PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Seen It!


Pages : [1] 2

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 01:17 AM
Ok, we just got back from the screening.

second post to avoid mouseover spoilers.

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 01:43 AM
It's long at almost 2 1/2 hours.

There's a lot of action packed into that time.

It's funnier than the last three movies put together. That might have partly been the imp beside me - when the patronus appeared, she started humming very, very quietly ... 'Doe, a deer, a female deer...' she's developing a wicked wit and almost silent method of delivery - time she started going to movies with her friends and not with me because she knows too damned well how to get me into a fit of giggles.

The acting was fine - like they'd finally relaxed and started enjoying themselves.

The movie ends with Dobbie's burial and Voldemort stealing the elder wand from Dumbledore's tomb.

Things that were better in the book (according to Maggenkid who's read it more often and recently) 1. the escape from Xeno Lovegood's house. In the movie, they just bolt when the Deatheater's arrive. No exploding horn, definitely no attempt to help Xeno.
2. the dungeon at the Malfoy's was more intimidating in the book - her imagination is scarier than Mr Yates'. It looked bright and airy, like there were windows just out of sight, they hardly needed to light the single lantern. Very clean, too.
3. No statue of the Potter family in Godric's Hollow and no visit to the family home to discover the supporting notes from the wizarding world.

Things that were better in the movie:

1. Hedwig was set free before leaving Little Wingeing. She returned to defend Harry during his escape - indicating the true Harry (better than recognising a spell) and sacrificing her life for his.
2. Bugger all time spent at Grimmauld place.
3. Better pacing through the whole camping trip.
4. The Snatchers almost finding their camp - effectively creepy.

Ask anything.

rocking chair
11-18-2010, 07:31 AM
a good time had by all? love the singing.

how was dobby's burial? did luna give the eulogy?

i'll be seeing it on fri.

Skammer
11-18-2010, 08:12 AM
I'm seeing it on Friday with my nieces, although I haven't seen the last two movies and I haven't read the book since it came out. Hopefully I'll remember enough of the background to be able to follow it.

multimediac17
11-18-2010, 11:36 AM
Went to a midnight screening and then again later the same day - it is an amazing film. There aren't many films I could sit through twice in one day, especially when they're loooong like this one was, but I was just as enthralled the second time around.

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 12:48 PM
a good time had by all? love the singing.

how was dobby's burial? did luna give the eulogy?

i'll be seeing it on fri.

A very good time, though Maggenkid found it hard to sit still - no so much out of boredom but too much kissing! Eeeewww!

No eulogy or gravestone for Dobby. Nice scene though.

Watch out for the tale of the three brothers, we were both really impressed with how that was handled.

Oh and the kid's final comment? "He's a really dorky dancer, isn't he?"

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 12:51 PM
Went to a midnight screening and then again later the same day - it is an amazing film. There aren't many films I could sit through twice in one day, especially when they're loooong like this one was, but I was just as enthralled the second time around.

Don't think I could do twice in a day, but we'll definitely be adding the DVD to the set. It was the racing version of the book that I'd hoped for - like OOTP, all padding stripped away to leave a cracking good story.

Sampiro
11-18-2010, 04:35 PM
Is Hogwarts or its faculty members in this at all?

Are Young Dumbledore and Young Grindelwald in this one?

Does Imelda Staunton kick ass as Delores Umbridge again?

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 05:22 PM
Sampiro[/B]"]Is Hogwarts or its faculty members in this at all?

Are Young Dumbledore and Young Grindelwald in this one?

Does Imelda Staunton kick ass as Delores Umbridge again?

1. Not really. Hagrid, Prof Lupin and Prof Moody help the "Harrys" escape at the beginning. Prof Snape is mentioned in headlines as being Headmaster, but only appears in Death Eater scenes. Prof of Muggle Studies is tortured and killed as per book. The nearest they get to a school scene is a brief encounter on the train between student and Death Eaters.

2. Kinda. young Dumbledore only in photos. Young Grindewald in flashbacks photos & exposition

3. Yep.

rocking chair
11-18-2010, 05:37 PM
from what i've read so far the tale of the three brothers being animated is what i would expect from a wizard book.

i picture stick figures or close to moving on the page as the story is read. is this the way it looks? does ron have his "sometimes death sneaks up on you" line?

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 06:34 PM
from what i've read so far the tale of the three brothers being animated is what i would expect from a wizard book.

i picture stick figures or close to moving on the page as the story is read. is this the way it looks? does ron have his "sometimes death sneaks up on you" line?

Don't remember hearing that line - I may have been distracted by the kid.

More complex than stick figures. Similar feel (not look) to the tales of Ea in Watership Down. I like old European fairy tale books and have a few with this style of illustration so it really appealed to my sense of aesthetics.

Mahaloth
11-18-2010, 07:17 PM
I heard there was a subtle dig at the Twilight series. Did you catch it? What is it?

multimediac17
11-18-2010, 10:51 PM
I heard there was a subtle dig at the Twilight series. Did you catch it? What is it?

When Hermione is beginning to read the tale of the three brothers, she says (something along the lines of) "Three brothers were walking down a long, winding road at twilight" to which Ron interjects "Midnight. Mum always said midnight."

Hermione is already angry at him at this stage so she gives him a quite humourous blank look, so he backtracks and says "Twilight's fine. Better, even."

So it's not really a sly dig but the opposite. I personally thought it was funny but a bit odd, in-universe, Harry Potter has very little overlap with real world pop culture and it was just a little bit jarring to have a wink to the audience like that, but it isn't really super-obvious so it's not too much of a big deal.

maggenpye
11-18-2010, 11:44 PM
We've got The Tales of Beedle the Bard and it really does say twilight. Though it is the version translated from the original runes by Hermione Granger, so fans can argue her interpretation of the runes till the thestrals come home.

Sorry, I wouldn't notice a Twilight reference if it sparkled at me.

Engywook
11-19-2010, 01:54 AM
When Hermione is beginning to read the tale of the three brothers, she says (something along the lines of) "Three brothers were walking down a long, winding road at twilight" to which Ron interjects "Midnight. Mum always said midnight."

Hermione is already angry at him at this stage so she gives him a quite humourous blank look, so he backtracks and says "Twilight's fine. Better, even."



I think that exchange was in the original.

multimediac17
11-19-2010, 02:04 AM
I think that exchange was in the original.

I just had a quick look at the book to check - Ron does interject with the "my mum used to say midnight" but sticks with it (saying it sounds spookier with midnight) instead of conceding that "twilight" is better, as he does in the film.

Mahaloth
11-19-2010, 07:59 AM
I just had a quick look at the book to check - Ron does interject with the "my mum used to say midnight" but sticks with it (saying it sounds spookier with midnight) instead of conceding that "twilight" is better, as he does in the film.

Ah, I guess it's kind of a joke about it, but not quite.

Quercus alba
11-19-2010, 08:12 AM
We've got The Tales of Beedle the Bard and it really does say twilight. Though it is the version translated from the original runes by Hermione Granger, so fans can argue her interpretation of the runes till the thestrals come home.

Sorry, I wouldn't notice a Twilight reference if it sparkled at me.

I saw what you did there...

multimediac17
11-19-2010, 08:49 AM
Ah, I guess it's kind of a joke about it, but not quite.

Yeah, just a little thing that sort of stops you in your tracks and makes you wonder "was that a coincidence or not?"

Magiver
11-19-2010, 07:32 PM
It's definitely better to see the movie first because they make changes to the book for no particularly good reason. And I spent a good hour explaining the movie to someone because a lot of stuff was lost to the viewer.

I was surprised at the scene with Wormtail because the book version built on the mystique of events having consequences down the road.

There was no reason to insert Dobby at Grimmauld Place and his burial didn't match the book at all. I had to explain why Hermione didn't help the elf (in the book he died almost instantly). Not sure why they buried him in the dunes and not on the grounds of the cottage which is where the next movie will pick back up.

The enchanted mirror fragment wasn't explained, and I think non-readers missed the fact that the pendant/horcrux was strangling Harry underwater in response to the sword of Gryffindor.

I thought there would have been more development in the woods but there is no room to cut anything else.

The movie moved well considering how much ground it had to cover. It didn't seem like 2 1/2 hrs to me. I wanted to see more but I don't know how they could have inserted it. Everything seemed truncated as it was.

rocking chair
11-19-2010, 08:38 PM
just got home.

i thought it was better than the last few.

nagini was great. i liked the three brothers story. lovegood did very well, he looked like he was torn between helping his daughter's friend and turning him in for his daughter.

dobby did have a good death scene. in the book i was okay until luna gave her eulogy, that is when the pages got a bit "watery" for me. there was sniffing and watery sounds in the theatr during his death scene, without luna words not so for me.

once again i had the feeling in a few places that the editing was a bit off, that a scene here and there was cut just a tad too short.

all in all a good movie, bring on part 2.

Electric Warrior
11-19-2010, 08:56 PM
I enjoyed the movie for what it was. Thought it was a little confused about what it was trying to do - lots of 'mood whiplash' from teen drama to action movie with wizards to Very Important Serious Issues, and the Nazi symbolism was way over the top. But the smaller roles were really solid in this - Mad-Eye, Bellatrix (and I usually want to punch Helena Bonham-Carter whenever I see her on screen), the woman being questioned in the Ministry - and they effectively diluted fun time camping hour with some phenomenal wide shots of British wilderness.

Also saw it in IMAX which I highly recommend.

The enchanted mirror fragment wasn't explained, and I think non-readers missed the fact that the pendant/horcrux was strangling Harry underwater in response to the sword of Gryffindor.

I haven't read the book (only read books 1-5) and it was completely clear to me that the locket was reacting to the sword. I didn't know what was up with the mirror fragment though. And of course the doe Patronus still makes no sense because they never fucking explained Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs back in Movie #3!

Magiver
11-19-2010, 11:11 PM
The mirror might have made more sense if they showed the blue eye staring back at Harry earlier in the movie (Harry wasn't sure he saw it). At least it would have given the sense that there is somebody connected at the other end (it was a communication device given to him by his God Father). The reason Harry yell's "help me" in the Malfoy's basement is that he thinks there is someone at the other end (which there is).

I'm glad that people see that the locket is strangling Harry because the underwater scene is chaotic. The person I was with missed it.

I saw this at an Imax and I'm not sure if the bigger screen impressed me or not. It seems like the audio was set on stun. I guess I'm not easily impressed by smack-you-in-the-face noise for the sake of it. A little more Alfred Hitchcock and a little less Spinal Tap works for me.

Raiko
11-19-2010, 11:28 PM
Not a big fan of the books or the movies, her wrighting style dosen't impress an her imagination underwhelms but as far as faithfulness to the book this is at least better that the last four or so miserable attempts. I wasn't totally bored, in other words. The use of so much shock and awe was a bit shameful though not unexpected, some things were actually kind of creepy I guess and there was a bit of sexuality in the locket scene. I bring it up, not because it bothers me but in the hope that next time there won't be a theatre full of crying kids (seriously parents, how about a little fucking discretion) I don't post spoilers so you'll get nothing out of me. Just know that if you were a fan of the book you will most likely enjoy the movie very much.

Magiver
11-20-2010, 12:01 AM
Yah, this is a bit much for little kids. It's PG-13. Giant snakes coming at you with the thunder of a big screen audio system is going to scare a small child.

cactus waltz
11-20-2010, 04:18 AM
Quite the long movie, I will simply post some random thoughts:


* The heroes and heroine are adult now, though their characters are teenagers. Ron and Harry sport a slight bit of facial hair. Hermione is thin and brittle like a twig.

* The pacing is kind of strange in this movie, very roller-coaster like. Though I recall the book was weak in this department as well.

* A couple of good action scenes in this film. My favorite is in a muggle café.

* I read the book when it came out but was lost on the importance of the mirror. Could probably have been edited out.

* I agree with the poster that said that the nazi symbolism was too much. Too obvious.

* I found myself missing Maggie Smith for some reason. Actually, this movie is a huge contrast to the first Harry Potter movie. In the start, the HP world was very curious and charming and humorous pieces were all over. Comparingly, HP7, even if it has needed pieces of humor, is quite dark and grim with death all over and also torture.

* A few moments made me think of LOTR. Recieving gifts from Dumbledore (through a will) made me think of Galadriel's gifts, especially since the gift to Ron was quite similar to Galadriel's gift to Frodo. Also, there was the sharing a necklace with evil will and the travelling aspect.

* The part at Grimmaul'd place was confusing and not very well directed. I suppose it didn't help that I hate Helena Bonham Carter.

* Tom Felton has quite the squared jaw now.

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 09:13 AM
More assorted random thoughts-


-I really felt the affection between the principals in this one

-I didn't like the casting of Xenophilius- I like the actor okay but the character should have been much older

-The Wizarding World is in terrible need of skilled interior decorators; it's called "color" and it's allowed

-The house elves, including Dobby, seemed much more believable in this one than previously

-Quite a bit of bare Harry skin in this one- apparently since EQUUS he doesn't like staying dressed (not that I'm complaining in the slightest)

-I wonder if Harry's endearingly bad dancing was the character's or Daniel Radcliffe's; either way I thought that was a romantically tense scene and wondered if that was intentional

-I'm very glad they cut some of the endless wandering in the wilderness scenes from the book (though I wished they'd had more of the radio broadcasts)

-I really wish they'd put Dudley coming to Harry's defense in and that Aunt Petunia's appearance was more than something that could be done with Photoshop

-I wish there'd been more Umbridge (there wasn't much more in the book but there was some)

-Didn't mind the Third Reich imagery since I felt it worked

-Leaves you really jonesing for the Battle at Hogwarts

On the whole I'd give it an A and I actually much preferred it to the book.

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 09:15 AM
Not a big fan of the books or the movies, her wrighting style dosen't impress an her imagination underwhelms but as far as faithfulness to the book this is at least better that the last four or so miserable attempts. I wasn't totally bored, in other words.

