posted
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?
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 45 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
BTW I'm still holding out that in 5-10 years there will be a Harry Potter BBC series that will be just fantastic.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyond her age? I think Rowling was just making the point that girls are more mature than boys.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
