been the one to say that?
7. Harry slashes open Malfoy's chest and doesn't get in trouble? Huh?
8. The scene at the Weasley's over Christmas made no sense at all. I mean, having their house burn down wasn't all bad. It did add a poignant moment and remind us that we were at war. I certainly didn't mind that they left out family politics (Percy) and ministry politics (The minister of magic coming by) BUT....Belatrix taunts him into following her out into the wilderness where he is alone and vulnerable? All I could think was, "Harry, you're dead. Right here. It's over."
9. The scene at the cave was well done but everything that followed was not. There was no battle at Hogwarts and why not? That's just the sort of thing that i expected to see on film. Then Harry just waits stupidly while Snape kills Dumbledore? That's so un-Harry like. And Snape couldn't have been more obvious. There was real question in the book as to whose side he was really on, but not so in the movie.
10. I agree with whoever said the Half-Blood prince thing fell flat and was fairly insignificant, but I felt that way about the book too so it didn't bother me.
Wow. I guess I really did have some issues with it. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Wedding at the Weasley's house is where they received word that the Ministry has fallen. It is also where Harry gets teed off (set off) by the lady who claims there are all kinds of scandals in Dumbldore's past. And remember that supernatural attic-dwelling creature that is made to impersonate a very ill Ron Weasley so the real Ron can run around with Harry without repercussions for his family, would likely have been killed in the torching of the Weasley "Burrow."
I know they have to change some things to shorten a novel into the script equivalent of a novelet or novella, but they are changing an awaful lot of things that affect future events.
By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses? Someone told me that. If it is true, then Joanna Rowling screwed up when she had Dumbledore cast an immobilus spell on Harry in the novel, and the way they did it in the movie--just having Harry hide out of sight--was actually more logically consistent. But they still had Draco Malfoy putting Harry under the immobilus spell while he was hiding in the invisibility cloak on the train.
I always wondered why Draco did not take the invisibility cloak for himself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, the invisibility cloak does not also act as an anti-magic shield. I don't know where you got that idea.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses?
This was never my impression. The invisibility cloak simply renders the wearer truly invisible, meaning that any charms or spells intended to reveal said wearer would not work, such as summoning the cloak. I've never seen any reason that a well-aimed spell couldn't immobilize the wearer of an invisibility cloak.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only is it not true that the invisibility cloak isn't invulnerable to any sort of magic, but it's not even with regards to all people effective as an invisibility cloak.`
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I saw it a couple of days ago, and felt rather odd about it. I generally liked how scenes were put together, but I didn't really feel like those scenes were very well "stitched together" into a unified story. I understand the creators made a decision at some point that if you (the viewer) didn't know the background, they weren't going to waste time trying to bring you up to speed, but they may have gone a step too far- there are moments where the timing seems off, pauses go on a moment too long, things are said which should have been inferred or inferred when they should have been said. I never would have known from the scene at the Three Broomsticks, for example, that Harry was as broken up at seeing Ginny and her boyfriend together as he made out to Hermione. And Ron is just kind of all over the map- he's comic relief, he's someone whose life we're supposed to fear for, he's full of his own fame, he's kind've half-heartedly mooning over Hermione... And in place of some time to fill out some of these details and emotions, we get all these long drawn-out sequences of Malfoy going into the Room of Requirement. I like what the actor did with Draco's increasing sense of anguish and isolation, but by the third trip to the "closet", I was muttering is this really how you want to spend your time?
One answer I do have: the creators cut out the battle in the last segment of HBP because they thought the audiences would find it redundant with the battle in _Hallows_.
All in all, I'm not sorry I saw the movie at all; it was enjoyable for the spectacle and for the actors who have come to embody their characters so well. But I'd be very curious to see the DVD for what was cut from the theatrical release.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, the invisibility cloak does not also act as an anti-magic shield. I don't know where you got that idea.
Allow me to elucidate your understanding on how Ron got that idea.
From Ron's post,
"By the way, is it true that the invisibility cloak was impervious to any charms or spells or curses? Someone told me that."
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
You know, as I think about it, I do think I would deem a pretty good movie on its own terms (though the scenes feel a bit disjointed at times and there's perhaps too much awkward pauses), but it's still hard for me to get past some of the story changes.