Curiosity compels: if you think Rowling's a bad wrighter and the movies were miserable why'd you go see this one?

multimediac17
11-20-2010, 09:27 AM
-Didn't mind the Third Reich imagery since I felt it worked

I too thought it worked well. I think it's an important part of the story and when I realised the connection (back when I was reading the books) it made me appreciate the books and films on a whole other level. It adds to the seriousness of the situation because we can (at least vaguely) tie it to something that happened in our real world - which makes this apparent fantasy seem scarier and more real.

RandMcnally
11-20-2010, 10:20 AM
I've only seen the movies, never read the books, except the first one (which I thought was horrid) but why are the parents still sending their children to Hogwarts? I mean, there's a giant civil war going on but they're still putting their children on that train?

I thought there wasn't nearly enough Luna. But she's my favorite character.

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 10:46 AM
I've only seen the movies, never read the books, except the first one (which I thought was horrid) but why are the parents still sending their children to Hogwarts? I mean, there's a giant civil war going on but they're still putting their children on that train?

In the final one many parents aren't sending them there anymore. The ones who are- some are DeathEaters, others are hiding their heads in the sand, some are probably of the "sure it's rigged but it's the only game in town" variety, and some for fear of being seen as defying the new Ministry. (I'm trying to remember from the book: is Malfoy still enrolled at Hogwarts? I only remember him there during the battle at the end and during the "fiend fire" incident- the rest of the time he was at his father's estate.)

For the next movie, I really hope we get to see Neville's gran. Her actions are only referred to in the book but I'd love to actually see the scene where the snatchers come for her.

DMark
11-20-2010, 10:49 AM
* A few moments made me think of LOTR. Recieving gifts from Dumbledore (through a will) made me think of Galadriel's gifts, especially since the gift to Ron was quite similar to Galadriel's gift to Frodo. Also, there was the sharing a necklace with evil will and the travelling aspect.


Having never read the books and only seeing the films, I have to admit I was surprised how much I thought this film really seemed like some parallel universe of LOTR. The elf was a "good" Gollum...almost the same voice in parts, and the same eyes and body movements - could have been his cousin.
Also, the invisible cloak? Really? Are these mass produced now and sold at Tricks R Us?
Plus, the other scenes mentioned by cactus waltz - yes, there were lots of LOTR touches in this film. J.K seems to be a big fan of J.R.R.

Still, it was a good film - certainly set up the story for the final July release of Part II, and I could even see in this film the parts they intend to gussy up into 3D at a later point for re-release.

As a casual fan who only has seen the films, this new film is eons away from the charm and innocence of the first film. Much darker and, as in real life, sadly the kids are grown up now and the story reflects this quite well.

I am looking forward to the last part, and will miss the somewhat annual jaunt to the local cineplex to get a Harry Potter fix, but that is how I felt with the 3rd film in LOTR.

All in all, a great series of films and this one doesn't disappoint.

Magiver
11-20-2010, 10:57 AM
In the final one many parents aren't sending them there anymore. The ones who are- some are DeathEaters, others are hiding their heads in the sand, some are probably of the "sure it's rigged but it's the only game in town" variety, and some for fear of being seen as defying the new Ministry. (I'm trying to remember from the book: is Malfoy still enrolled at Hogwarts? I only remember him there during the battle at the end and during the "fiend fire" incident- the rest of the time he was at his father's estate.)

For the next movie, I really hope we get to see Neville's gran. Her actions are only referred to in the book but I'd love to actually see the scene where the snatchers come for her. It is mandatory for kids to attend Hogwarts after the ministry falls to the control of Voldemort.

Gestalt
11-20-2010, 11:18 AM
Also, the invisible cloak? Really? Are these mass produced now and sold at Tricks R Us?


I was under the impression that there's only one cloak, and it's the one that belonged to Harry.

Gestalt
11-20-2010, 11:27 AM
M

-I wonder if Harry's endearingly bad dancing was the character's or Daniel Radcliffe's; either way I thought that was a romantically tense scene and wondered if that was intentional



I hope it was intentional. I honestly found the whole, "we love each other like siblings" thing that Rowling used consistently throughout the books to ring a little hollow. They're both attractive, enjoy each other's company, spend tons of time (alone) together often in perilous situations, are fiercely loyal to each other, sometimes cuddle together, and ARE NOT SIBLINGS!

DMark
11-20-2010, 11:30 AM
I was under the impression that there's only one cloak, and it's the one that belonged to Harry.

Well, maybe Frodo lent it to him.

Gestalt
11-20-2010, 11:35 AM
Well, maybe Frodo lent it to him.

Really? There was one in LOTR? I'm not really familiar with that franchise, so I honestly don't know.

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 01:39 PM
I hope it was intentional. I honestly found the whole, "we love each other like siblings" thing that Rowling used consistently throughout the books to ring a little hollow. They're both attractive, enjoy each other's company, spend tons of time (alone) together often in perilous situations, are fiercely loyal to each other, sometimes cuddle together, and ARE NOT SIBLINGS!

Yeah, with Ron gone I think they were one butterbeer away from playing 'put your wand there'.

choie
11-20-2010, 02:40 PM
Really? There was one in LOTR? I'm not really familiar with that franchise, so I honestly don't know.

In LOTR (the movies, anyway), the cloak didn't make Frodo invisible, it just camouflaged him and Sam.

The Ring, OTOH.... that made him invisible. But obviously he wasn't supposed to wear it merely for hiding, hence the cloak's usefulness.

Now my question for those who've seen HP7: I don't remember how the book is divided up, as I could only stomach to read it once. But does the film include any of Bill/Fleur's wedding, or a reference to Lupin/Tonks's marriage? (ISTR that Bill was never in the films, so my guess is that the first question is a "nope.")

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 02:52 PM
Now my question for those who've seen HP7: I don't remember how the book is divided up, as I could only stomach to read it once. But does the film include any of Bill/Fleur's wedding, or a reference to Lupin/Tonks's marriage? (ISTR that Bill was never in the films, so my guess is that the first question is a "nope.")

NO SPOILER TAGS

It contains Bill/Fleur's wedding, this being the first movie that Bill was ever actually seen in (he introduces himself at the beginning). Lupin mentions being married to Tonks and she starts to make an announcement (presumably that she's pregnant) but doesn't get it out before they're interrupted.

I loved the paranoia scene when they all apparate in the Borough- "WHAT WAS THE LAST THING DUMBLEDORE SAID TO US WHEN WE WERE TOGETHER?" For an older guy Kingsley Shacklebolt is hot, though part of it is the robes probably.

Antinor01
11-20-2010, 03:26 PM
I was under the impression that there's only one cloak, and it's the one that belonged to Harry.

There are a number of other invisibility cloaks, but they are fairly rare. The others that have been produced lose their enchantment over time. However the one Harry now owns has been passed down from father to son for generations and is the true invisibility cloak that was fashioned by Death and will work perfectly until the end of time.

Sampiro
11-20-2010, 04:41 PM
There are a number of other invisibility cloaks, but they are fairly rare. The others that have been produced lose their enchantment over time. However the one Harry now owns has been passed down from father to son for generations and is the true invisibility cloak that was fashioned by Death and will work perfectly until the end of time.

If memory serves Harry's cloakdoesn't even react to the Accio spell which was a mystery even to Dumbledore.

D_Odds
11-20-2010, 05:22 PM
I've not read any of the books. I only seen the first two films on cable, but not really paying full attention. I know little about the Potter-verse except what I get from my daughter and wife. However, now that my daughter is away in university, I was forced to accompany my wife to this movie.

What struck me most is that instead of guns, they have wands, which are line of sight weapons. That just struck me as wrong. I mentioned that the pendant was "The One Ring" to my wife. I knew it was trying to get away from the sword. When Bonham-Carter threw the letter opener, I knew Dobie was getting it. I also mentioned that to my wife, who had read the books, so she didn't think me so smart.

I also mentioned at the beginning that Harry riding with the Robbie Coltrane character was the most obvious pairing (from my limited Potter knowledge), thus defeating all the disguises.

Kiros
11-20-2010, 06:39 PM
Just got back from this. I was a little disappointed, honestly. I haven't read the books, but I've seen all of the movies at least once (the last few multiple times, as I've liked them enough to stop on them on ABC Family on occasion), so that's the perspective I'm coming from. It's very possible that the below criticisms are more of the book than of the movie.

The first... 40 minutes? Hour or so? of this movie were excellent. The flight with the decoys, seeing the stress and tension that the Good Guys are under, the attack at the wedding, the three of them sneaking into the Ministry to get the locket, everything remotely related to Delores Umbridge - all awesome. I love the dark atmosphere and the sense of foreboding we are getting from all directions, and it seems like we're building up to something really interesting.

Then we get to the Randomly Wandering Around portion of the story. For all that there were some great moments, this ended up feeling like it was taking way too long to get anywhere. The highlights for me were the creepy almost-getting-caught at the initial camp, and the little dancing scene, which was simultaneously awkward, cute, and romantically tense. I'm sure I probably missed a lot of context not having read the book, but I don't feel like the time was particularly well used in this entire section of the movie. Also, the effects of wearing the locket were a bit underwhelming in how exactly they mirrored the effects of carrying the Ring, making large parts of this section really predictable.

Finally, we have the Lovegood house through the imprisonment and escape at the end. Not bad, but not really great, either. The scene at the Lovegood house felt a bit off; not sure if it was the actor they had doing Xeno or if it was just me trying to recover from shock at seeing someone else talk, after an hour in the woods. Then we have an obligatory chase scene, where we have some (at least movie-wise) nameless Death Eaters that we're supposed to be super scared of chasing our impotent Chosen One and catching him, basically without a fight. A couple minutes in a tidy and well-lit dungeon, a couple abbreviated scenes with the more interesting characters, and we're left with a deus ex machina rescue from an "elf" that we had five minutes with earlier in this movie, mostly to remind us who he was, since he hasn't had extended face time since... what? the second movie or so? And then it's a Very Special Moment when he dies, in the most predictable death I've seen in a movie in a pretty long time.

Cue re-tread "evil guy finding what he wants and making threatening gestures, portending the end of the world", and bring on the credits.

I will probably come and chat more about it later, but I had to get that off of my chest. :)

Mahaloth
11-20-2010, 07:32 PM
Also, the invisible cloak? Really? Are these mass produced now and sold at Tricks R Us?


No. Harry's is the one from the story. Peverell, I think, is the Potter family and it passed down through that line.

His is the one and only true invisibility cloak.

Clothahump
11-20-2010, 09:18 PM
SWMBO and I just got back home from watching it. Damn good movie!!!

Magiver
11-20-2010, 09:43 PM
Then we get to the Randomly Wandering Around portion of the story. For all that there were some great moments, this ended up feeling like it was taking way too long to get anywhere. The highlights for me were the creepy almost-getting-caught at the initial camp, and the little dancing scene, which was simultaneously awkward, cute, and romantically tense. I'm sure I probably missed a lot of context not having read the book, but I don't feel like the time was particularly well used in this entire section of the movie. The dance scene was not in the book and the movie accurately portrayed the "wandering lost" aspect. Believe it or not it was seriously condensed onscreen.

Looking back on the book, I'm surprised the scene at the Malfoy residence didn't focus on the teacher that Voldemort kills for entertainment. I expected the camera to focus on her and specifically Draco's expression as he sees one of his teachers deliberately dangled above him and then killed with the body slamming down in front of him. It would have been easy to convey the horror of it through Draco's eyes but the Director fell back on a computer generated snake to spring toward the movie crowd.

RandMcnally
11-20-2010, 09:45 PM
It would have been easy to convey the horror of it through Draco's eyes but the Director fell back on a computer generated snake to spring toward the movie crowd.

I wouldn't be surprised if they re-release the film in 3d sometime in May-June.

PeskiPiksi
11-20-2010, 10:14 PM
Just got back. I loved it, but then I'm a big fan of the books. My husband, who hasn't read them but has enjoyed the previous films, didn't care for it that much. He said he felt lost much of the time, which is curious to me because I've always thought the previous films would have been confusing for non-readers (with the exception of the first two), and that this one explained things more fully.

Random thoughts:

--I think they focused on Snape rather than Malfoy in the death of the Muggle Studies teacher because Malfoy would never have had her as a teacher. He probably never knew her. But she knew Snape--she was his colleague, his peer, and as she said, his friend. I think that was a lot harder for him than for Malfoy.

--I, too, liked Hedwig's death better here than in the book.

--Loved the multiple Potters scene--Fleur as Harry was really funny.

--Anybody else notice The Burrow had been rebuilt as a much "tidier" house than before?

--Wished we could have had Kreacher's full story, but understand why it was cut.

--I thought they did a really good job with the Locket!Horcrux destruction scene--the way Hermione was, as in the book, Hermione, only somehow prettier. And that kissing scene was pretty erotic!

--I thought they went a little too fast with the Malfoy Manor scene--It wasn't very clear why Bellatrix was so upset to see the sword. But maybe that will be clarified in the next movie.

--I loved, loved, Loved! the animation of the Tale of the Three Brothers. I thought it looked really cool and creepy.

I missed one little part because I was explaining to my husband what "the Trace" was. It was right after the fight in the Muggle coffee shop, and they're walking down the street, and Hermione says something about having missed Harry's birthday. What did he say in response? Anybody remember?

Overall I think this has been my favorite adaptation so far, because they were able to take their time with it. The other movies have all seemed rushed and crammed in to me; I felt like I could breathe watching this one.

And I have to say this, too. I understand why some people don't like all the wandering around and camping in the book because it drags and seems to go nowhere. I disagree that it's bad writing, though. I actually think Rowling did a pretty good job there--HRH were wandering around for a long time, accomplishing not much of all. It was tedious and boring and frustrating for them, too, and Rowling makes us feel that. But that's just my opinion.

Magiver
11-20-2010, 10:58 PM
Random thoughts:

--I think they focused on Snape rather than Malfoy in the death of the Muggle Studies teacher because Malfoy would never have had her as a teacher. He probably never knew her. But she knew Snape--she was his colleague, his peer, and as she said, his friend. I think that was a lot harder for him than for Malfoy.
In the book, Malfoy couldn't stop looking at her and he falls out of his chair when she falls dead. He also admitted knowing her when asked by Voldermort. He is clearly a frightened child in the previous movie when confronted with the task of killing Dumbledor.

