So, I've a horrible habit of not understanding the search button, and my eyes tend to miss threads that already exist. But I've checked rather thoroughly this time...
Is there really not a Harry Potter movie thread yet?
I went to the premiere last night. Getting to my job at 8:30 this morning was not fun, but it was so worth it.
I thought it moved really, really fast in the beginning. I had some quibbles, but I loved it overall. And, I think between this and the last movie, viewers who haven't read the books will be relatively able to follow along with the plot, unlike viewers of The Goblet of Fire, for instance.
Thoughts?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll post about it when I've seen the movie.
Saturday.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was happy with it. I thought they handled Snape beautifully and did Neville justice, which were the two things I wanted out the movie. I had lots of little quibbles, but was happy enough with those two things to come out of the movie satisfied.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The epilogue was hilariously bad. People in the theater actually burst out laughing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So it was a faithful adaptation of the epilogue, is what you're saying?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My wife and I used to make it a ritual to go see the HP movies as soon as they came out...of course since we had children this became a bit harder.
I've read the books, my wife hasn't. So, the last one we went to was Half Blood Prince...and my wife fell asleep in the theater...and so now I don't get to see Deadly Hallows 1 or 2 in the theater.
And for the record Richard Harris is the ONLY Dumbldore, Michael Gambon sucks hard, especially in Goblet of Fire, the worst directed, acted, scripted and overall quality of all the adaptations.
Damn you Richard Harris, I'm so mad at you for dying I could kill you!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So it was a faithful adaptation of the epilogue, is what you're saying?
I lol'd.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So it was a faithful adaptation of the epilogue, is what you're saying?
I lol'd.
More or less, but they added barely any make up to the actors to make them look older (and what they did add was comically bad). It resulted in 19 year-olds walking around with 11 year-old kids. This resulted in everyone walking out of the theater talking about how good Harry looked for 40.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I thought Ron had aged convincingly.
I also bought Danielle Radcliffe as a dad, and thought he looked sweet.
Ginny and Hermione, not so much. Which is sad. Because I thought in the epilogue they might have given Ginny a third line or something.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
They didn't add the super-tearjerker line though. That made me sad. But, in a different way.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I want more of an epilogue than that. What about George? wouldnt it have been nice to see George in teachers robes welcoming students to Hogwarts and looking a boy over knowingly, only to put his hand out and confiscate some kind of contraband. Or Neville and Luna, I cant stand that the last image of those two is Luna being Luna while Neville sits there basking in how awesome he is. Maybe an elderly McGonagal sitting in the headmistress position in the hall looking out over the children.
The movies have never kept to the books religously, so why not endeavor to please the non-reading audience?
Is it just me or did Malfoy look a very hard forty? his father was what... late forties, early fifties? and until they made him grizzly he was always quite handsome but Malfoy must have been spending alot of time in Diagon Alley.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So it was a faithful adaptation of the epilogue, is what you're saying?
This is pretty much why I lost interest in most things Harry Potter, and still haven't seen the first seventh movie. That stupid silly epilogue.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Wow.
It was, like, three pages.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I liked it. I had forgotten so much from the seventh book, a lot of Snape's revelations were new to me.
I'm sad the saga's over, though. Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The epilogue was hilariously bad. People in the theater actually burst out laughing.
The audience at the theater I went to cheered in the epilogue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Obviously your crowd was the canon shippers.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The epilogue was hilariously bad. People in the theater actually burst out laughing.
The audience at the theater I went to cheered in the epilogue.
I saw the midnight release. The crowd in my theatre cheered whenever anyone did anything.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Anyone holding their breath for adult Harry the auror (sp) books?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The epilogue was hilariously bad. People in the theater actually burst out laughing.
The audience at the theater I went to cheered in the epilogue.
I saw the midnight release. The crowd in my theatre cheered whenever anyone did anything.
Also midnight. The two times that the audience cheered were when Mrs. Weasley called Bellatrix a bitch then when Weasley killed her.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
I also went to the midnight release. They kept all the audiences for eleven theaters out in the parking lot and everyone cheered when one of the lines would be led inside. Lots of Potterheads in full robes and the like. That was fun.
Our audience was pretty mellow. Almost no kids, few teenagers, and probably 80% in the 20 and older bracket. I think the PG-13 rating should be taken seriously. I saw two kids, around the age of 10, and they looked shell-shocked and overwhelmed afterwards.