As to the reasoning of the directors about not including the fight scene at the end: it still doesn't cut it for me.
Just because two battles take place in the same location doesn't make it redundant; there's still differences in scale and circumstance and what is going on emotionally. And since Deathly Hallows is going to be split into two movies, there will still be some time before audiences see another battle at Hogwarts.
My brother also pointed out that the changes at the end kind of make the presence of the deatheaters at Hogwarts unnecessary to the plot. Since they're not really causing distractions or chaos (yeah, one guard get's knocked out and some glass get's shattered, all after Dumbledore's already dead) why did Draco need to get them in there. Both he (the chosen assassin) and Snape (the back-up) were already in, and in the movie the only response to the intrusion of deatheaters is one guard who proves useless. The movie plays up the mystery of what Draco is up to, as if it's essential to the plot (in the book it really is), but in the movie's ending, the presence of deatheaters seems superfluous and Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
With the exception of Kingsley, I think Aurors in general end up looking like pushovers in the books. They seemed to be mowed down with relative ease in the novels, while causing almost no damage to the enemy in return.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Hogwarts security teams end up looking like serious slackers.
With the exception of Kingsley, I think Aurors in general end up looking like pushovers in the books. They seemed to be mowed down with relative ease in the novels, while causing almost no damage to the enemy in return.
Possibly because Fudge wanted them that way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In what way?
We're given no insight whatsoever into the intricacies of Auror training, or what role, if any, Fudge would have in the process. Besides, Fudge was a pushover, Scrimgoeur was in charge of the Aurors before Fudge was removed, and he didn't really seem like there was a concerted effort to weaken them. And I'd be hesitant to call him weak as well, given that he was killed rather than imperiused when the ministry fell.
But even skilled witches and wizards like Mad Eye and Tonks were Aurors, and still died without so much as denting the enemy ranks.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I missed the part where Snape says "DO NOT CALL ME A COWARD!" Also when Harry wins the Quidditch Cup and comes back to the common room and kisses Ginny.
Oh well.. Can't have everything.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Black Blade, what is wrong with you? That was very rude. I don't have a problem with you. You trying to create one?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the "cloak is impervious to curses" thing comes from the "original" children's story, in which it is strongly implied that the cloak has such powers.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, you mean in The Tales of Beedle the Bard? It is available now from Amazon. The author is J.K. Rowling. Anyone who has a copy, please feel free to let us all know.
By the way, don't wizards/witches have to be able to SEE the person at whom they are trying to cast spells/curses? Maybe not. But I notice they do not seem to be able to cast spells/curses around corners or through solid obstacles. You can even duck out of the way, if you are quick enough.
Well, of course the story works better if the cloak does not block spells/curses.
Black Blade, the person who told me the cloak does block spells and curses claimed this was pointed out in the seventh novel (HP&DH). I have not looked to verify this for myself, though I do have a copy. (Give me a break--it is 759 pages!) I just wondered if anyone else remembered off the top of their head if this were true.
Maybe I should go check some of the Rowling fan sites to see if there is any discussion of this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In the seventh novel, the characters retell the story in Beedle the Bard. I own a copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard, and I'm pretty sure that the cloak is said to block enchantments.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here's what I found in Wicki, which, we all know, is so authoritative ( ):
quote:The Cloak of Invisibility is especially powerful. It is resistant to jinxes, hexes, and other spells which would normally damage or otherwise render a normal Invisibility Cloak ineffective. For example, just before the Battle of Hogwarts in 1998, while Harry, Ron, and Hermione were huddled under it, a Death Eaters' summoning charm had no effect on removing the Cloak of Invisibility. Also it has remained completely effective throughout its long existence, many times that of other cloaks, which lose their power over time.
(I have no clue what they mean by the 1998 date.)
However, in the next paragraph, it says:
quote:While it shields the wearer from sight and cannot be harmed by any class of spell aimed at it, the Cloak does not act as a shield against spells, curses, or hexes, as Harry is affected by the Full Body-Bind Curse curse twice while under the Cloak in Half-Blood Prince.
This seems to be saying the cloak only protects ITSELF from all spells, but is not a shield to those within it. Which does not make a whole lot of sense.
quote: I have no clue what they mean by the 1998 date.)