I've taken an interest in the movies beyond their entertainment value like I would a car taken apart to see how it works. It's interesting to see the mix of acting, special affects, sound affects, scripting etc... that goes into each movie. It's the little things like using a ringing phone as a backdrop sound to convey intensity in the earlier movies which is now replaced by the sound of a whistling tea-kettle in this one. I liked the original special affect of Sirius talking to Harry in the fireplace in the Goblet of Fire and was disappointed that they changed the affect in the following movie. It's been interesting to see the advancement of CG backdrops from the first 2 movies compared to the rest of them. I can see them re-releasing the first 2 with finer detail.

DCnDC
11-20-2010, 10:58 PM
Just got back from seeing this.

I enjoyed it, but there's one problem I had that perhaps could be explained to me by those who have read the books (I have not): the "escape" at the beginning.

I had 3 major problems with this:They have this [seemingly] elaborate escape plan involving disguising a half dozen people as Harry and they all [presumably] go off in different directions. Now:
#1 - despite the fact that they get found out immediately they still all go to the predetermined meeting place which
#2 - is Weasley's house (as if the bad guys aren't going to look there), and then
#3 - they then proceed to have a freakin' wedding! Is it just me or was that a shitty plan?! It's like if someone wanted desperately to kill one of my friends so our big plan to hide him is to come to my house and then have a party.It just seemed like a blatant plot convenience.

Magiver
11-20-2010, 11:41 PM
They all go to different locations and secretly port-key to the Weasley house. After the Ministry falls the bad guys show up at the wedding looking for Harry who in the book is in disguise.

It's not hard to find logic flaws in either the book or the movie.

PeskiPiksi
11-20-2010, 11:45 PM
In the book, Malfoy couldn't stop looking at her and he falls out of his chair when she falls dead. He also admitted knowing her when asked by Voldermort. He is clearly a frightened child in the previous movie when confronted with the task of killing Dumbledor.


Sorry, but you're misremembering. He denies knowing her when Voldemort asks. He does fall out of his chair, but all of the Death Eaters jump back. I think his reaction is a bit stronger just because he's still so young and relatively innocent, not because he had a connection with Burbage.

Magiver
11-21-2010, 12:03 AM
Sorry, but you're misremembering. He denies knowing her when Voldemort asks. He does fall out of his chair, but all of the Death Eaters jump back. I think his reaction is a bit stronger just because he's still so young and relatively innocent, not because he had a connection with Burbage. From the book:

"And you, Draco?" asked Voldemort, stroking the snake's snout with his wand-free hand. Draco shook his head jerkily. Now that the woman had woken, he seemed unable to look at her anymore. "But you would not have taken her classes", said Voldemort.

Unlike nodding which is specific to up and down motion, shaking can be either direction. Since Draco was the only person who kept looking up at her the assumption is that he knew her from school.

PeskiPiksi
11-21-2010, 12:30 AM
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of "shook" here. But even if he did recognize her, I don't see how she could have been more to him than a familiar face in the halls of Hogwarts. He wouldn't have taken her classes.

Whereas Snape clearly had a real relationship with her, which makes his reaction to her death more poignant, which was the original point.

Magiver
11-21-2010, 12:49 AM
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the meaning of "shook" here. But even if he did recognize her, I don't see how she could have been more to him than a familiar face in the halls of Hogwarts. He wouldn't have taken her classes.

Whereas Snape clearly had a real relationship with her, which makes his reaction to her death more poignant, which was the original point. Putting the interpretation aside, Snape has to deadpan his reaction to her as part of his deception whereas Draco can and is scared by the whole thing. We know the Malfoy's are deathly afraid of Voldemort at this point. Draco was the perfect vehicle to portray this. Imagine focusing on his terrified face and instead of the snake lashing at the audience (with the loud sound effects it was given) the sound of her body is brought front and center using the technique of lowering the sound (focusing on Draco) and then WHAM. Quickly switch to her dead face and then Draco flying out of his chair.

cactus waltz
11-21-2010, 08:58 AM
And I have to say this, too. I understand why some people don't like all the wandering around and camping in the book because it drags and seems to go nowhere. I disagree that it's bad writing, though. I actually think Rowling did a pretty good job there--HRH were wandering around for a long time, accomplishing not much of all. It was tedious and boring and frustrating for them, too, and Rowling makes us feel that. But that's just my opinion.


There is another point to it. The previous books (1-6) are basically each a full school year: every book starts with the beginning of a new semester. Book 7, however, takes Harry, Ron and Hermione outside of Hogwarts. Their wandering around makes them having spent the equivalent of a school year when the story's finished.

Quimby
11-21-2010, 10:22 AM
Saw it yesterday. This is my first HP movie I have seen since reading the books last summer. I liked it and I was happy because when reading Book 7 I took a guess as to where they would break the story in two for the two movies and it turned out I was right.

One question though, as it has been a while since I either saw the movies or read the books:

Ron said they had three Horcruxes to go. By my count they destroyed three: the book, the ring and the pendant which would leave four left. Which one am I forgetting?

Maserschmidt
11-21-2010, 10:57 AM
Ron said they had three Horcruxes to go. By my count they destroyed three: the book, the ring and the pendant which would leave four left. Which one am I forgetting?

You aren't. Ron and the others don't know that the scar is a horcrux. So when Tom Riddle talks about splitting his soul into seven pieces, he's including himself as one of them. There are in fact 8 pieces of Tom Marvolo Riddle floating around out there.

Hentor the Barbarian
11-21-2010, 12:01 PM
Just got back from seeing it. This movie is boring as shit. In that sense it was true to the book. Lots of shots of them wandering in the woods. Scenes of people sitting and reading, without any good sense as to what it is that they are looking for. At least they know what it is when they see it.

Lots of manufactured angst between the teenagers.

At least my nine year old enjoyed it. That's ultimately what it's supposed to be for.

Red Barchetta
11-21-2010, 12:32 PM
You aren't. Ron and the others don't know that the scar is a horcrux. So when Tom Riddle talks about splitting his soul into seven pieces, he's including himself as one of them. There are in fact 8 pieces of Tom Marvolo Riddle floating around out there.

Yargh, can we please spoiler book spoilers? Unless I somehow missed this in the movie.

rocking chair
11-21-2010, 12:44 PM
technically at the begining of book 7 there are 6 pieces of riddle soul. diary piece and ring piece are dead.

riddle talking about splitting his soul in 7 pieces was in book/movie 6 from slughorn's memory. thus dumbledore and harry knew how many horcrux they must find and kill.

Unintentionally Blank
11-21-2010, 12:48 PM
I too thought it worked well. I think it's an important part of the story and when I realised the connection (back when I was reading the books) it made me appreciate the books and films on a whole other level. It adds to the seriousness of the situation because we can (at least vaguely) tie it to something that happened in our real world - which makes this apparent fantasy seem scarier and more real.

I was placing the spirit of the imagery as having been relevant to Britons. In the same way Top Gear is cool because it's geared towards a slightly different culture, I figured WWII is still a strong cultural chord to Her and the environment she's writing in.

Look at C.S. Lewis and the Narnia series, very WWII.

Look at J.R.R. Tolkien, there's some there, too.

twickster
11-21-2010, 01:07 PM
Yargh, can we please spoiler book spoilers? Unless I somehow missed this in the movie.

When you see something that should be spoilered, report the post and a mod will be happy to add the spoiler boxes. You can also report your own post if you say something then realize you should have spoilered it.

Which of course doesn't mean that people shouldn't be careful about it in the first place!

Dr. Drake
11-21-2010, 03:10 PM
I was placing the spirit of the imagery as having been relevant to Britons. In the same way Top Gear is cool because it's geared towards a slightly different culture, I figured WWII is still a strong cultural chord to Her and the environment she's writing in.

Look at C.S. Lewis and the Narnia series, very WWII.

Look at J.R.R. Tolkien, there's some there, too.You do know that Lewis and Tolkien were writers DURING World War II, right? (As well as before and after.) And Rowling some half a century later?

Antinor01
11-21-2010, 03:56 PM
--I thought they went a little too fast with the Malfoy Manor scene--It wasn't very clear why Bellatrix was so upset to see the sword. But maybe that will be clarified in the next movie.

Maybe it's because I was expecting it, but she was very clear that the sword was supposed to be in her bank vault. Which is why she wanted to question the goblin.

Magiver
11-21-2010, 04:07 PM
Maybe it's because I was expecting it, but she was very clear that the sword was supposed to be in her bank vault. Which is why she wanted to question the goblin. And they left out Harry telling the Goblin to lie about it.

Antinor01
11-21-2010, 04:10 PM
And they left out Harry telling the Goblin to lie about it.

True. There's a million little details missing, but they got the points across.

maggenpye
11-21-2010, 04:57 PM
True. There's a million little details missing, but they got the points across.

I'd agree with this. I haven't read the book since it's release in 2007, but I don't feel that I've lost any of the vital plotlines.

I really liked the pick-up of Bill Weasley's story which was quite an involved subplot dropped from Half Blood Prince - all we needed to know in one sentence each from Bill and Fleur.

Magiver
11-21-2010, 05:52 PM
True. There's a million little details missing, but they got the points across. Did they? I had to explain to the person I was with why Belatrix went ballistic and why the elf was brought up. The scene went by kinda fast without any set-up.

Antinor01
11-21-2010, 08:06 PM
Did they? I had to explain to the person I was with why Belatrix went ballistic and why the elf was brought up. The scene went by kinda fast without any set-up.

Had they seen the prior movies? I think the LA Times had it right that this film was NOT made for Potter first timers. There are a ton of things you were expected to already know, such as that the goblins run the bank. So when she freaked out that the sword that had been in her bank vault was missing, a goblin is she would interrogate. If you didn't already know that, then no it wouldn't make sense.

maggenpye
11-21-2010, 08:10 PM
Did they? I had to explain to the person I was with why Belatrix went ballistic and why the elf was brought up. The scene went by kinda fast without any set-up.

But Scrimegour did the exposition for that (sword missing!) when he read the will, then it was backed up with the kids telling each other that the goblins had made the sword but couldn't be trusted but it will always go to the true Griffindor at greatest need.

Belatrix thought she had the stolen sword safely locked in her Gringotts vault (and said as much)- when she saw it with the Griffindor students, she thought she'd been betrayed by the Goblins when the sword simply went to those who needed it. with a little help from Headmaster Snape as we may or may not learn in the next film.

The Elves are Dobby and Kreacher - they had nothing to do with the sword.

(damn my slow typing and you too, Antinor01!)

Magiver
11-21-2010, 09:20 PM
Goblin, not elf :smack:

Kiros
11-21-2010, 10:11 PM
I've seen all of the movies, and all of them from 3 on at least twice, and I couldn't have told you a damn thing about "Goblins" and "bank vault" if I didn't have a helpful book-fan along with me to explain afterwards. Just for another data point. :)

Eyebrows 0f Doom
11-22-2010, 12:32 AM
You aren't. Ron and the others don't know that the scar is a horcrux. So when Tom Riddle talks about splitting his soul into seven pieces, he's including himself as one of them. There are in fact 8 pieces of Tom Marvolo Riddle floating around out there.
Yeah, but doesn't Ron say at one point that there are seven? Or Harry tells him there are seven? So what is he thinking of when he says there are three left? When Ron said that line it left me scratching my head as well, trying to think what I had forgotten.

I've seen all of the movies, and all of them from 3 on at least twice, and I couldn't have told you a damn thing about "Goblins" and "bank vault" if I didn't have a helpful book-fan along with me to explain afterwards. Just for another data point. :)
Well that was pretty clearly explained in earlier films, I wouldn't really expect them to have to restate every little thing that happened previously at the beginning of each film.

maggenpye
11-22-2010, 02:17 AM
It's in the first film, during Harry's first visit to Diagon Alley. Hagrid takes Harry to Gringott's, explains that these are goblins and they run the bank as the safest place to keep your treasures in the wizarding world.

Then they go into the vaults, with the elaborate security systems, grab some coinage for Harry and the Philosopher's Stone for Hagrid to deliver to Dumbledore, who suspects that Gringott's may not be quite safe enough.

Then, during breakfast at Hogwarts, Harry, Ron and Hermione discuss the fact that Gringott's bank was broken into and their security breached. There are accompanying pictures of the goblins looking mighty annoyed, even though the only vault broken into was empty.

Harry realises that it was the vault Hagrid had visited during their time at Gringott's. The item taken was the philosopher's stone and the movie has a plot.

I think Ron mentions in a later movie that one of his brothers is working with the goblins at Gringotts - can anyone confirm that?

Equipoise
11-22-2010, 02:36 AM
Well that was pretty clearly explained in earlier films, I wouldn't really expect them to have to restate every little thing that happened previously at the beginning of each film.It's been a few years since I watched it, but in the very first film, doesn't Hagrid take Harry to the bank to retrieve some money before they go to Diagon Alley? I could swear I remember the goblins being shown as obviously being in charge of the bank. I've read the books since then, several times, so sometimes it's hard for me to remember what I saw and what I think I saw because I'm thinking of the books.

I happen to love how there are so many book references in the movie(s). I understand if book readers complain that something is cut out altogether, but too often book readers complain that something, whatever, isn't explained or expanded when the only reason it's in the movie in the first place is a nod to the book readers. Most of the time it's not necessary for non-book readers to get it (like "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs"). I like the idea that book readers get the most out of the movies because they have all the holes filled, they know all the things that aren't there, and can fill in the blanks. Most of the time non-book readers don't even know there's a hole, a blank (like "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs"), the scripts are written so well. I just don't understand the complaining. Sure there are things I'd like to see onscreen, but we book readers have the knowledge that this or that or the other happened this way or that way, before this or after that. It's there in our imaginations. I think the movies, all of them, have done a very good job of showing what's necessary for the non-book reader, while throwing a lot of tasty bones to the book readers. Why is it that so many book readers don't appreciate those bones?


I liked the movie a lot, and want to see it again soon. I did the Adventure and it was such a joy seeing Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, and then the new one all in a row. It was a great experience.

