posted
The wand thing made sense to me. In order for a wand from another person to work properly it has to be mastered by the person taken it. The Elder Wand was Malfoy's because he used the disarming spell on Dumbledore who was quite defeated at the time. Makes sense to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It made sense to me too. Actually, it pleased me; it was tidy and elegant. After all of Voldemort's work making Horcruxes and tracking down the Elder Wand, the fate of the wizarding world ultimately hung on that one moment at Malfoy Manor.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's not a cop out. It made Harry Potter, which had the potential to be an epic, into a mere story.
Edit: Imagine describing the book to someone in a hundred years. "And he heroically sacrifices his life to defeat Voldemort and ensure that good will triumph" or "And Voldemort accidentally killed himself, oopsy"
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When he took Malfoy's wand, was there any indication that would turn out to be important?
By the way, my 7 year old wanted to start "Deathly Hallows" last night. He read the numbers of the chapters and then the first page of actual text. But he wasn't sure who Snape was.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Reading is a very different experience for me from movies. I can tolerate things in books that I loathe seeing in movies.
No, it isn't the same message, because the medium is different.
But if "X" is viciously killed in the book, then the movie comes out and depicts the same horrific death that "X" had in the book, how is the message any different? I agree that I can tolerate things in books (Exorcist for example), but not the movie of the book. This is because I cannot stand to SEE violence, but I don't shy away from the book. I can choose what I want to "see" when I'm reading. But the message (i.e. the Story) is still the same.
I guess I'm posing this question more to the people who don't watch R rated movies because they are known to be of "questionable" material, yet will read a horror book, or something of the sort with no problem. I have met such a person recently, and I view that as a bit hypocritic.
Now that I think about it, maybe I should move this discussion to it's own thread.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the books had the potential to become epics. Even if Harry had died. Classics, much-loved favorites, definitely -- but the spotty character development and weak plotting throughout the series pretty much quelled any chance of epic-dom.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry does heroically sacrifice his life to make sure that goodness will triumph. It's not less heroic because things turn out differently. Voldemort loses because of his own arrogance: he believes he's too clever for anyone to figure out what he's up to, and he perpetually ignores things that don't impress him, and that's what defeats him.
I really do find that elegant. Voldemort has systematically defeated himself from the word go, and in the end his own spell destroys him.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
landybraine- I didn't see another thread started, so I'll give my answer here. I think that the tone is an important part of the message, the feeling the text/movie gives you. So, if a book has a statement, bob suffered a gory death, that is very different then bob suffered a gory death with much description of blood and gory death (I don't really want to write out a description of bloody gory death, but I am sure that people can imagine it). While the story is the same, the focus is different, which drastically changes the message. Or imagine a story which says "then Bob and Jane retired to the bedchambers to celebrate their love..." vs a story where the dots are filled in and you find out about bob's mole located where the sun don't shine. Same story, same event, but one goes in the romance/erotica section. And you leave the scene with a very different feeling and interpretation of the story of bob and jane's love.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I don't think the books had the potential to become epics. Even if Harry had died. Classics, much-loved favorites, definitely -- but the spotty character development and weak plotting throughout the series pretty much quelled any chance of epic-dom.
I agree it wasn't near epic. I think Harry Potter was a great series, but I don't think even better character development and better plotting (or Harry dying, for that matter) would have made it epic, at least as I use the word.
It had some epic themes, but not the underlying subcreation and mythos. I don't think she tried to do either of these, nor was it necessary or diminishing of her work. It was a choice she made, and likely the right one.
What she attempted to do could have been improved - it was, after all, her first work - but the changes necessary to make it epic would have made it an entirely different work, even if superficial similarities remained.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But that wasn't why Voldermort was defeated. Voldermort was defeated because he's stupid. not stupid in a "I thought this wand was powerful, but it isn't way." He's stupid because he underestimates all the things that are important. He wasn't defeated because thw and was weaker than he thoguht it was. It was Harry's sacrifice and the love the people around him had for him that really defeated Voldermort. Once his Horcruxes were destroyed, the same curse rebounded back on him because of love again... That's why the ending is cool.
Exactly. Harry needed to die for them to have any shot at killing Voldemorte. The only reason Harry returned to life was because Voldemorte had underestimated love (again) and discounted the protection Lily's sacrifice had provided, and used Harry's blood anyway in his rebirthing ritual. I thought it was a great ending. He sacrificed himself for love, and love saved him again.
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
landybraine - The difference for me between a movie and a book is the movie feeds me images which are often way more (fill in the blank) then my own mind makes them when I read a book. I can read a book and take a graphic scene and my mind envisions it a little less graphic than a director often portrays it on screen. There were scenes in Harry Potter when played out on the screen were much more intense then when I read them and my brain supplied the images.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