I enjoyed the movie. I had only seen Avatar and Up in 3D previously and this is the first time I noticed the 'dim' quality to the picture that I've heard talked about with 3D conversion. Now, I want to see it again in 2D. Curious to see how they compare.
I agree with Strider--lots of quibbles, but generally pleased, especially with Neville and Snape. Looking back, the Gringotts sequence at the beginning was strong. I didn't have a problem with the epilogue, but I also didn't have a problem with the canon epilogue. *shrug* Good thing I brought tissues. I was pretty teary through the middle section, largely because it brought me back to when I read it the first time... inconsolable for some parts. The books spanned 10+ years of my life from age 13, so for me, the emotional investment diminishes where the movies fall short. I think this one fell short the least.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
My friends and I went to the midnight showing as well. We were actually the first in line (much to the entertainment of everyone else in the theater.) But I love the atmosphere of midnight films and I had tickets to the Part 1 and Part 2 double-feature. We built Harry Potter legos and played Harry Potter Clue to keep ourselves entertained while waiting.
The audience was great. Almost the entire theater full of Part 1 viewers came in costume. The highlights included a man dressed as Umbridge and a Hagrid in stilts and the world's smallest, most adorable Harry. Personally, I wore my Hufflepuff costume. I think I saw one other Slytherin student and a few Ravenclaws (who spent quite a bit of time in the bathroom arguing about the correct house colors. Aww, fangirls.) Otherwise, it was red and gold as far as the eye could see.
Before Part 2 started, the theater manager announced that they had successfully sold out the ENTIRE building, all fourteen screens for Harry Potter. My audience was very well-behaved. A few appropriate laughs, lots of quiet sniffling during the sad scenes, and a big applauding cheer during Neville's moment of awesomeness!
Overall, I'm just the tiniest bit disappointed. I had read so many interviews describing the second film as one giant action-packed battle, but the fighting scenes were actually very short. I would have loved to see more of the actual battle. Hogwarts students and beloved characters defending the castle!! Considering how dark and upsetting Snape's death was, it was obvious they weren't shying away from the darkness of the final book. I just felt like, on the whole, the battle wasn't as devastating as it felt in the books.
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!
But I'm still impressed by how well the movie works once they cut down Rowling's overly complicated storyline. Deathly Hallows in the other book in the series that I've only read once. The movies did a great job of keeping the important plot points. I would have like alittle more background on the Horcruxes and why Voldemort chose the ones he did, but atleast Snape's big reveal was handled very well. It was absolutely heart-wrenching and not an easy task to shove so much background into a quick montage.
I also like some of the little changes like how the director has handled the Malfoy storyline. It gives certain scenes an extra weight that they didn't have in the book. And the Neville/Luna pairing was an interesting change.
As for the epilogue, I don't think the make-up was so bad, atleast compared to the photos I saw of the first attempt. I actually remember thinking that Radcliffe did a great job with the posturing of someone who was older and now a father. Still, it doesn't change how much I hate the epilogue as a whole. But as with so many things related to this particular book, I think the director did alot of good with alot of poor material.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht:
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The epilogue was hilariously bad. People in the theater actually burst out laughing.
The audience at the theater I went to cheered in the epilogue.
I saw the midnight release. The crowd in my theatre cheered whenever anyone did anything.
Also midnight. The two times that the audience cheered were when Mrs. Weasley called Bellatrix a bitch then when Weasley killed her.
For what it's worth, everyone in my family literally cheered when that happened in the book too, (we took turns reading it aloud so there wouldn't be a war over who got to read it first).
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Betwixt: Our audience was pretty mellow. Almost no kids, few teenagers, and probably 80% in the 20 and older bracket. I think the PG-13 rating should be taken seriously. I saw two kids, around the age of 10, and they looked shell-shocked and overwhelmed afterwards.
Thank you. This is something I've been specifically wondering about. I have a 14 year old with developmental delays that set her at about age 6 mentally.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Maybe its just me, but her death was anti-climactic. LeStrange had the single most disturbing scene of the franchise, only to be inexplicably out gunned by a pissed off house wife. LeStrange was a professional killer, her pure malicious intent frightened the wizarding world and she is noted as being the most dangerous death-eater under Voldemorts employ.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
AH: And Voldemort was the badest ass evil wizard ever, yet Lilly Potter's love protected Harry against a deathblow. Mrs. Weasley is also a mom, protecting her babies.