One of my favorite parts that never drew attention to itself, is how their tent kept getting smaller outside, but bigger inside, with multi levels and bunk beds and a picnic table. That's something that harkens back to Goblet of Fire, only then, the huge inside of the tent was marveled at and remarked upon (didn't Harry say something like "I love magic"?) while this time, it was just the normal thing.

I also loved Hermione's bottomless purse. It was a normal thing to book readers, and one of those bones I appreciated. I don't know if any non-book readers were confused by it, but if they were, what difference does it make? It's magic. It was a bottomless purse that could hold just about anything of any size. That's all anyone who hasn't read the books needs to know.

Unintentionally Blank
11-22-2010, 06:23 AM
I also loved Hermione's bottomless purse. It was a normal thing to book readers, and one of those bones I appreciated. I don't know if any non-book readers were confused by it, but if they were, what difference does it make? It's magic. It was a bottomless purse that could hold just about anything of any size. That's all anyone who hasn't read the books needs to know.

Have you ever looked at the contents of a woman's purse? That was a Muggle item if ever I saw one.

Kiros
11-22-2010, 07:11 AM
Well that was pretty clearly explained in earlier films, I wouldn't really expect them to have to restate every little thing that happened previously at the beginning of each film.

I guess we're going to have to disagree on the definition of "pretty clearly explained", then. It got one scene and some lines of exposition in a movie that came out nine years ago, and hasn't been significantly mentioned in any of the movies since, all of which are filled with their own little tidbits to pay attention to. If you haven't read the books to know what you're looking for, why would that stand out among the rest, never mind connecting it to why Bellatrix is so angry (not that that isn't pretty much her default state when she's with the kids)?

Mahaloth
11-22-2010, 08:46 AM
It is getting pretty hard at this point for anyone without good knowledge of the books to follow some of the details.

I have read them multiple times, though, so I have little problem.

Quimby
11-22-2010, 08:52 AM
Yeah, but doesn't Ron say at one point that there are seven? Or Harry tells him there are seven? So what is he thinking of when he says there are three left? When Ron said that line it left me scratching my head as well, trying to think what I had forgotten.


I am glad to know I was not the only one. I am also pretty sure the characters believed there were 7 even if they didn't know the nature of the ones they haven't found yet.

davidw
11-22-2010, 08:55 AM
Yeah, but doesn't Ron say at one point that there are seven? Or Harry tells him there are seven? So what is he thinking of when he says there are three left? When Ron said that line it left me scratching my head as well, trying to think what I had forgotten.

They're assuming three horcruxes, plus Voldemort himself. Adds up to four pieces left.

rocking chair
11-22-2010, 08:59 AM
I think Ron mentions in a later movie that one of his brothers is working with the goblins at Gringotts - can anyone confirm that?


yep, that would be bill. he is a curse cracker for gringotts in egypt during ps, cos, and poa. bill and fleur meet in gof. by hbp they are engaged and fleur and bill are working at gringotts england branch.

Wheelz
11-22-2010, 09:53 AM
It's funnier than the last three movies put together. That's an interesting way to put it, but I get what you mean. I was thinking that the humor in this film is very character-based, is well-integrated into the story, and used effectively to help the mood and flow of the film. What you don't get here, in contrast to the previous films, is a lot of whimsy for the sake of whimsy. In that sense, the funny parts feel much more organic. At the same time, like the book, this is easily the most serious of them all as well.

I liked the movie a lot. It was well-acted, well-paced, and fairly compelling. My wife said that she was too aware of the filmmaking and it took her out of the story at times. While I didn't disagree, it didn't really bother me as much.

What was perhaps inevitable by splitting the book into two films is that you're left with a movie with no climax. They did choose a good stopping point and finished with a pretty exciting escape scene, but still. All I wanted after it was over was to keep watching the rest of it.

No complaints here about the book-to-movie transition. A film can get bogged down by being too faithful to a book (see Sorcerer's Stone, for example), but most of the Potter films have handled the balancing act quite nicely IMO.

Sampiro
11-22-2010, 04:18 PM
A couple minutes in a tidy and well-lit dungeon,

Technically it wasn't a dungeon but a cellar whose main use was for storage. Lucius Malfoy is the wizarding world equivalent of a multi-billionaire, which is why it's probably not drearier.

we're left with a deus ex machina rescue from an "elf" that we had five minutes with earlier in this movie, mostly to remind us who he was, since he hasn't had extended face time since... what? the second movie or so? And then it's a Very Special Moment when he dies, in the most predictable death I've seen in a movie in a pretty long time.

I can see why it would appear this way to somebody who hasn't read the books. He hasn't been in a movie in years- not since Chamber of Secrets- but he was in several of the books. He had a pretty important subplot that was not included in the movie version of Goblet of Fire, and he was featured in the books Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince as well. Kreacher is also a much more major character- he's actually responsible for the Death Eaters attack on the Ministry and he and Dobby hate each other. He had a particularly important sideplot with the locket:

Book spoilers that weren't included in the movie:

House elves are required to obey any order they are given without regard to personal wishes. The way R. A. Black stole the locket that Dumbeldore was fatally injured in the attempt to steal was by having Kreacher drink the poison. Being an elf it didn't kill him, though it did make him extremely sick.
Kreacher's relationship with Harry is similar to Dobby's relationship when he was owned by the Malfoys: there's near open hatred of the employer but still 100% obligation to do as told, but at the same time they can be very sly. Just as Dobby made off to warn Harry Potter (because he hadn't been explicitly told not to) Kreacher, when told to go away, went to the Death Eaters to inform on the Order of the Phoenix and was responsible for their attack on the Ministry where Sirius was killed.
In the book Kreacher does a 180 degree turnaround when Harry, almost offhandedly, gives him the locket that belonged to Regulus. After that Kreacher becomes the world's greatest and most cheerful house elf.
House elves magic is completely different from wizarding magic. Among other things they can apparate and disapparate in far more places than wizards including places like Hogwarts that have been hexxed to prevent apparation. Even Dumbledore had to use his phoenix to disapparate from Hogwarts when he was arrested, but Dobby could do it anytime he wished and this was used as a plot point several times.

cmkeller
11-22-2010, 04:27 PM
Sampiro:

Even Dumbledore had to use his phoenix to disapparate from Hogwarts when he was arrested

No, he didn't disapparate at all - he stunned the Aurors and Ministry personnel and left through the door.

Kiros
11-22-2010, 04:31 PM
Thanks a ton for the stuff in the spoilers, Sampiro; that really helps a bunch, without being any more spoiler-y outside the subject at hand.

In the end, I suppose my biggest point is that this one doesn't work nearly as well as a movie as 3-6, where they had less time but did a better job of making sure that everything that they did include was generally consistent within what we've been shown in the movies. I really liked how they handled this for Bill and Fleur's introduction at the beginning: really just a sentence or so each, and we had enough to know who they were and why there was a big wedding happening. I just feel like all of the motivations and reasoning seemed to fray at the seams for the last 30 minutes or so, and the Dobby thing capped it off. It's clearly something really important from the book, but with the corner they had backed themselves into by not having him appear for four movies, I'm not sure that it really could have worked out any better than it did.

maggenpye
11-22-2010, 04:36 PM
I guess we're going to have to disagree on the definition of "pretty clearly explained", then.


Definitely. I've already posted about how it was set up before Belatrix's scene in three earlier scenes within movie 7. Scrimegour and the will. Exposition between the kids. The sword itself in the Forest of Dean.

Have you ever looked at the contents of a woman's purse? That was a Muggle item if ever I saw one.
I turned to my kid and whispered, "That's just like my handbag."

Sampiro
11-22-2010, 05:33 PM
In the end, I suppose my biggest point is that this one doesn't work nearly as well as a movie as 3-6,

I think even the most diehard HP fan would agree that the parts where Harry, Hermione, and sometimes Ron druggggggggggggggggggg on more than any other parts of any other book. The movie blessedly cut down a bit believe it or not; that part alone could easily have gone three hours if not cut. It's one of the only parts of a Harry Potter novel I've ever skipped ahead through.

A bit off topic, but I've never thought much about trailer/mobile home parks in the U.K. but there was one in this movie (one that had apparently been set upon since some were burned). Are they very common? And what are they called, assuming it's not trailer parks?

shantih
11-22-2010, 06:01 PM
A bit off topic, but I've never thought much about trailer/mobile home parks in the U.K. but there was one in this movie (one that had apparently been set upon since some were burned). Are they very common? And what are they called, assuming it's not trailer parks?

That was the trailer/camping area from the Wizard Cup at the beginning of the Goblet of Fire. The camp was set upon by Death Eaters and it looks like most of the campers were just abandoned.

Sampiro
11-22-2010, 06:05 PM
That was the trailer/camping area from the Wizard Cup at the beginning of the Goblet of Fire. The camp was set upon by Death Eaters and it looks like most of the campers were just abandoned.

Ah, thanks.

shantih
11-22-2010, 06:07 PM
Book spoilers that weren't included in the movie:

House elves are required to obey any order they are given without regard to personal wishes. The way R. A. Black stole the locket that Dumbeldore was fatally injured in the attempt to steal was by having Kreacher drink the poison. Being an elf it didn't kill him, though it did make him extremely sick.
Kreacher's relationship with Harry is similar to Dobby's relationship when he was owned by the Malfoys: there's near open hatred of the employer but still 100% obligation to do as told, but at the same time they can be very sly. Just as Dobby made off to warn Harry Potter (because he hadn't been explicitly told not to) Kreacher, when told to go away, went to the Death Eaters to inform on the Order of the Phoenix and was responsible for their attack on the Ministry where Sirius was killed.
In the book Kreacher does a 180 degree turnaround when Harry, almost offhandedly, gives him the locket that belonged to Regulus. After that Kreacher becomes the world's greatest and most cheerful house elf.
House elves magic is completely different from wizarding magic. Among other things they can apparate and disapparate in far more places than wizards including places like Hogwarts that have been hexxed to prevent apparation. Even Dumbledore had to use his phoenix to disapparate from Hogwarts when he was arrested, but Dobby could do it anytime he wished and this was used as a plot point several times.

Very close, except:
Kreacher drank the potion when Voldemort made him do so when he put the locket there in the first place. He was being dragged down by the Inferi and would have drowned except that he was ordered by Regulus to return home when Voldemort was finished with him, and so he Disapparated and was safe. When Regulus returned to the grotto with Kreacher to exchange the real locket with a replica, Regulus drank the potion himself and ordered Kreacher to return to the Black home with the locket and not to tell what happened to Regulus. He also ordered Kreacher to destroy the locket, but not having Griffindor's sword or a basilisk fang, Kreacher was unable to do so.

shantih
11-22-2010, 06:13 PM
Ah, thanks.

A pleasure!

Oh, and I just came back from seeing the movie with friends, and I loved it. The kids have grown tremendously as actors, and the scenery was fantastic. I cringed when Harry stripped down to jump in that frozen pond -- brrr. The scenes with Bathilda Bagshot were beyond creepy. Loved Fred and George's reaction as soon as the Polyjuice Potion took effect (in unison: "We're identical!"), which I had also enjoyed in the book.

The next movie is going to be unbelievably actioned-packed. I can be understanding of artistic changes, but I will be hideously disappointed if they change the final scene between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange at all; I've been looking forward to seeing that on film since I read the words.

Omniscient
11-22-2010, 06:31 PM
Saw the movie on Friday and I enjoyed it quite a lot. Perhaps my opinion will change later but I left the theater feeling like it was the best movie of the lot so far. I pretty thrilled with it. There were some obvious flaws, but those flaws were minor and tolerable compare to some of the stuff that bugged me in previous movies.

I'm a mild fan of the books. I liked them all and read them promptly when the last 4 were released (I didn't read the first 3 until the first movie was due out) but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the franchise and I really haven't reread any of the books so many of the details are lost on me still.

Hands down, the best part of this movie was the telling of the Story of the Deathly Hallows. That animation was simply fantastic and was a great contrast to the rest of the movie. That it had somehow left my memory from reading the book 3 years ago made the reveal all the more impactful. So cool.


Having read the thread I find it odd that the parts that bugged me were the parts that most other people seem to have liked. The introduction of Bill was really clumsy I thought. That Harry wouldn't even know who he was defied logic, and just because he didn't appear in the other movies is no reason to make him a stranger to the characters. A simple "Hi Bill!" would have good enough, the forced handshake was awkward to me.

The importance of the mirror fragment needed a refresher I thought. It wasn't well introduced in the movie, and that he was fiddling with it often made it even more confusing. I feel like the director could have given Harry a dream sequence of him being gifted the mirror or something at the open of the film to fill that gap and reinforce the Sirius stuff.

I liked the multiple Harrys part and the fleeing from the Dursley's scenes a lot. The stress and pervasive suspicion around the Order was well done.

I love Bill Nighy as Rufus Scrimgeour, the Minister of Magic. Just perfect, I only wish the part could have somehow been bigger.

I hated the casting for Xenophilius Lovegood. The guy was all wrong, I'm not really familiar with the actor but he could not have been more ill-fit for the role as described in the book. Also, he's not nearly kooky enough to fit with the way Luna acts and how she discussed him in the movies. A complete disaster all the way around. The most unfortunate part is that it damaged the story for me, in the scene at his home the trio assume his shifty and distracted behavior is just par for the course with the Lovegoods. That he's so bizarre and nervous just needs par for the course with his publications and his weird daughter. In the movie however he just seemed guilty from the get-go. A major problem.

Also, the movie did a really poor job of justifying why Mundungus is even around. The book isn't particularly good at it either, but in the movie it was a giant red flag. All subtlety was lost and no one seemed more out of place than him at the opening chase. It would have been helpful to at least have a couple characters debate him or something at some point to clarify it. As it looked in the movie, it was "why the hell is this shady stranger here on such an important secret mission?"