I believe that's the year these events happen. The series started with the year being 1991 I think.
But yes that was always my impression as well, the cloak itself cannot be the target but the person below it can. Although that shows an error in the movie where Luna lifts the cloak from Harry with her wand.
quote: By the way, don't wizards/witches have to be able to SEE the person at whom they are trying to cast spells/curses? Maybe not. But I notice they do not seem to be able to cast spells/curses around corners or through solid obstacles. You can even duck out of the way, if you are quick enough.
I don't believe this is entirely accurate. For instance in GOF Harry summons his broom from the castle, no way he could have seen that. But I do imagine some spells do require line of sight, especially some curses and hexes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Black Blade, what is wrong with you? That was very rude. I don't have a problem with you. You trying to create one?
Certainly not, were I actively seeking for enemies on this forum there are many candidates more qualified than you. Your reply to Ron in my gut felt kinda mean, so rather than just call you mean, I quoted where Ron got his incorrect idea from.
I figured it was a neutral enough response that if you were not intending to be mean it would just roll off.
edit: If I completely missed your intention than I apologize, would there have been a better way to communicate the source of Ron's confusion?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
It all depends on what tone of voice you hear it in...
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This seems to be saying the cloak only protects ITSELF from all spells, but is not a shield to those within it. Which does not make a whole lot of sense.
Not necessarily; the best chainmail coat in the world isn't going to do its wearer much good if he or she is dipped in acid. Or exposed to poison gas. Though the chainmail itself will probably be fine.
It's a bit weird to argue about the way magic works, but there is a certain odd justice to a design that basically says: "I make you invisible. That's it. And I survive long enough to be passed to the next holder, if you're so foolish that being invisible isn't enough to keep you from harm."
In a way, protecting the wearer from all spells would almost make invisibility redundant, or an afterthought.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Trent, thanks for explaining about the date. Was Rowling really doing that?
Did Luna lift the cloak by magic using her wand, or physically use her wand to remove it? I don't recall that scene that clearly now.
By the way, I do not mind the movie changing it so Luna finds Harry left on the train rather than Tonks. She actually spotted him by seeing the "nargles" hoving over him like gnats. Nargles DO exist! Luna is my favorite character. I think she is just delightful. Maybe bizarre at times, but really sweet. And she is bizarre mainly because she believes in her father, who appears to be someone who does not always verify his facts. Although he seems to have been right about the nargles.
I still find it inexplicable that Draco Malfoy did not take the Cloak of Invisibility for himself.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I can see how someone could misunderstand the cloak's powers.
Dumbledore, pg. 716 of my version: "Both of us could conceal ourselves well enough without the Cloak, the true magic of which, of course, is that it can be used to protect and shield others as well as its owner."
I agree that the cloak is primarily and maybe only for invisibility, but certainly there are other lines like Dumbledore's which would leave room for such a question. It's not a ridiculous question at all.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Thinking back, one of the biggest issues that I have with this movie is that Harry's distrust of Snape is not portrayed. At all. Throughout the book, Harry is extremely distrustful of Snape. More than once he questions Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore's face, and is told that Snape is trustworthy. In the movie, the only place where it is even intimated that Harry doesn't trust Snape (don't confuse trust with dislike here, he hates him just like always) is during the scene at the Burrow where Remus defends him. And Harry agrees pretty quickly there that it is possible that Snape is doing what was asked of him by Dumbledore and as a spy.
Snape's ultimate betrayal was completely lost from the movie as well. In the book, we find out right before Harry goes with Dumbledore to retrieve the locket that Snape is the one who gave the prophecy to Voldemort. This is never even hinted at in the film. Harry would NOT have listened to Snape's gesture of silence in the book because despite what Dumbledore said, Harry believed him to be in league with Voldemort and this was emphasized by the revelation of the delivery of the prophecy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that the perceived betrayal feeling regarding Snape was lost-and most of it could've been saved, I think, had the kept more true to the last confrontation between Potter and Snape, but for whatever reason they didn't. I really don't understand why they didn't-it would've added less than three minutes, tops, I think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Harry suggests on at least two occasions in this movie that Snape is not to be trusted, and he gets shot down. That seems like plenty.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
When is the second? I've seen the movie twice and only recall the scene at the Burrow. And, as I said, he was way to accepting of Remus' possible explanation of his actions.