The lesson here is: moms rule.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Overall, I liked it a lot. Probably my favorite from the series.
Really, it was Snape that made the movie for me. He made the book for me as well, and Alan Rickman's performance was amazing.
I'll agree that the epilogue was silly, but it didn't detract from the experience for me. Still, I can't help but thinking that a movie with the budget of Harry Potter couldn't afford some better aging makeup/special effects...
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: AH: And Voldemort was the badest ass evil wizard ever, yet Lilly Potter's love protected Harry against a deathblow. Mrs. Weasley is also a mom, protecting her babies.
The lesson here is: moms rule.
Didnt Dumbledore say something to Snape along the lines of "the protection spell we put on" in the flash-back? If Im right then the spell they used to protect James and Lilly is what saved Harry's life, and they had previously left everyone in the dark to hide Snape's involvement so he could play the long term mole. It would have been better if LeStrange killed Fred and Mrs. Weasley just goes psycho on her after seeing her son die, but the way they barely fit that scene in was a waste of perfectly good character to kill.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
But Rookwood killed Fred.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I stopped reading the books years ago, and the movie certainly didnt tell me who killed Fred. As a matter of fact, who is Rookwood?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would have liked to see some of the fight scenes go on longer. The Weasley/Lestrange fight was too short. McGonagall was a total badass in one or two scenes, and I would have liked to see a lot more of that, like watching her duel in the Great Hall like she did in the book. The little scene where she briefly fights Snape was absolutely awesome. More please!
My biggest quibble? He didn't fix his wand. Would have taken two seconds. Other than that, it was fine.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
See, I think the Weasley/Lestrange fight was too long. I think the suddenness of the violence as depicted in the book worked better than a long drawn out fight. Molly was just pissed off beyond measure, and suddenly Bellatrix was dead.
I wish it had been more like that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Didnt Dumbledore say something to Snape along the lines of "the protection spell we put on" in the flash-back? If Im right then the spell they used to protect James and Lilly is what saved Harry's life...
I haven't seen the movie, but in the book it is Lilly's love that protects Harry, and the protection spell they put on Harry is to continue that Lilly love protection on Harry whenever Harry is home...but I could be wrong, it's been awhile.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I'm not really a HP fan, i dont think too highly of most of the books and i have thought less of the movies. However i must say the Deathly Hallows Duology are very good. I was pleased with the movies and felt that (to my memory) they stuck to the book pretty accuratly (no elves at Helms Deep)
I would certainly recommend it.
Did these two movies have different directors/writers? because it seems like these movies are much better than the previous six.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Steve Kloves was the screenwriter for all of the movies with the exception of Order of the Phoenix (movie 5.) Micheal Goldenburg was responsible for that film.
David Yates was the director for films 5-7. He's also the only British director of the bunch. Chris Columbus did 1 and 2, Alfonso Cuaron did 3, and Mike Newell filmed 4.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Azkaban is still my favorite book and movie.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Emreecheek, I posted a new thread on the new Harry Potter movie back on Friday, on AI Jane.
I got to the theatre an hour ahead of time Friday, so I was able to get a good seat. I made it to the first, matinee showing at 11 AM, which only cost $6.25. I brought a book with me to read. There were a lot of people, but it was not packed. I had empty seats on either side of me, and the theatre had a steep amphitheatre seating, so no one in the row ahead could block my view.
I thought the 3D effect was well done. Nothing seemed overdone or distracting. Everything seemed "right." Some people complain that the polarized glasses (which are essentially sunglasses) with other 3D movies have tended to make some of the scenes too dark--but it looked to me like the people who did the 3D version of HP 7.2 compensated for this by making the 3D version a little brighter.
By the way, I took with me the set of 3D glasses I got when I saw Avatar in 3D. I was glad I did, because they were a little bigger and better in quality than the ones they handed out with the tickets Friday. The older ones fit over my glasses better.
As you would expect, the storyline was a little accelerated, with a few plot turns somewhat telescoped together, and a few minor details that did not really advance the plot left out. But everything that needed to be there was there. So I was satisfied. Most other people I have seen who have commented on this seem to agree.
Lots of people cheered in my theatre when Bellatrix L'Estrange got blown to bits in her duel with Molly Weasley--just like in the book. Odd that they did not look like bloody bits, though. She seemed to be blown up into confetti. Same with Voldemort.