I didn't mind the wandering around the wilderness scenes. They were a little dull and a little too reminiscent of Sam and Frodo, but that's nothing new and it's consistent with the book. It worked better in the book simply because a big part of the drama of the story is that these 3 teenagers are completely lost and alone and rudderless with such a huge task. That dynamic is magnified in the endless pages of frustration and boredom in the book. It works, it's not a exciting read but I think it pays dividends for the overall tone. In the movies it could have served the same purpose but I think the script did a poor job of describing that emotion and tone. It was an effective way of creating stress and divisiveness between the threesome, but it was resolved a little too painlessly for me. All in all, the only purpose that served in the movie was to pay-off the Horcrux scene which was admittedly awesome.

Also, I was too struggling to understand the bookkeeping with the Horcruxes. Ron says 3 remaining but does so in a offhanded way during transit. Considering how central they are to the final 2 movies I think it would have been acceptable to have the characters sit down and have a more concise and specific discussion on the topic. Really, spelling that out with no ambiguity and hammering home the point that 2 Horcruxes were destroyed in previous movies and what the kids suspected the others might be and how many would have been a worthwhile exposition. I know too much exposition can be clumsy story telling but I'll give you pass on a 2 part movie based on a 800 page book concluding a decade long series spanning 8 films. Take the lead from Lord of the Rings, Gandalf doesn't mince words explaining the Ring and that it needs to be destroyed in Mt. Doom and it sets up the following 3 books/movies nicely. This movie needed a scene like that to set the stakes and make sure the viewer understands the purpose of all the following scenes.

Another important aspect that needed a little extra exposition were the scenes with Bellatrix and the Sword. Where was the sword before and when did Dumbledore use it and lose it? Let Scrimgeour explain all of that. Perhaps it's somewhat a flaw with the previous movie in that Dumbledore needed to explain more to Harry, I forget, but considering how much the sword matters explaining it in more detail and then maybe having Bellatrix tell Voldemort or Snape where the sword was might have cleared up some of the confusion.

a35362
11-22-2010, 07:12 PM
IIRC from the speculation preceding the release of Book 7, they don't know for sure whether there are six or seven horcruxes. The characters are assuming six, but there was fan speculation over whether HWMNBN accidentally created a seventh the night he killed the Potters and whether Harry himself is a horcrux.

Again, I have to stick up for the "camping" sequence -- these three kids are alone, they have a desperately important job to do and they hardly know how to begin, they have no one to ask for help and they and their loved ones are in danger all the time. And this evil bleeping locket is making them crazy. Wow. Something is going to happen at any moment and then they start fighting amongst themselves! When they finally pull their raid on the MoM and poor Mrs. Cattermole treats Ron as if he really is Mr. Cattermole, he gets a chance to see up close and personal how frightening it would be to be a Muggle-born. This isn't a game, kids.

I thought it was very well done. After our recent "talking in the movies" thread, I was happy to see that the audience I saw it with didn't make a peep throughout the entire movie (except for laughter when appropriate). We had a trailer for something that looked like a Western with Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford (!) and then spaceships showed up and the title reveal was (I swear) Cowboys and Aliens. The audience laughed loudly and heartily at that one.

Arnold Winkelried
11-22-2010, 07:23 PM
No, he didn't disapparate at all - he stunned the Aurors and Ministry personnel and left through the door.Au contraire, my dear chap. The Aurors chasing him thought had had gone out through the door. He disappeared with Fawkes. I am 99% sure on this (will check when I get home.)

Magiver
11-22-2010, 07:26 PM
Sampiro:



No, he didn't disapparate at all - he stunned the Aurors and Ministry personnel and left through the door. He was able to disapparate from Hogwarts in the movie (HBP) and when questioned by Harry he said "well, being me has its privileges".

Don't remember how it occurred in the book.

Arnold Winkelried
11-22-2010, 07:30 PM
Sorry if I'm repeating things that have already been said, I haven't read every post in detail yet, just skimmed through the thread. I didn't want to read the thread beforehand because I just saw the movie yesterday. And I have some things I am eager to say! I'll go back and re-read later, I promise.

One thing I thought that you would not understand without reading the books, even if you had seen and remembered all the movies: the mirror fragment that Harry Potter is looking into. I remember Sirius giving him the mirror in the Order of the Phoenix movie, but isn't that the last mention of the mirror in the movies? Or does the mirror appear again at the end of the Order of the Phoenix movie?

Question: when Harry Potter is attacked by Nagini in Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow, the setting changes briefly from a dilapited shabby room to a well-lit nursery, and then back. Is this Harry having a flashback to his childhood, or was he knocked through a wall into the house next door? I am assuming the former.

I agree that anyone not familiar with the books, and having only seen the movies on their release, and not since, will not get all the minor plot points. But then not everybody will go over the story in their minds after the movie ends to figure out exactly why everything happened the way it did, e.g. why did Dobby appear all of a sudden in their cellar prison.

Sampiro
11-22-2010, 08:52 PM
The next movie is going to be unbelievably actioned-packed. I can be understanding of artistic changes, but I will be hideously disappointed if they change the final scene between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange at all; I've been looking forward to seeing that on film since I read the words.

I'm going to be extremely upset if I don't get to see Minerva McGonnagall
lead the desks in a charge on the Death Eaters;)

It's never specifically mentioned in the books, but Rowling has said that Molly's brothers were killed by Death Eaters. That explains much of her loyalties (that and decency of course) and makes her role in the Battle for Hogwarts even more satisfying (and sad).

Sampiro
11-22-2010, 08:53 PM
Question: when Harry Potter is attacked by Nagini in Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow, the setting changes briefly from a dilapited shabby room to a well-lit nursery, and then back. Is this Harry having a flashback to his childhood, or was he knocked through a wall into the house next door? I am assuming the former.

I wondered about that also, and I assume the former. Though it is odd that a dilapidated house would share a wall with one so well kept and obviously Muggle judging by the electricity and chain store furniture.

equinoxi
11-22-2010, 11:47 PM
I haven't read the book but have seen all the movies. I noticed that they have been using a lot of teleportation in the recent film, they used it to escape many situations: during the attack at the wedding, Nagini, Lovegood house. Why didn't they teleport to escape the Snachers in the forest?

Antinor01
11-23-2010, 12:40 AM
I haven't read the book but have seen all the movies. I noticed that they have been using a lot of teleportation in the recent film, they used it to escape many situations: during the attack at the wedding, Nagini, Lovegood house. Why didn't they teleport to escape the Snachers in the forest?

I don't have the book in front of me, but at that point I think that Harry's wand was broken and Ron is a less than capable apparater. Hermione would have to have had physical contact with both of them to safely do so. Even that would have been dangerous since the last time she tried apparating all three of them while stressed out, Ron was fairly seriously injured.

Enuma Elish
11-23-2010, 12:47 AM
Au contraire, my dear chap. The Aurors chasing him thought had had gone out through the door. He disappeared with Fawkes. I am 99% sure on this (will check when I get home.)

In The Order of the Phoenix, at the end of the chapter entitled 'The Centaur and the Snake' is this:

"Fawkes circled the office and swooped low over him. Dumbledore released Harry, raised his hand, and grasped the phoenix's long golden tail. There was a flash of fire and the pair of them had gone.
'Where is he?' yelled Fudge, pushing himself up from the ground. 'Where is he?'
'I don't know!' shouted Kingsley, also leaping to his feet.
'Well, he can't have Disapparated!' cried Umbridge. 'You can't inside this school -----'"

Magiver
11-23-2010, 12:47 AM
I haven't read the book but have seen all the movies. I noticed that they have been using a lot of teleportation in the recent film, they used it to escape many situations: during the attack at the wedding, Nagini, Lovegood house. Why didn't they teleport to escape the Snachers in the forest?
They were set upon before they could. When the word "Voldemort" was uttered the response was essentially a surprise raid.

Enuma Elish
11-23-2010, 12:57 AM
While I liked the movie immensely, one nitpick was that it did not adequately explain the myriad ways the Ministry (now in the control of Voldemort) was closing in on Harry and his friends. Putting a magical tag on the name "Voldemort", because only Harry had the balls to say it was something that could have easily been addressed.

Equipoise
11-23-2010, 01:04 AM
It's been a few years since I watched it, but in the very first film, doesn't Hagrid take Harry to the bank to retrieve some money before they go to Diagon Alley? :smack: maggenpye posted the answer right before me and I didn't even notice it until now. Thanks.


We plan to go see this again tomorrow night. One scene that made me choke up right from the beginning was the scene where Hermione cast the Obliviate spell on her parents (our first time seeing them, right?). It was sad, you could tell she had a very heavy heart, and it was also chilling to see her image disappear from all of the pictures on the mantle.


I'm with those who've always liked the wandering-in-the-wilderness scenes in the book, and who also thought the condensed version was well-done in the movie.

maggenpye
11-23-2010, 02:37 AM
:smack: maggenpye posted the answer right before me and I didn't even notice it until now. Thanks.

No worries - I find I'm posting answers to things after the thread has moved on to other subjects :smack:

The Grangers were seen very briefly at the beginning of Chamber of Secrets, waiting to exchange muggle money at Gringotts.

The obliviate spell was a good scene - and a nice callback in the Forest of Dean where she's telling Harry that her parents wouldn't recognize the place they'd taken her camping as a kid - they wouldn't even recognize her. Got a little dust in my eye at that.

Putting a magical tag on the name "Voldemort", because only Harry had the balls to say it was something that could have easily been addressed. I noticed that too, earlier in the film he called Voldy "he who must not be named". No theories here.

Maserschmidt
11-23-2010, 05:39 AM
In The Order of the Phoenix, at the end of the chapter entitled 'The Centaur and the Snake' is this:

"Fawkes circled the office and swooped low over him. Dumbledore released Harry, raised his hand, and grasped the phoenix's long golden tail. There was a flash of fire and the pair of them had gone.
'Where is he?' yelled Fudge, pushing himself up from the ground. 'Where is he?'
'I don't know!' shouted Kingsley, also leaping to his feet.
'Well, he can't have Disapparated!' cried Umbridge. 'You can't inside this school -----'"

In the movies Dumbledore can disapparate from inside Hogwarts. I don't think he can in the books, but I could be wrong....

Unintentionally Blank
11-23-2010, 06:36 AM
One scene that made me choke up right from the beginning was the scene where Hermione cast the Obliviate spell on her parents (our first time seeing them, right?). It was sad, you could tell she had a very heavy heart, and it was also chilling to see her image disappear from all of the pictures on the mantle.

This more than anything else set the tone of the movie for me. :(

Scarlett67
11-23-2010, 06:46 AM
One scene that made me choke up right from the beginning was the scene where Hermione cast the Obliviate spell on her parents (our first time seeing them, right?).

No, we see a brief glimpse of them talking to Arthur Weasley in the bookstore at the beginning of Chamber of Secrets.

a35362
11-23-2010, 07:10 AM
Where is the Invisibility Cloak right now? It wasn't used in Half-Blood Prince as it was in the book. Is Harry supposed to have it with him (in Hermione's bag, presumably)?

Did Hermione lose her bag at Malfoy Manor or does she still have it with her? I was thinking that's why she couldn't heal Dobby -- she doesn't have the Essence of Dittany with her any more -- but I wasn't sure.

Amazing to think that eleven-year-old Harry was given what turns out to be a priceless, one-of-a-kind magical artifact -- and he uses it to sneak around after hours and go to a candy store and stuff. He could easily have lost it, traded it, whatever....

rocking chair
11-23-2010, 09:35 AM
hermione still has her bag, i don't believe essence of dittany can heal a knife through the heart.

fawkes can disapparate in hogwarts, dumbledore was carried along. house elves can apparate and disapparate in and out of hogwarts as well. it seems that only wizards and witches can not.

trailers are called caravans in the uk.

cmkeller
11-23-2010, 09:42 AM
Enuma Elish:

"Fawkes circled the office and swooped low over him. Dumbledore released Harry, raised his hand, and grasped the phoenix's long golden tail. There was a flash of fire and the pair of them had gone.
'Where is he?' yelled Fudge, pushing himself up from the ground. 'Where is he?'
'I don't know!' shouted Kingsley, also leaping to his feet.
'Well, he can't have Disapparated!' cried Umbridge. 'You can't inside this school -----'"

Huh...I guess he had me fooled too.

Wheelz
11-23-2010, 09:56 AM
One scene that made me choke up right from the beginning was the scene where Hermione cast the Obliviate spell on her parents (our first time seeing them, right?). It was sad, you could tell she had a very heavy heart, and it was also chilling to see her image disappear from all of the pictures on the mantle.It was a very moving scene, yes. But was I the only one who was wondering what this couple was going to think when they discovered all the framed photos of... nothing... on their mantle?

Mahaloth
11-23-2010, 10:28 AM
It was a very moving scene, yes. But was I the only one who was wondering what this couple was going to think when they discovered all the framed photos of... nothing... on their mantle?

No, I was as well. The photos should have changed to just the parents doing things together.

Were they the same actors from the second movie?

Infovore
11-23-2010, 10:45 AM
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and thought they did the best they could with the "wandering in the woods" scenes. A lot missing, but I guess I had to expect that. Would have liked the "Dudley thanks Harry" scene--it only had to last a few seconds. Were Dudley and Petunia CGI?

One random observation that made me crack up at the end of the movie (probably not at an opportune time, but at least I was quiet about it.) Remember when Voldemort blew apart Dumbledore's casket and carefully slipped the Elder Wand out of his grasp? Was I the only one who got a flashback to


The scene in the original cartoon version of "The Grinch" when the Grinch carefully removes the candy cane from Cindy Lou Who's grasp by gently pushing it up from the bottom and then lifting it away?


:D

a35362
11-23-2010, 11:06 AM
I thought the Elder Wand was just a very plain stick, kind of short. Not the very identifiable one we see in the movie.

They weren't going to use the actor who plays Dudley very much anyway -- he's lost all that weight and doesn't look like Dudley any more!

Yeah, I would've liked that non-goodbye between Harry and Aunt Petunia too.

Infovore
11-23-2010, 11:11 AM
They weren't going to use the actor who plays Dudley very much anyway -- he's lost all that weight and doesn't look like Dudley any more!


Wow! You're not kidding! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/6262567/Harry-Potter-star-My-life-after-Dudley-Dursley.html) I had no idea he'd changed that much.