Regardless, they still left out a huge plot point. Severus Snape is the reason that Harry's parents are dead. He was the one who told the prophecy to Voldemort, causing Harry to be targeted and his parents to be killed. This is a huge betrayal for Harry, because by the end of the book he's been advised ad infinitum that Snape can be trusted. Despite the fact that he doesn't trust Snape, he does trust Dumbledore, and so tries to accept that he can trust Snape (he's relatively unsuccessful but he tries). The discovery that Snape gave up the prophecy and is the reason that he's a target is a huge motivating factor for him against Snape. It's also a betrayal by Dumbledore, who admits to Harry that he knew but didn't tell him.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I don't see it being impossible for that knowledge to come out in the the seventh movie. Somewhere along the way he is told or discovers Snape's involvement concenring the prophecy. This can be done even through a memory of Dumbledore that Harry is studying for clues about the Hocruxes or a journal of Dumbledore's left in Harry's possesion. Both these devises even can be used to fill the plot hole of Dumbledore and Harry never really talking about other possible objects that could be Hocruxes. Journals containing Dumbledore's guesses and musings or raw memories of his that the trio suss out.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
Yeah, but see, I kind of hate the idea of them having to add all these scenes or make changes to Book 7's story (though I know this is all hypothetical) to get all the plot points that already should have been accomplished in HP6.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I have a feeling that what will essentially happen is that the seventh movie, both parts, will be a visual representation of the most dramatic moments of the 7th book and that for actual understanding, you have to have read the book.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Hasn't that been the general practice for nearly all the movies? I remember sitting in POA thinking "I feel sorry for those in the theatre who haven't read the book, becuase they must be so confused". Hitting the high points is common practice in the Harry Potter movies (beyond HBP) and in fact is the practice for many book-to-movie adaptations.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's a two and a half hour long commercial for the books...
But some folks will continue to miss out. : o(
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I work at a summer camp, with kids aged mainly 8 to 12, and it seems that "watch" has now replaced "read" as the main verb associated with Harry Potter.
I don't like or dislike the movies..I find them entertaining but mostly I just ignore them. Harry Potter in my head is so real that I just don't need or care about anything else to do with it. But it feels very weird to think of so many kids whose only notion of Harry Potter is from the movies.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
That is weird, since only a few years ago Harry Potter was getting praise for encouraging kids to like reading again.
My kids aren't allowed to see the movies until they've read the books.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have a feeling that what will essentially happen is that the seventh movie, both parts, will be a visual representation of the most dramatic moments of the 7th book and that for actual understanding, you have to have read the book.
It's funny 'cause it's true.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Why did Lupin, Tonks, and Arthur suddenly forget how to turn into white columns of smoke during the Death Eater attack at Christmas? They seemed able enough in the previous movie. Rather than mess around with manipulating the wall of fire, they could have simply Apparated ten feet and caught Harry and Ginny within seconds.
If the wall of fire for some reason prevented Apparition, then they should have shown that, rather than me having to infer.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji: Why did Lupin, Tonks, and Arthur suddenly forget how to turn into white columns of smoke during the Death Eater attack at Christmas? They seemed able enough in the previous movie. Rather than mess around with manipulating the wall of fire, they could have simply Apparated ten feet and caught Harry and Ginny within seconds.
If the wall of fire for some reason prevented Apparition, then they should have shown that, rather than me having to infer.
The books were also very inconsistent in the magic system.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
And it would have made the scene pointless. Although some believe it was pointless to begin with.
Who is to say that they didn't apparate a few momentes after Ginny broke out after Harry? To answer why they didn't do that first off, it seemed that the flames had a mind of their own and were actively trying to attack Lupin and Tonks. They were swiping with theirs wands trying to hold the flames at bay which in turn allowed Ginny a moment to get through.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: That is weird, since only a few years ago Harry Potter was getting praise for encouraging kids to like reading again.
It seems to now be a whole generation ago...