I am not certain how clear everything will be to someone who has not read the book, but everything seemed to be explained that needed explaining (and there are some complicated plot elements that all get sewn up in this episode).
The last five or so minutes of the movie were set 19 years in the future, when supposedly adult Harry and Jennie Potter, Ron and Hermione Weasley, Draco Malfoy and his wife, and their children, were at the train station where they were sending their children off to Hogwarts. I agree with JonHecht that the makeup people did not do a very good job of "aging" the appearance of the principal stars.
I agree with aragorn64--Alan Rickman was amazing. Especially the flashback scene where he was utterly grief-stricken in a kind of wordless howling, as he held up the dead body of Lilly Potter, with whom he had been hopelessly in love since childhood. Rickman was the best actor of the whole cast. He will forever "own" the role of Severus Snape. I hope that does not hinder him from getting another acting role. He has made other movies in the past. I loved him in Galaxy Quest.
One minor criticism, or perhaps more a question. Voldemort decided that the Elder wand did not acknowledge him as its true master, because he was not the one who actually killed Dumbledore (who had been the master of the Elder wand.) Voldemort was under the mistaken impression that in order to become master of the Elder wand, you had to kill its previous master. But it turned out that you only had to disarm the previous master, and it was Draco Malfoy who actually disarmed Dumbledore. (Remember, while Dumbledore was holding his wand in his hand, he spread his arms sideways and said, "I'll make it easier for you." Thus allowing Draco to disarm him.) Then later in Malfoy Manor, Harry Potter forcibly disarmed Draco, wrenching his wand away from him. Even though it was not the Elder Wand, the implication is that the Elder wand accepted that as sufficient to transfer mastership of itself to Harry.
Anyway, my criticism is this: Thinking that he had to kill Snape to become master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort let Nagini kill Snape. Then Voldemort went off before Snape was completely dead. Maybe my logic is a little too particular here, but this does not work for me. Unless somehow making Nagini the master of the Elder Wand is enough to make Voldemort the master of the wand. I know Nagini didn't have hands, and as a living "horcrux" Nagini has a piece of Voldemort's "soul" in him, but come on. Voldemort wanted to make sure the wand recognized him as its master.
There is one trailer out, and a poster, that shows all of Hogwarts castle engulfed in flame. I was glad to see that in the movie, that did not happen. There was some fire in places in the castle and around the castle, but the castle did not burn up. Which would have been too much of a departure from the book, IMO. (Besides the castle is mostly made of stone.) That would have been even worse than the gratuitous burning up of the Weasley burrow in Half-Blood Prince. Of course in Deathly Hallows I, they show the Weasley burrow rebuilt--but no one mentoned it. I thought someone should have.
[ July 17, 2011, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One minor criticism, or perhaps more a question. Voldemort decided that the Elder wand did not acknowledge him as its true master, because he was not the one who actually killed Dumbledore (who had been the master of the Elder wand.) Voldemort was under the mistaken impression that in order to become master of the Elder wand, you had to kill its previous master. But it turned out that you only had to disarm the previous master, and it was Draco Malfoy who actually disarmed Dumbledore. (Remember, while Dumbledore was holding his wand in his hand, he spread his arms sideways and said, "I'll make it easier for you." Thus allowing Draco to disarm him.) Then later in Malfoy Manor, Harry Potter forcibly disarmed Draco, wrenching his wand away from him. Even though it was not the Elder Wand, the implication is that the Elder wand accepted that as sufficient to transfer mastership of itself to Harry.
Anyway, my criticism is this: Thinking that he had to kill Snape to become master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort let Nagini kill Snape. Then Voldemort went off before Snape was completely dead. Maybe my logic is a little too particular here, but this does not work for me. Unless somehow making Nagini the master of the Elder Wand is enough to make Voldemort the master of the wand. I know Nagini didn't have hands, and as a living "horcrux" Nagini has a piece of Voldemort's "soul" in him, but come on. Voldemort wanted to make sure the wand recognized him as its master.
All of the Elder Wand business gets a bit convoluted, certainly. As I recall from the book, Voldemort followed the myth, believing that taking the wand from Dumbledore's tomb was adequate (physical ownership of the wand itself). When the wand isn't obeying him, he imagines that mastery requires both physically taking the wand AND killing/disarming the previous owner. From Voldemort's perspective, he might have thought that Snape had a kind of half-ownership, since he had killed Dumbledore, but had not taken the wand. Likewise, Voldemort would have a half-ownership since he holds the wand, but did not kill the previous master. That's how I figure he came to the conclusion that killing Snape would grant him full mastery. Convoluted.