Maserschmidt
11-23-2010, 11:38 AM
I thought the Elder Wand was just a very plain stick, kind of short. Not the very identifiable one we see in the movie.



When they filmed the first movie they didn't know about the Elder Wand, so I guess they were stuck with the fancy one Dumbledore had been carrying....

a35362
11-23-2010, 11:53 AM
Ah. Good point.

rocking chair
11-23-2010, 05:34 PM
Wow! You're not kidding! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/6262567/Harry-Potter-star-My-life-after-Dudley-Dursley.html) I had no idea he'd changed that much.

he and the fellow that plays neville are the most changed. rowling said she didn't recognize the kid who plays neville when they started shooting hp7. if she didn't know who he was i bet she thought the kid who plays dudley was a complete stranger.

Sampiro
11-23-2010, 05:39 PM
Wow! You're not kidding! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/6262567/Harry-Potter-star-My-life-after-Dudley-Dursley.html) I had no idea he'd changed that much.

Is it me or does he actually look kind of like Malfoy now (if he had bleached hair of course)?

Trivia from that article: his grandfather was Patrick Troughton (http://www.google.com/images?q=patrick%20troughton&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi) (Dr. Who, 1966-1969).

Magiver
11-23-2010, 05:40 PM
Where is the Invisibility Cloak right now? It wasn't used in Half-Blood Prince as it was in the book. Is Harry supposed to have it with him (in Hermione's bag, presumably)?

Did Hermione lose her bag at Malfoy Manor or does she still have it with her? I was thinking that's why she couldn't heal Dobby -- she doesn't have the Essence of Dittany with her any more -- but I wasn't sure.

Amazing to think that eleven-year-old Harry was given what turns out to be a priceless, one-of-a-kind magical artifact -- and he uses it to sneak around after hours and go to a candy store and stuff. He could easily have lost it, traded it, whatever.... He lost it a couple of times. Once when getting rid of Hagrid's dragon and the other time in the tunnel leading to the shrieking shack.

Infovore
11-23-2010, 05:42 PM
Is it me or does he actually look kind of like Malfoy now (if he had bleached hair of course)?


I thought he looked like Neville's twin brother, actually.

Sampiro
11-23-2010, 06:11 PM
Will somebody please refresh my memory:

Snape and Yaxley give conflicting information as to when Harry is to be transported to safety. Which one is correct?

If it's Snape, which IIRC it is, then why does he feed that information to the Death Eaters when it could get Harry and others killed? Why doesn't he just let them go with the false info?

Arnold Winkelried
11-23-2010, 06:27 PM
Because, as we learn when Harry sees Snape's memories in the Pensieve, Dumbledore tells Snape to give half the truth about Harry's escape to Voldemort so that Voldemort will keep on trusting Snape.

Sampiro
11-23-2010, 07:19 PM
Because, as we learn when Harry sees Snape's memories in the Pensieve, Dumbledore tells Snape to give half the truth about Harry's escape to Voldemort so that Voldemort will keep on trusting Snape.

What was the half he left out?

Maserschmidt
11-23-2010, 07:22 PM
What was the half he left out?

Multiple Harry's.

Sampiro
11-23-2010, 07:23 PM
Thanks.

Maybe on the DVD they'll have commentary from Jeffrey Donovan of Burn Notice. "If you're going to be a good double agent during an evil wizard's reign of terror you need to remember a few things. All of the info you give the Dark Lord must be legit, but that doesn't mean you can't leave out some key bits of info. Tell them the Chosen One is going to be airlifted at such and such a time and place but leave out there will be several of him and lots of gratuitous shirtlessness...". Of course magic or no magic Fi would take down Bellatrix in 12 seconds.

Wheelz
11-24-2010, 07:41 AM
A bit of useless trivia: Domhnall Gleeson (Bill Weasley) is the son of Brendan Gleeson (Mad-Eye Moody).

Dr. Drake
11-24-2010, 08:21 AM
A bit of useless trivia: Domhnall Gleeson (Bill Weasley) is the son of Brendan Gleeson (Mad-Eye Moody).Huh. I always thought better of Molly Weasley.

Enuma Elish
11-24-2010, 01:03 PM
It isn't like you think. Mad-Eye noticed Molly at a cookbook convention without her hubby. Moody just happened to have some polyjuice potion and a couple of Gilderoy Lockhart's hairs.

The rest is history.

maggenpye
11-24-2010, 01:34 PM
Were they the same actors from the second movie?

No. Mind you, I don't think either of them ever had a spoken line.

Background characters, eh? No respect.

Yllaria
11-24-2010, 01:52 PM
. . . They weren't going to use the actor who plays Dudley very much anyway -- he's lost all that weight and doesn't look like Dudley any more! . . .

I thought that by the end of the series, Dudley had lost weight and gotten into sports. So that would have fit. Maybe it wouldn't have fit into a half minute bit, though.

gaffa
11-24-2010, 02:41 PM
It isn't like you think. Mad-Eye noticed Molly at a cookbook convention without her hubby. Moody just happened to have some polyjuice potion and a couple of Gilderoy Lockhart's hairs.

The rest is history.
He does have a bit of a wandering eye.

Maserschmidt
11-24-2010, 04:00 PM
He does have a bit of a wandering eye.

And we have a winner! :D

Infovore
11-24-2010, 04:33 PM
I thought that by the end of the series, Dudley had lost weight and gotten into sports. So that would have fit. Maybe it wouldn't have fit into a half minute bit, though.

He didn't so much lose weight as redistribute it--he got into boxing and grew from fat kid to overweight but much more muscular young man. Dudley was never svelte, even at the end. I picture him built more like some of the professional wrestlers that are kind of doughy but still strong and in decent shape.

kaylasdad99
11-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Question: when Harry Potter is attacked by Nagini in Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow, the setting changes briefly from a dilapited shabby room to a well-lit nursery, and then back. Is this Harry having a flashback to his childhood, or was he knocked through a wall into the house next door? I am assuming the former.In the book, Voldemort was remembering the last time he had been to this village, and was replaying that scene in his own mind as he approached what he supposed was about to be his unfinished business meeting with Harry Potter. And Harry was going through the mind-meld the way he does when Voldemort is either physically close or unusually angry.

Sampiro
11-24-2010, 05:41 PM
He does have a bit of a wandering eye.

[Ron Weasley]That was bloody brilliant![/Ron Weasley]

In the book, when do they realize that speaking the name Voldemort has been hexed? I thought it came later but apparently twas hexed all along.

kaylasdad99
11-24-2010, 05:46 PM
Ron found that out when he was on hiatus from the camping trip. He tells Harry and Hermione when he finds them again.

Equipoise
11-24-2010, 08:34 PM
In the film, X Lovegood says Voldemort's name while the Trio are there. That must be how the Death Eaters knew that they should attack.

Sir T-Cups
11-27-2010, 12:06 PM
Saw the movie late last night so here are my OPEN SPOILERED TO THE NEXT MOVIE bullet points...

Things I liked:

- Loved loved LOVED the first 20 minutes of the movie. They got right into the fact that this wasn't going to be a fun romp in magic land. They showed each character's plight brilliantly. Editing at it's finest.

- Speaking of editing....the Deathly Hallows Story. Animated wonderfully and it was totally what I thought they were going to do.

-Editing point three....I liked how they montaged some of the forest wanderings with the VO of the radio. It was able to show some information and show passage of time really well.

-Something I didn't really like but was totally ok with was the lessened use of Polyjuice. In the book they used polyjuice potion four times (The beginning, the ministry, the wedding, Godric's Hollow) but the movie only used it the twice. The other times made a lot more sense in print, and really was perfectly fine with not using it in film.


Things I didn't like:

- Count me in as liking the "wandering in the forest" scenes in the book. I thought they paced well and showed the growing frustrations between the characters, and I wasn't really a fan of how they did this in the movie. I think they glossed over a lot of the frustrations that Ron was feeling when it came to whether or not he thought there was something going between Harry and Hermione. In order to do this they had to shove a lot of "romantic tension" between H and H and it was no where near that in the book. Hell in the book once Ron left Harry was noticing Hermione was crying a lot, being by herself a lot, and more depressed than ever. In the movie they basically used it as an excuse to screw with the audiences head about who really liked whom. That dance seen was horrid...absolutely horrid. It was no where near the book and it basically just showed that they were better off without Ron. This was the worst part of the movie by far, and unfortunately was a lot of it.

-The ending could have been done a bit better. I realize that we all know it's a "part one" but they didn't leave it off at any point that would make the audience want to come back. IMO a better point to end the movie (and really not far from where they ended it in the first place) would have been once they decide to break into Gringotts. They could have had a "let's do this" moment and then ended the movie. Kinda nit-picky but it's there.

- I didn't like how Hedwig died. I understand that the movie wanted it to be a bit more heroic of a demise aside from just a pointless death; but that's exactly what her death was...pointless. War is hell and sometimes the innocent die.

-No "here lies dobby, a free elf"? Really?



Final point they better have my favorite line from this book in the next movie. The conversation between Harry and Griphook when Griphook says "So young to be fighting so many". For some reason this line just took me.

Quimby
11-27-2010, 02:34 PM
-The ending could have been done a bit better. I realize that we all know it's a "part one" but they didn't leave it off at any point that would make the audience want to come back. IMO a better point to end the movie (and really not far from where they ended it in the first place) would have been once they decide to break into Gringotts. They could have had a "let's do this" moment and then ended the movie. Kinda nit-picky but it's there.



I liked where they ended the first movie and when reading the book I guessed this would be the point where the first movie would end and I was right. The story takes a breath here and you still get a somewhat complete story (if you assume the climax of the film this half is their escape from the Malfoy's) but still open ended for Part 2. I would have hated them to just stop at an arbitrary point without telling a complete story here.

The Evil Prince Zorte
11-27-2010, 09:26 PM
I missed the gravestone and the funeral, but I can see why they did it that way. They wanted to end with Dobby's burial, but it wouldn't have flowed well to stop while they go to the house and meet Tonk's parents and the other people at the house, and their reactions to Dobby's death and seeing Harry for the first time in months, and then bury Dobby.

Luna could still have said a couple words though, since she arrived with them.

I thought Hermione's obliviate at the beginning was very sad as well. What is worse, letting them mourn the death of their child if she were killed, or sparing their grief at the cost of never experiencing what they likely considered the greatest treasure of their lives?

elfkin477
11-27-2010, 10:30 PM
I thought Hermione's obliviate at the beginning was very sad as well. What is worse, letting them mourn the death of their child if she were killed, or sparing their grief at the cost of never experiencing what they likely considered the greatest treasure of their lives?That's not why she did it, though. She erased their memories to keep them safe, not to spare them emotional pain.

I liked the movie better than the book, which by far was my least favorite. Count me as a fan of cutting out a lot of the brooding in the forest scenes.

Does anyone know who the head snatcher was (as an actor). He looked like someone out of a goth and/or glam band. Not sure that was what they were going for, though...

Maserschmidt
11-27-2010, 10:45 PM
Does anyone know who the head snatcher was (as an actor). He looked like someone out of a goth and/or glam band. Not sure that was what they were going for, though...

Nick Moran...was in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. They did seem to be going kinda goth.

Count Blucher
11-28-2010, 09:34 AM
That dance seen was horrid...absolutely horrid. It was no where near the book and it basically just showed that they were better off without Ron.

I think it was added because so many people felt there was a real chemistry between them, both as characters and as actors. I believe it was intended to show that those feelings just aren't there and that they truly are just friends.

Or the other explanation could be that Horicrux are not only Truly Evil, but they make you dance badly. "Hermione, it says the next one was bought as a gift by a... J. Peterman... for his assistant, one Elaine Benes..."

Hampshire
11-28-2010, 09:48 AM
Does anyone know who the head snatcher was (as an actor). He looked like someone out of a goth and/or glam band. Not sure that was what they were going for, though...

heh, he reminded me of Adam Ant.

ricksummon
11-28-2010, 10:04 AM
I thought Hermione's obliviate at the beginning was very sad as well. What is worse, letting them mourn the death of their child if she were killed, or sparing their grief at the cost of never experiencing what they likely considered the greatest treasure of their lives?

I didn't think it was sad; I thought it was downright evil. In doing this, Hermione embraced the philosophy of Grindelwald, which was that Muggles were too stupid to think for themselves and needed wizards to do their thinking for them. I'm sure she didn't see it that way, of course, but I definitely did.

J.K. Rowling said that Hermione removed the Obliviate after Voldemort's defeat. She didn't say that her parents got a restraining order forbidding Hermione from ever coming within 100 feet of them again, but they definitely should have. :mad:

a35362
11-28-2010, 10:58 AM
In the book she gives them new identities and sends them off to Australia for safety. Forgetting that they have a daughter is just part of that. I suppose she might be thinking, "In case I get killed, they won't have to know any pain." But she's just trying to get them out of harm's way because she knows what's coming.

a35362
11-28-2010, 11:01 AM
I think it was added because so many people felt there was a real chemistry between them, both as characters and as actors. I believe it was intended to show that those feelings just aren't there and that they truly are just friends.

Or the other explanation could be that Horicrux are not only Truly Evil, but they make you dance badly. "Hermione, it says the next one was bought as a gift by a... J. Peterman... for his assistant, one Elaine Benes..."

I really liked the dance scene. Harry's trying to cheer Hermione up, and they get to enjoy a couple of minutes of silly fun without all the worry and tension of the past months. It made me think of what their lives might have been... just a couple of teenagers goofing off.

Equipoise
11-28-2010, 02:02 PM
I liked the dance scene too. I didn't think they were so bad and anyway, so what if they were? They're supposed to be Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers? They're a couple of teenage kids, dorky and awkward and for a couple of minutes just having a tiny bit of fun in a bleak bleak world.

Edit to add, I missed the credits. Was that Leonard Cohen?

ricksummon
11-28-2010, 02:16 PM
In the book she gives them new identities and sends them off to Australia for safety. Forgetting that they have a daughter is just part of that.