Or maybe they're just too young.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Well, one problem I'm seeing is that parents are introducing Harry Potter way too young. People are watching the movies with or reading the books to their first graders or even younger...some friends of mine have started reading them to their 4-year-old! (They say they're going to stop at book 2 for now.) The books are targeted at much older and more mature readers. Yes, they're for young adults but that is about 11-17, the age that Harry Potter is in the books. I can understand the eagerness of new parents to share something they love with their children, but when they're really too young to read the books all that's left is the movie. They are full of plenty of pretty action scenes that can entertain even a preschooler.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
Not exactly. They say writers should typically write a main character 2-3 years older than their intended audience. It's a subtle distinction, but there are definitely some published YA books that break this rule.
That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character. The last 4 books, in particular, I wouldn't think are suitable for a child younger than middle school.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Tara: True, but don't they say that YA books are usually most suitable for kids 3 years younger than the main character? I started reading HP when I was 8, which I think was a good age.
That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character. The last 4 books, in particular, I wouldn't think are suitable for a child younger than middle school.
Oh yeah, good point...I forgot about the fact that there were only 3 books back then. Not as many cold-blooded murders at that point.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Many literary critics agree that the HP books turned significantly "darker" with Goblet of Fire. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character.
Except that that was only feasible when the books were coming out one per year. Now, my eight-year-old would tear through them all in about two weeks. And I think it would be cruel to give him the first three and make him wait until he was twelve to read the rest. So I'll be giving him the entire series then. Or maybe a year later. The problem is that he has a sister eighteen months younger than he is, so they tend to read everything simultaneously. So I might make him wait until she's old enough. Hmm...food for thought.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character.
Except that that was only feasible when the books were coming out one per year. Now, my eight-year-old would tear through them all in about two weeks. And I think it would be cruel to give him the first three and make him wait until he was twelve to read the rest. So I'll be giving him the entire series then. Or maybe a year later. The problem is that he has a sister eighteen months younger than he is, so they tend to read everything simultaneously. So I might make him wait until she's old enough. Hmm...food for thought.
This is why I plan to give these to my kids to read when they are in middle school. Of course, the oldest is 3.5 so that's a long way from now, but I just think that these books are older than 8 or even 10. Maybe when they're 11 and 13 I can re-read them with my kids and enjoy them as if they're new again.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
If I have kids I don't think I would even suggest reading Harry Potter. As soon as they ask to borrow my copy, that's when I'll know they are ready to read it. In fact I'm not all together concerned that they're reading Harry Potter now that i think about it. As long as they are reading and they are enjoying it, that would probably be good enough for me. If asked a recommendation surely HP would come up eventually, but it isn't one of my parenting milestones I wish upon my kids.
Harry Potter has meant something to me, something that can never be reproduced for my kids because I was right in this time when it was happening. I was growing up with it in my life. There was more to HP than the books or the movies, it was the culture, the times. And while I feel bad that others won't experience that in the future, I've no doubt that some craze will strike upon their generation that hopefully will have an equal impact.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
PSI and Christine-- do you always decide when to "give books" to your kids? What if they don't want to read what you want to "give them"? Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: PSI and Christine-- do you always decide when to "give books" to your kids? What if they don't want to read what you want to "give them"?
They can read what they want. My biggest hope for them is that they enjoy reading something. Perhaps I should say I will not allow them to read these books until they are in middle school. As a parent, I am allowed to determine what is age appropriate reading material.
But in point of fact, with reading and many other things, I do think about when I will start introducing those things to my child. It is a natural part of parenting that we think fondly on things we enjoy and think of ways to share those things with our children. The good parent understands that their child will not always enjoy or even accept these things and allows their child to be who they are anyway. It doesn't mean we don't dream. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tara: I home school my children, so the answer, largely, is yes. I give them books to read, for school, or approve the ones they choose for themselves at the library. When I say I will "give" them HP I suppose what I mean to say is I will allow them to read it. I doubt I'll ever assign HP as school reading; it'll be up to them if they're interested enough to want to give it a go.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Psi Teleport, I would not want to read all seven HP books straight through, myself. I would prefer to read just one, then go read something entirely different, and then come back to the next book in the series.