As for Nagini, maybe it's only the book making me feel this way, but in the canon Nagini is hyper-connected to Voldemort. The snake is a horcrux, so there's that, but also seems completely controlled by Voldemort's will. So I think Voldemort would assume his commanding Nagini to "Kill" was equal to killing Snape himself. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the movie accurately, but doesn't Voldemort slash Snape in the throat before he commands Nagini? If it is to be considered a plothole, maybe the movie version fills it in more than the book for that reason. Someone might have a better explanation though. Otherwise, Voldie is weakened and getting desperate at that point. It's not outside of reason that his reasoning is cloudy.
I don't know if the warning is necessary, but...
************MOVIE SPOILER just in case************ Alan Rickman, and so much of the cast, had incredible performances, but one in particular struck me today. Helena playing Hermione playing Bellatrix as the trio heads to Gringotts. I think Helena did such an amazing job acting like Emma/Hermione that I was completely convinced it was Hermione simply 'wearing' Bellatrix's skin. Crazy. Oh, and the non-canon part where you witness Lily's last moments with baby Harry and the last things she says to him... Oh my, that completely destroyed me. Getting weepy all over again. *************END MOVIE SPOILER just in case************ Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am not certain how clear everything will be to someone who has not read the book, but everything seemed to be explained that needed explaining (and there are some complicated plot elements that all get sewn up in this episode).
About half the people that sat in the row behind me had aparently not read the books (or as it seemed, seen little of the other movies)and were vocally asking questions as to what was going on or why something happened or who someone was. The "expert" that attempted to answer their questions seemed to be having a difficult time in explaining the plot.
That being said the wand loophole and the Harry's non-death were two reasons that i disliked the last book. I also disliked (in the book) how Rowling killed off Snape. It seemed like Snape didnt see it coming and was rather weakly killed off. Im glad the movie added a bit more to it, though i suppose it will always strike me as odd that someone so dark, cleaver, and (i assume) powerful would not have defended himself in that situation.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The whole point of the deathly hallows was that the person who owned all three would be "master of death. And Harry owned all three--the invisibility cloak (inherited from his father), the resurrection stone (contained in the golden snitch), and the Elder Wand (unbeknownst to Voldemort). Also, it was really Voldemort's own soul lodged in Harry (making Harry a horcrux himself) that was killed. So Harry could at least choose to return to life if he wanted to.
Oh yes, a third reason Harry survived--the Elder wand regarded Harry as its true master, so it would not have killed Harry, only the part of Voldemort that was in Harry.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I get what she intended to do. It just was disappointing. Seemed like a cop-out. Especially if the wand-logic was what solidifies him as master of death, because there doesnt seem to be any concrete way to tell how someone gets control of the elder wand.
One person kills the owner in his sleep (without disarming him in a duel)
one person simply steals it from another.
At least two of the owners disarmed the person using it without killing them.
One person disarmed someone that was not using it and still got command of it.
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.
I guess its a bit nit-picky to analyze a fantasy book about magic this way. Its just something that took away from my reading experience.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I went to a midnight showing. We bought 2D tickets, but were forced (yes, using that word) to watch the movie in 3D. They switched the theater to 3D, and by the time they announced it, there were no available seats in a different auditorium.
I enjoyed it, with some minor complaints. In the book, Harry walks out of Hogwarts without speaking to anyone but Neville before facing Voldemort. I feel that Ron and Hermione would have stopped him if they'd known what he was going to do. I can live with the change, however.
As for the prologue: I thought the makeup was well done. Harry looked exactly how I imagine the actor will age in 19 years. The only person who didn't seem old enough was Hermione. Not sure what the issue is, unless the 3D made it look more convincing. I felt it was subtle enough to be realistic. Most aging makeup is overdone and just silly.
In our theater, no one laughed or scoffed during that scene, except for a few chuckles at Ron's big stomach.
I was surprised at how violent and intense the movie was. It was accurate but still disturbing. Young children should not be seeing this film, yet those ignorant of the Harry Potter franchise consider the movies/books for children. I hope parents out there pay attention to that PG-13 rating.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I thought there was a scene between Harry, Hermione, and Ron before he went into the forest. They were on a staircase and Hermione gives Harry a hug and he and Ron share a look.