But the problem is, she did it without their knowledge or consent. Even the Dursleys got a full explanation from Harry about exactly why they had to go into hiding, and they had the assistance of the Order of the Phoenix instead of having to go off and hide themselves. Apparently, Hermione thinks even less of her own parents than Harry thinks of Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia! :eek:

I suppose she might be thinking, "In case I get killed, they won't have to know any pain."

If that's the case, then why didn't she delete Sirius from Harry's mind... or Cedric... or Harry's parents? Somehow, I don't think J.K. would advocate that course of action.

rocking chair
11-28-2010, 02:24 PM
it seems that the order of the phoenix wasn't protecting hermione's parents. in the case of the dursleys the charm protected them as well as harry while he lived with them. when he turned 17 the protection was off of both of them.

in hermione's case she had told her parents too much about harry. having a new identity and country protected them from riddle, along with the fact that if she died no one would restore the memories.

ron couldn't hide his family, so he created the icky pox ridden ghoul to take his place.

ricksummon
11-28-2010, 02:24 PM
From Order of the Phoenix, chapter 37:
"Sirius did not hate Kreacher," said Dumbledore. "He regarded him as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike...
Sounds exactly like Hermione's — and J.K. Rowling's — view of Mr. and Mrs. No-First-Name Granger to me.

Eyebrows 0f Doom
11-28-2010, 03:37 PM
Edit to add, I missed the credits. Was that Leonard Cohen?

"O Children" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWeR2F7ETLU) by Nick Cave.

Unintentionally Blank
11-28-2010, 03:59 PM
From Order of the Phoenix, chapter 37:

Sounds exactly like Hermione's — and J.K. Rowling's — view of Mr. and Mrs. No-First-Name Granger to me.

The books were long enough as they were, did you want to include her trips to Coney Island? :)

I think folks are reading waaay too much into it. It's a STORY, it's supposed to evoke an emotion: How would you feel if, to keep them safe, you had to erase your parent's memories of you?

Not "What an evil psycobitch she is to treating them dismissively!"

I've never mentioned my childhood cat in these forums (Mitten), doesn't mean I didn't love her.

gaffa
11-28-2010, 04:11 PM
It was done that way in the film because it was a really powerful moment. It managed to convey a huge amount of information in a short amount of time and carried a great emotional payload.

I do wonder what they would have thought about having a lot of pictures of poorly framed scenery on their mantle and end tables.

Magiver
11-28-2010, 04:37 PM
I questioned the insertion of the dance scene which wasn't in the book. Was that supposed to be a set-up for the horcrux destruction scene where Voldemort tortures Ron? In a movie that required a lot of scenes to be cut it seems strange to insert stuff that isn't in the book.

maggenpye
11-28-2010, 04:49 PM
For Hermione's oblivating her parents, would it help people to pretend she discussed all options with them and they agreed that this action was for the best? She only obliviated them behind their backs so they wouldn't call the police about the burglar chick in their living room.

Or that she thinks she's doing the right thing, because she knows freaking everything. She's supposed to be 17 years old and bright to boot, after all.

I liked the dancing scene because it was a quick way of showing that Hermione was sad and Harry was trying to cheer her up but the locket was making him sad too, and he missed Ron too and even though she tried to be happy, or at least coping, she was still missing Ron and that bloody locket was depressing her too. And there was nothing going on between her and Harry beyond simple friendship and Ron was a git for being jealous, but it was probably made worse by the locket anyway.

Just as a serious addendum, Ron was only jealous of Harry and Hermione while he was in the presence of the locket. Was that spelt out in the movie after he destroyed the Horcrux, or was it just left to the audience to work out?

maggenpye
11-28-2010, 04:53 PM
How sad is it that I'm really happy - just because this is the longest thread I've ever started!

It may be the only one that's gone to multiple pages!

Sir T-Cups
11-28-2010, 04:55 PM
I'm also gonna put the Malfoy house torture scene as one of the things I didn't like as well. This is really only because Hermione was crying in it and acting all scared and wussy...whereas when I read the book and Rowling mentioned the guys being able to hear her screams of agony I attributed it to Hermione screaming in pain...but being a badass about it.

It's another nitpicky thing....but it made her seem weak.

Sir T-Cups
11-28-2010, 04:56 PM
How sad is it that I'm really happy - just because this is the longest thread I've ever started!

It may be the only one that's gone to multiple pages!

It's not sad at all. Just wait until your thread makes the "threadspotting" homepage sometime. I almost cried when mine did.

a35362
11-28-2010, 07:37 PM
I've always had the feeling that Hermione isn't particularly close to her parents. She loves them -- of course she does -- but I always picked up from the books that maybe she doesn't necessarily miss them too much when she's away at Hogwarts. Oh, she dutifully writes them long letters twice a week or whatever, but she's always eager to go back to school (Doesn't she drop a ski trip with her parents in one book? I bet her parents were really hurt and disappointed.). I imagine she has always been this super-mature, intelligent, independent kid and when she finally got The Letter from Hogwarts she never looked back. "Ah, yes -- I always knew I was different, and now I can be where I'm meant to be." And then once she's away at boarding school, they hardly ever see her any more anyway, and she grows up without them.

Or maybe they're just cold fish, nice but boring suburbanites, and I'm reading way too much into this. :D

muldoonthief
11-29-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm also gonna put the Malfoy house torture scene as one of the things I didn't like as well. This is really only because Hermione was crying in it and acting all scared and wussy...whereas when I read the book and Rowling mentioned the guys being able to hear her screams of agony I attributed it to Hermione screaming in pain...but being a badass about it.

It's another nitpicky thing....but it made her seem weak.

I don't agree. If you're being tortured, but don't provide information to your torturer, you're being strong as hell. It doesn't matter if you cry, scream, act wussy, piss yourself - if you don't tell them what they want to know, if you don't betray your friends, you're being strong.

jackdavinci
11-29-2010, 12:53 PM
I don't agree. If you're being tortured, but don't provide information to your torturer, you're being strong as hell. It doesn't matter if you cry, scream, act wussy, piss yourself - if you don't tell them what they want to know, if you don't betray your friends, you're being strong.

Yeah, even Han Solo screamed.

Shodan
11-29-2010, 01:37 PM
The Lovely and Talented Mrs. Shodan and I went on a date night Saturday and saw it. Loved it, loved it, loved it.
They did IMO a good job of condensing a very long, very eventful book into a movie. I was not bored by the scenes of wandering in the book, but the character development that comes about in those scenes would be very hard to film, and pretty much out of place in an action/adventure film.
The parts they left out that I missed the most were The back story about Kreacher. That was genuinely touching, at least as much as the death of Dobby. Kreacher was treated decently for once, and it made him likable. It would have resonated with another part they left out, which was SPEW and how badly house elves were treated. The whole Dumbledore back story. I am assuming that has all been transferred to Part II. At least I hope so - it is an important part of his character development.
I loved the animation of the story of the Deathly Hallows. Just perfect - creepy and intriguing at the same time. Like Helen Bonham Carter, in fact.
Emma Watson is emaciated almost to the point of anorexia! Even in the book/movie, she is grown up, but she still looks barely pubescent.
I am not sure I liked the dance scene. maggenpye gave a good precis of what it was meant to achieve, but ISTM that the implied rejection of Harry by Hermione as a romantic partner should have been more of a mutual decision. It came across almost as if Harry were hitting on Hermione now that Ron was out of the picture. Harry is supposed to be in love with Ginny, and propinquity should be no excuse.

Maybe they were setting up that Ron was secretly jealous of Harry, but it would have been better if that came as a revelation in the scene where Ron destroys the horcrux.
I don't think anyone who didn't read the books or see the previous movies could pick up on what was going on, but that is unavoidable in the seventh movie of a series. My wife has read all the books and seen all the movies, and we still spent most of dinner figuring out stuff.
All this is nitpicking - Part II should be a ripsnorter!

Can't wait!

Regards,
Shodan

Merijeek
11-29-2010, 01:42 PM
Yeah, even Han Solo screamed.


Well, sure, but they never asked him any questions! Kind of hard to talk, eh?

-Joe

Antinor01
11-29-2010, 02:06 PM
I'm also gonna put the Malfoy house torture scene as one of the things I didn't like as well. This is really only because Hermione was crying in it and acting all scared and wussy...whereas when I read the book and Rowling mentioned the guys being able to hear her screams of agony I attributed it to Hermione screaming in pain...but being a badass about it.

It's another nitpicky thing....but it made her seem weak.

Considering that Bellatrix is adept enough with the cruciatus curse to to torture adult wizards into incurable insanity, I had no problem with Hermiones reaction in that scene.

Tom Scud
11-29-2010, 02:12 PM
Speaking as someone who had read books 1 through 6 and seen movies one through three, but was basically unspoiled about book number 7 (ok I know that the last horcrux is ooh spoiler), I totally understood what was happening with the locket in the lake. The only part I really didn't see the point of was the old lady historian who turned into a snake; what was up with that? Seemed like a pointless action scene that only gave another hint about the Deathly Hallows symbol which had already been foreshadowed elsewhere.

StarsApart
11-29-2010, 02:33 PM
I saw this at the drive-in as a double feature (along with Megamind). I enjoyed it. The audio quality could have been better; it was probably a combination of listening to it over the radio and the actors mumbling a bit.

All in all, I enjoyed it, but for me it really just made me anticipate the upcoming movie more. I really, really liked the illustration of the Deathly Hallows story, and Bill Nighy! I have read the books, but the action in the lake had me a little confused. I actually missed that the locket was pulling Harry away from the sword. I think I should go back and read the books before the last movie comes out.

maggenpye
11-29-2010, 02:50 PM
The only part I really didn't see the point of was the old lady historian who turned into a snake; what was up with that? Seemed like a pointless action scene that only gave another hint about the Deathly Hallows symbol which had already been foreshadowed elsewhere.

The set up was at the wedding. There are competing stories about Dumbledore and Harry learns that Bathilda Bagshot was a friend and neighbour of Dumbledore's at Godric's Hollow (where Harry's family also lived).

When Harry goes to Godric's Holow to find his parent's gravesite, "Bathilda" silently invites him to follw her back to her house and seems to be showing him some information on Dumbledore - but really she is Nagini (Voldemort's pet snake) in disguise. Voldemort has guessed where Harry would go and laid a trap for him.

That scene was very close to the book version.

maggenpye
11-29-2010, 02:54 PM
It's not sad at all. Just wait until your thread makes the "threadspotting" homepage sometime. I almost cried when mine did.

In all honesty, I think I would too.

kaylasdad99
11-29-2010, 03:05 PM
Considering that Bellatrix is adept enough with the cruciatus curse to to torture adult wizards into incurable insanity, I had no problem with Hermiones reaction in that scene.Well, in the book it was pretty clear that Bellatrix was using Cruciatus on Hermione. In the movie, when I saw that the blood-curdling shrieks had come in response to having "Mudblood" carved in her arm, I was somewhat nonplussed.

Teenaged girls do that kind of thing to themselves during English class, and nobody hears a peep out of them.

Infovore
11-29-2010, 04:15 PM
When Harry goes to Godric's Holow to find his parent's gravesite, "Bathilda" silently invites him to follw her back to her house and seems to be showing him some information on Dumbledore - but really she is Nagini (Voldemort's pet snake) in disguise. Voldemort has guessed where Harry would go and laid a trap for him.


It was actually even ickier than that, if I'm reading the book correctly (and admittedly it's been a little while, but I've listened to all 7 books on audiobook several times): Nagini is possessing Bathilda's body (almost certainly physically, since the snake erupts up out of her and goes after Harry). The snake has killed her awhile ago, and somehow crawled into her body and animated it. That's why she was covered with so many shawls and layers, why she didn't speak (because only Harry could understand Parseltongue, so Hermione would instantly know something was up if she did), and why Rowling several times referenced a rotting smell around the house and Bathilda.

I thought it was a cool scene, but then, I love gory horror books. :)

maggenpye
11-29-2010, 05:19 PM
Nagini's costume was from the Hannibal Lector Disguise Shop!

Good catch.

Sir T-Cups
11-30-2010, 06:28 PM
I don't agree. If you're being tortured, but don't provide information to your torturer, you're being strong as hell. It doesn't matter if you cry, scream, act wussy, piss yourself - if you don't tell them what they want to know, if you don't betray your friends, you're being strong.

Yeah, even Han Solo screamed.

Considering that Bellatrix is adept enough with the cruciatus curse to to torture adult wizards into incurable insanity, I had no problem with Hermiones reaction in that scene.

I understand that...but it's her crying that get's me.

Han just screamed cuz it hurt...but he never lost it. Hermione lost it for me.

a35362
11-30-2010, 06:39 PM
Well, it is a PG-13 movie. I was surprised they kept the shot of Hermione with Ron's blood on her hands (after he gets splinched). They digitally removed the blood in some advertising and I thought they were taking it out of the movie altogether.

I'm disappointed that Hermione has such a typical, high-pitched girlie scream. So there.

Unintentionally Blank
11-30-2010, 06:40 PM
Yeah, even Han Solo screamed.

Which, to this 14 year old boy, unnerved the HELL out of me. It's one thing to shoot lots of white anonymous stormtroopers, it's quite another to cause LOTS of PAIN to one of the heros.

Irishman
12-01-2010, 02:55 PM
Saw the movie. Enjoyed it. Felt it did a reasonable job conveying events. Not as much dropped as in previous films. Really enjoyed the animation of the three brothers story.

When Hermione is beginning to read the tale of the three brothers, she says (something along the lines of) "Three brothers were walking down a long, winding road at twilight" to which Ron interjects "Midnight. Mum always said midnight."

Hermione is already angry at him at this stage so she gives him a quite humourous blank look, so he backtracks and says "Twilight's fine. Better, even."

I so totally didn't get that this was a reference to the Twilight films.


-I really wish they'd put Dudley coming to Harry's defense in and that Aunt Petunia's appearance was more than something that could be done with Photoshop

I did kinda miss the Dudley coming to Harry's defense. That was such a growing moment from the books. Dudley, chief tormenter of Harry's, now grown up enough to stand up for Harry, and they made a bit of peace. He wasn't particularly any brighter, but had gained a bit of perspective - maybe just the personal experience from Harry saving him from the Dementors, but still. Not that it was necessary for this film, just a minor thing I missed.