It is a matter of literary surfeit. Feeling overfed or something--like living exclusively on potato chips for a week. Once during Christmas break when I was attending college I decided to remain on campus rather than go home, and I read Tolkien's entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. I came away from the experience not thinking very well of the trilogy. I thought for years it was tedious and boring. It was not until years later when I tried reading it again, at a more leisurely pace, that I realized I actually did like it a lot. Somehow just getting it all at once was what had made it turn into something tiresome and unenjoyable to me.
I am careful about that now. I have recently been reading David Weber's Honor Harrington series of novels, and also Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series of novels. I intersperse them, and sometimes read something entirely different (like the latest L.E. Modesitt Jr. novel), and that keeps everything fresh for me.
Well, I am now getting a little bored with Jordan--in the later novels he seems to be just padding out the books, which just go on and on before he does anything to advance the plot.
But I still love all the Honor Harrington novels. I'm currently reading The Shadow of Saganami, having already read the whole main series up to the latest. It is still fully enjoyable (although I wish there were more Treecats in Saganami).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Soooo many posts!
Just saw it, I liked it, wished they had the battle though, they're outa be a trope for this: "You've Been Shired" or something, first the LoTR losing a important section, now Harry Potter, any other examples?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
How important really was it? Snape and his Death Eater companions fought their way out of Hogwarts (in the novel), instead of just sneaking out. That's not so big a deal. They still got out of Hogwarts, and Harry still confronted Snape and Snape did not kill Harry when he could have. The big battle scene will come in the final, eighth movie. The Seige of Hogwarts had better not be left out!
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
I'm sure they're plenty other examples of important (or at least fan-favorite) scenes being excised in book-to-movie adaptations, but I can't think of any off the top of my head (the only other thing I can think of is actually also from LOTR: the scene where Frodo draws on the power of the ring and tells Gollum that if he ever touches him again he'll be cast into flame). I gotta second "You've Been Shired" for a new pop-culture trope, though. It amuses me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I made a discussion page here.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: That said, I think starting HP at around 8 is fine, especially if you read a book a year and grow with the character.
Except that that was only feasible when the books were coming out one per year. Now, my eight-year-old would tear through them all in about two weeks. And I think it would be cruel to give him the first three and make him wait until he was twelve to read the rest. So I'll be giving him the entire series then. Or maybe a year later....
This is why I plan to give these to my kids to read when they are in middle school. Of course, the oldest is 3.5 so that's a long way from now, but I just think that these books are older than 8 or even 10. Maybe when they're 11 and 13 I can re-read them with my kids and enjoy them as if they're new again.
I did it ... my oldest reads way beyond his years and was really ready for HP when he was eight, and I loved it so much I was looking forward to sharing it with him. So I let him read book 1 when he was 8 and made him wait a year for each subsequent book, so he would grow up with Harry, and so he would understand better what was going on (because I do agree, the later books are not 8-year-old books). Now it's a tradition in our family. Second child just turned 10 yesterday and was so excited to get to read Prisoner of Azkaban, she's already halfway through. Third child is seven and can't wait until he's eight and can begin the series.
Keeping spoilers is sometimes hard, though.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Wow, JennaDean, more power to you! I think it is fantastic that you are doing it this way. Whenever parents asked me what age I thought their kids should read it, I always said that matching the age of Harry was a good start, just a year or two younger would probably be okay. Whether they took my recommendations or not, I don't know, but seeing someone actually able to put such a philosophy into place with their own children is great!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I liked the movie, mostly because of how they handled Ginny. She is a great character.
____
I've finally given up and started reading the books. I'm half-way through the third, and I'm pleasantly surprised with how much I like Hermione. She comes off so shrill in the movies, whereas in the books, she seems sweet, wise, and principled. I pretty much hated the Hermione of the movies and like the Hermione of the books just fine.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I liked the movie, mostly because of how they handled Ginny. She is a great character.
Well, I would have preferred that they had actually dated at some point... but a long series of awkward, sexual-tension-filled moments works too, I guess.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm making my way through the books, and they are fine, not outstanding but good. Harry is a bit boring. He can be replaced by any of the other male protagonists of any major fantasy series, and probably not as morally interesting as Jon Snow from the Song of Fire and Ice or Garion from all of those David Eddings' books. If anything he is more passive or self-involved than those heroes are. But I feel like he doesn't have to be that interesting because Hermione is awesome. She is the reason I'm going to finish the series. She isn't perfect, but she is a fascinating, engaged, decisive, and moral. More than any of the other characters, she takes being a good wizard and a good person seriously and is willing to work for it. Man, did the movies blow her character. Rowling is setting Ginny up well, too.