I'm not sure if they knew exactly what Harry was planning or if they just understood that there's always a moment when Harry has to step up on his own, and perhaps they just realized that (for bettet or worse) this was to be Voldemort's and Harry's final confrontation.
And yeah, the wand logic is VERY fuzzy. The Elder Wand and Ginny Weasley are tied for the thing which I hate most about the series.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Shanna, why do you hate Ginny Weasley? I would have preferred that Harry marry Hermione, but Ginny was the author's choice, and for me R.K. Rowling walks on water. Right up there with Tolkien. So, *shrug*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The media is reporting that the opening weekend domestic box office for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 has broken several records, including having the highest grossing opening weekend of all time, at $168.6 million. Other records broken were highest box office gross for postmidnight screenings on Friday ever, and breaking the record for all-time highest single-day gross with $92.1 million.
As of Saturday, the film had collected $157.5 million in 59 foreign markets since it opened on Wednesday in some overseas markets. It "will have grossed a whopping $307 million overseas, according to estimates, marking the biggest international weekend ever. The film performed best in the United Kingdom, where it collected $36.6 million, as well as Australia, where it made $26.7 million." Link: http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/life/13912-final-harry-potter-film-breaks-records-has-highest-grossing-domestic-opening-of-all-time Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I always liked Ginny, she had guts, brains, was well grounded and (in the movies) was cute.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And for the record Richard Harris is the ONLY Dumbldore, Michael Gambon sucks hard, especially in Goblet of Fire, the worst directed, acted, scripted and overall quality of all the adaptations.
Damn you Richard Harris, I'm so mad at you for dying I could kill you!
As much of a Richard Harris fan I am, he seemed like he was wheezing and dying in every scene as Dumbledore. No doubt due to his advanced age. I thought Gambon did a great job, and was more realistic as a physical, old by not on the doorstep of death, character.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I find Ginny boring. She was so obviously set-up was Harry's "one true love." But I don't think she's as interesting or well-developed as Rowling's other female characters. With someone like Hermione, she had alot of admirable traits. Hard-working, brave, intelligent, and loyal. But she was also flawed. She was bossy, insecure, and had to learn to control her abrasive way of speaking to people.
I didn't want Hermione with Harry but I would have liked to be able to think of Ginny as anything more than Harry's red-headed destiny. There are almost no scenes of Harry and Ginny hanging out and developing a chemistry. All I know about Ginny is that she spent years pining after Harry and she's apparently super-awesome at magic. No endearing quirks or flaws.
Personally, I thought Harry and Luna complimented each other well. As for Ginny, I actually thought she would have been a good match for Neville. I was watching Goblet of Fire the other day and thinking about how cute they looked together during the dance scene.
Rowling is the master of her own universe, but as a reader I still have the power to like or dislike the choices she makes. Just because i LOVE the first book, doesn't mean I have to love the final book (wish I did though).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I always thought that part of the appeal of Ginny (beyond her individual qualities) was that Harry would have a more official adoption into the Weasley family...Mr and Mrs Weasley were the closest thing to parents Harry had...marrying into the family had to be appealing.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
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.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
So am I missing something here, or is Snape Harry's real father? I mean, it was kind of implied a few different times...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
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. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Didn't they leave out the explanation of why Lily rejected Snape?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
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. * * * * * * *
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
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.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
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.
This.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
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.
Posted by sock_puppet (Member # 12608) on :
A series of blog posts about how Rowling could have kept all the positive things about the first three books in the final four:
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Here's an article written by Narnia (as she was known on Hatrack of old). I mostly agree with her.
[ July 25, 2011, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Your link has one to many http's in it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Thanks, Glenn. It's fixed now.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wait, Dumbledore is gay?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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.
It caused quite a snit among the less tolerant Potter fans, but I love my Dead Gay Headmaster. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I had no idea!
Makes me like Harris's Dumbledore even more!
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
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.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah. It's been ages and I honestly never saw much about it except the hysterics afterward, but that makes more sense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
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.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
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.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I only saw it once, but it seemed to me unambiguous that he died because Neville killed Nagini. I thought it was terrible.
I agree with everything you've posted here.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
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.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Is Harry Potter getting like a special extended edition like LOTR?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
He how should not be named died from trying to hold in a sneeze.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
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.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)