Now, I'm in the middle of the fourth book, and I hope the three Quidditch ladies get some great non-Quidditch moment before the series expires. Angelina, Katie, and Alicia put it on the line, season after season, and if I were king of the world. the last book would have Angelina Johnson grabbing a dropped horcrux, running out of the room, jumping out of a window or off the nearest rooftop while someone flings her a broom in mid-air, then racing off through a gauntlet of Dark Wizards, trying to destroy her. They deserve it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Luna Lovegod better get her own movie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Man, did the movies blow her character.
I'm curious why you think so. What about her depiction in the films suggests that she isn't earnest, fascinating, engaged, decisive, or moral -- or takes being good very seriously?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I actually felt like the book-movie transfer went okay with Hermione.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I think Ron got the much shorter end of that stick.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
True, Hermione has been given several of Ron's lines in the movies. Chamber of Secrets was the most prominent I think. It was Ron who explained what a "Mudblood" was in the books, Hermione was not entirely sure what it meant. Ron also took a much bigger part in explaining why it was not good that Harry was a Parselmouth. In the movie Hermione got pretty much all the dialog.
Ron's been pretty much relegated to a side-kick character in the movies. He comes off as that to an extent in the books as well, but not to the extent that he is in the movies.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I have yet to see the sixth one, but people's comments about Ron's "funniness" "coming back" and so forth lead me to think that this problem is not fixed in the sixth movie.
Of course, it's not really that it needs to be fixed. It is what it is. The movies and the books are on different tracks, and by and large, I've been okay with the differences. I love Snape in both the books and the movies, but I don't find Snape remotely funny in the books. And he's delightful on screen. I would never call him delightful in the books.
I'm yammering.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Part of that, is that Alan Rickman has known for a long time exactly which side Snape is really loyal to. Rowling swore him to secrecy but gave him the information since it was necessary to a good performance. As a result, he has been able to inject some humor into an otherwise completely odious character.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
In can understand how that would affect his performance but it seems like the screenplay writers haven't been playing up his dark side in awhile, particularly this most recent film. In the movies it seems pretty obvious that Snape is the side of good. There's not going to be any surprise. His final moments aren't going to be all that moving. In the books he's just so nasty and vindictive that it makes his good choices all that more monumental.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Although I think they should have kept in a lot more of Harry's concern regarding Snape, a lot of that simply has to do with the film length. They simply can't show every class the kids take and have the other stuff. Snape was mean outside of class and detention but that's where all of Harry's primary interactions with him were. It makes it difficult.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I find the Hermione of the movies screechy and obnoxious. I find the Hermione of the books daring and darling, even her misguided in her attempts to organize the house-elves in the fourth book, her willingness to brew up the Polyjuice potion in the Chamber of Secrets, her shrinking her teeth, and her thoughtful considering of Snape. She is interesting. Throughout the books, I think the boys would do better to listen to Hermione, and that they don't is a matter of their poor judgment. In the movies, Hermione is more childish in her rule following, and Ron's and Harry's exasperation with her seems founded. That's my read of the situation. I would have liked to see less Tri-wizard tournament and Yule Ball in the Goblet of Fire movie and more scenes dealing with what to do about the house elves. I think the latter has a more provocative message.
[ August 05, 2009, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I find the Hermione of the movies screechy and obnoxious.
Wow. I find Ron screechy and obnoxious, but I think Watson's Granger is dead-on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I find the Hermione of the movies screechy and obnoxious.
Wow. I find Ron screechy and obnoxious, but I think Watson's Granger is dead-on.
I agree with Tom these days more often than is normal. I really like the movie version of Hermione, I'm very frustrated with how cruelly the movies deal with Ron, especially this last one. By the time the Deathly Hallows comes out,
*massive spoilers* Ron abandoning Harry and Hermione just won't have an emotional impact for me, as he doesn't really bring much to the table anyway.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)