What struck me most is that instead of guns, they have wands, which are line of sight weapons. That just struck me as wrong.

Yeah, well that is the Potterverse magic. It takes the right intonation of the right incantation (which is just a word or two), coupled with a wand and the right flick of the wrist, plus some innate ability and practice to hone wielding that ability. Then it works very simplistically, no homing ability, ricocheting off object, breaking breakables. Kinda odd.

I also mentioned at the beginning that Harry riding with the Robbie Coltrane character was the most obvious pairing (from my limited Potter knowledge), thus defeating all the disguises.

Apparently in the Potterverse, that kind of symmetry is not obvious even to the bad guys, so totally useful for the symbolic meaning to the audience.


--Wished we could have had Kreacher's full story, but understand why it was cut.

Again, that was a small point from the books that was meaningful, but because of previous shortcutting there wasn't a lot to work with, and no point spending time on it. Kreacher's redemption would have been nice, but when they have to cut something, these are the things they've been cutting.

--I thought they went a little too fast with the Malfoy Manor scene--It wasn't very clear why Bellatrix was so upset to see the sword. But maybe that will be clarified in the next movie.

I have to agree - she freaks out over seeing the sword, we come to realize she recognizes it but not why she is blasting her henchmen over it. Finally it became clear to me that she thought she had the sword locked up in Gringott's bank, but it wasn't obvious.

I missed one little part because I was explaining to my husband what "the Trace" was. It was right after the fight in the Muggle coffee shop, and they're walking down the street, and Hermione says something about having missed Harry's birthday. What did he say in response? Anybody remember?

Something like - "Really? We're on the run from Deatheaters and nearly got nabbed in that coffee shop, and you're worried about a silly birthday party?" Basically, putting perspective on her silly attitude about missing the party when it got interrupted by Deatheaters storming the wedding.


I enjoyed it, but there's one problem I had that perhaps could be explained to me by those who have read the books (I have not): the "escape" at the beginning.

I had 3 major problems with this:They have this [seemingly] elaborate escape plan involving disguising a half dozen people as Harry and they all [presumably] go off in different directions. Now:
#1 - despite the fact that they get found out immediately they still all go to the predetermined meeting place which
#2 - is Weasley's house (as if the bad guys aren't going to look there), and then
#3 - they then proceed to have a freakin' wedding! Is it just me or was that a shitty plan?! It's like if someone wanted desperately to kill one of my friends so our big plan to hide him is to come to my house and then have a party.It just seemed like a blatant plot convenience.

I think it was less about hiding Harry and more about protecting him. He starts out at the Dursleys', where he is safe because of his mother's sacrifice spell. But that protection ends on his 18th birthday, when he becomes of age. So the Order is moving Harry from the Dursleys' to the Weasleys', where they have enacted a large number of protection spells and aurors, under the Ministry authority. When the Ministry falls to Voldemort, he gains control over many of those protections that were using the power of the Ministry. That's why the Deatheaters are able to show up then and invade. And why Harry and the others have to run.

But Scrimegour did the exposition for that (sword missing!) when he read the will, then it was backed up with the kids telling each other that the goblins had made the sword but couldn't be trusted but it will always go to the true Griffindor at greatest need.

Belatrix thought she had the stolen sword safely locked in her Gringotts vault (and said as much)- when she saw it with the Griffindor students, she thought she'd been betrayed by the Goblins when the sword simply went to those who needed it. with a little help from Headmaster Snape as we may or may not learn in the next film.

Well, they did exposition about what the sword was and that it was missing at the beginning, but I didn't immediately make the connection to it being missing and Belatrix having stolen it and hidden it in her bank vault when she started freaking out. It became clear to me when she was questioning the Goblin, but not when she started blasting henchmen. Now maybe the intent was to show her insanity by having her freak out for no apparent reason, and the reason kinda come out later. If so, I guess it worked.


One thing I thought that you would not understand without reading the books, even if you had seen and remembered all the movies: the mirror fragment that Harry Potter is looking into. I remember Sirius giving him the mirror in the Order of the Phoenix movie, but isn't that the last mention of the mirror in the movies? Or does the mirror appear again at the end of the Order of the Phoenix movie?

I didn't recall the mirror or who was supposed to be in it.

Question: when Harry Potter is attacked by Nagini in Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow, the setting changes briefly from a dilapited shabby room to a well-lit nursery, and then back. Is this Harry having a flashback to his childhood, or was he knocked through a wall into the house next door? I am assuming the former.

e.g. why did Dobby appear all of a sudden in their cellar prison.

Yeah, why did Dobby suddenly appear then?

I haven't read the book but have seen all the movies. I noticed that they have been using a lot of teleportation in the recent film, they used it to escape many situations: during the attack at the wedding, Nagini, Lovegood house. Why didn't they teleport to escape the Snachers in the forest?

I don't have the book in front of me, but at that point I think that Harry's wand was broken and Ron is a less than capable apparater. Hermione would have to have had physical contact with both of them to safely do so. Even that would have been dangerous since the last time she tried apparating all three of them while stressed out, Ron was fairly seriously injured.

A further note, I don't think you can trace an apparition, so if they wanted to go to the same place, they either needed to be in contact with each other or they needed to pre-coordinate where they would go in an emergency. Given the unprepared nature of their emergency exits, one would think they might prepare in advance, but apparently they weren't that bright - look at Ron getting splinched in the first run from the MoM.

Sounds exactly like Hermione's — and J.K. Rowling's — view of Mr. and Mrs. No-First-Name Granger to me.

Nonsense. Hermione isn't indifferent or neglectful. She is protecting them the only way she has the power to do. Because without her, they really are unprotected - even more so than any old wizard. They have no ability to protect themselves from the Death eaters or Voldemort - the only protection they have is anonymity. Anyone discovers they are Hermione's parents, they become a tool to get to Hermione and thus Harry, and they are bigger targets than ordinary muggles because they have a magical child, even if it weren't Hermione. Muggles are largely backdrop to Voldemort - he will deal with them after he gets the wizards under his thumb. The are much safer being generic muggles than being the muggle parents of a witch, or especially being the muggle parents of one of Harry's best friends.

I questioned the insertion of the dance scene which wasn't in the book. Was that supposed to be a set-up for the horcrux destruction scene where Voldemort tortures Ron? In a movie that required a lot of scenes to be cut it seems strange to insert stuff that isn't in the book.

I liked that scene. I didn't see it as giving any real sense of romance between the two, it was Harry trying to cheer Hermione and himself up. Seems to me a shorthand to the sense of sadness, depression, and loss without Ron, by showing the effort it takes to find something cheerful.

The only part I really didn't see the point of was the old lady historian who turned into a snake; what was up with that? Seemed like a pointless action scene that only gave another hint about the Deathly Hallows symbol which had already been foreshadowed elsewhere.

Harry wanted to get more info on the symbol, but especially learn the secrets of Dumbledore's past that apparently where brought out in the book. He hoped by talking to her, she would tell him things from Dumbledore's past that he didn't know. And he gained information about Grindelwald, so it wasn't worthless. But it was a risk, he expected Voldemort to have set a trap, but he didn't realize what the trap was.

The connection to the symbol wasn't just seeing the symbol again, but
seeing the grave and the name on the grave connected to the symbol, which later gets suggested that he was one of the original brothers. Turns out that yes he was, and that he is one of Harry's ancestors. Thus the eventual revelation that Harry's magic invisibility cloak is actually the one from the tale, and not just a run of the mill invisibility cloak.

cmkeller
12-01-2010, 03:18 PM
Irishman:

Apparently in the Potterverse, that kind of symmetry is not obvious even to the bad guys, so totally useful for the symbolic meaning to the audience.

Because they think (correctly) that protecting Potter is the Order's first priority and therefore he'd be with the most powerful of the protectors, Moody. Hagrid isn't even allowed to preform magic, legally; his wand was snapped when he was 13.

What occured to me, after reading the book, is that the smartest thing for the Order to do would have been for ALL seven Potters to have been fakes, and then to move the real Harry later after the Death Eaters thought they had failed.

Arnold Winkelried
12-01-2010, 03:24 PM
What occured to me, after reading the book, is that the smartest thing for the Order to do would have been for ALL seven Potters to have been fakes, and then to move the real Harry later after the Death Eaters thought they had failed.Or have Harry Potter take Polyjuice potion too, so that he looks like Hermione for example. In fact, have everybody take Polyjuice potion (except Hagrid because Polyjuice potion doesn't work on him IIRC). Have 7 Harrys with none of them being Harry, and seven other people disguised. That way Harry still gets to flee with the most experienced Dark Wizard fighter.

SecretaryofEvil
12-03-2010, 01:18 AM
I understand that...but it's her crying that get's me.

Han just screamed cuz it hurt...but he never lost it. Hermione lost it for me.

Exactly how did you react the last time you were tortured? I think Hermione reacted to extreme pain the way most people do. Her reaction added a little realism to the film. Hell, Hermione cries when Ron kisses another girl in HBP, she can't shed a tear when racial epitaphs get carved into her arm?

And what a bitch Ron was for going into shock from a trifling little thing like severe blood loss. Pussy.

a35362
12-03-2010, 01:43 AM
Epithets?

elfkin477
12-03-2010, 01:57 AM
Epithets? What do you consider words like "Nigger," "Raghead," or "Spic"? Because mudblood is the HP equivalent of words like those.

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 02:12 AM
Nonsense. Hermione isn't indifferent or neglectful. She is protecting them the only way she has the power to do.

So, it was, as Grindelwald would say, FOR THE GREATER GOOD?*

Well, then, why weren't the Dursleys forced to drink a gallon of brain bleach? Surely, as the only living relatives of Undesirable Number One himself, they'd be in the most danger? That, of course, is why Harry had the Order protect them. Why couldn't they protect the Grangers?

And exactly what protection does the brain bleach actually give them? We already know that Memory Charms can be broken. Voldemort has done it himself in a previous book — and severely damaged the mind of the person he did it to in the process.

*Actually, he'd say DEM GROSSEREN GUT, because he's German.

shantih
12-03-2010, 03:09 AM
Actually, he would say 'für das grosse Ganze,' but that's not important right now.

The Dursleys despised Harry and he them, and this was common knowledge. Harming them wouldn't necessarily be terribly distressing to Harry, whereas Hermione's parents were nice people whose daughter was the most prominent witch to come from a muggle family among the major players. Harry, also, was the son of a witch, and so his ancestry wouldn't have been so inflammatory to the Voldemort crowd.

Hermione had every intention of removing the Memory Charm herself when everything was over and the danger was past, or, if she were killed, her parents would go on living safely in Australia with no pain from the memory of the daughter they couldn't even recall. I think it was a very brave and selfless thing she did, and not a bit arrogant.

Oh, and the Memory Charm could certainly be broken, but why would the bad guys do it? To learn that Hermione was gone and her parents had no idea where she was? Hermione did it not so that she could hide information from the Death Eaters but so that there would be no impediment to her parents leaving England abruptly to go to Australia and get them out of harm's way, as well as to save them future anguish if Hermione didn't survive.

a35362
12-03-2010, 06:52 AM
What do you consider words like "Nigger," "Raghead," or "Spic"? Because mudblood is the HP equivalent of words like those.

Ahem. Secretary used the word "epitaphs," and I think he/she meant "epithets". That's all I was saying.

Infovore
12-03-2010, 09:55 AM
Hermione had every intention of removing the Memory Charm herself when everything was over and the danger was past, or, if she were killed, her parents would go on living safely in Australia with no pain from the memory of the daughter they couldn't even recall. I think it was a very brave and selfless thing she did, and not a bit arrogant.

Yeah, I don't have that much of a problem with what Hermione did, but over the series of books I *have* had a problem with the cavalier way that wizards use memory charms, Obliviate, and other memory modifying spells to wipe muggles' memories whenever they see or are subjected to something they shouldn't. I'm thinking specifically of the muggle family who were tossed around by the Death Eaters during the Quidditch World Cup in book 4, along with the guy who ran the campsite who was getting Obliviated every couple of hours. I just wonder if those people (especially the kids) are going to grow up with serious residual problems and nightmares and end up in therapy, but never know why. Wizards (even good wizards--I never see any of the "good guys" getting the least bit upset about modifying other human beings' memories for their own convenience) seem to treat muggles as almost like intelligent pets--they're nice to have around, but if they interfere with the wizarding world's most trivial activities, it's okay to alter them to make everything all right. That's actually kind of contemptible. No, on second thought, that's really contemptible.

Unintentionally Blank
12-03-2010, 10:18 AM
Yeah, I don't have that much of a problem with what Hermione did, but over the series of books I *have* had a problem with the cavalier way that wizards use memory charms, Obliviate, and other memory modifying spells to wipe muggles' memories whenever they see or are subjected to something they shouldn't. I'm thinking specifically of the muggle family who were tossed around by the Death Eaters during the Quidditch World Cup in book 4, along with the guy who ran the campsite who was getting Obliviated every couple of hours. I just wonder if those people (especially the kids) are going to grow up with serious residual problems and nightmares and end up in therapy, but never know why. Wizards (even good wizards--I never see any of the "good guys" getting the least bit upset about modifying other human beings' memories for their own convenience) seem to treat muggles as almost like intelligent pets--they're nice to have around, but if they interfere with the wizarding world's most trivial activities, it's okay to alter them to make everything all right. That's actually kind of contemptible. No, on second thought, that's really contemptible.


Did you just flashy thing her again?


(must add fluff to get by the spamfilter hamsters)

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 10:33 AM
Actually, he would say 'für das grosse Ganze,' but that's not important right now.

I was going for a Reichstag reference there.

Hermione had every intention of removing the Memory Charm herself when everything was over and the danger was past, or, if she were killed, her parents would go on living safely in Australia with no pain from the memory of the daughter they couldn't even recall.

I say again: Why not delete Sirius and Cedric from Harry's mind? Surely, he'd be better off without the pain?

Hermione did it not so that she could hide information from the Death Eaters but so that there would be no impediment to her parents leaving England abruptly to go to Australia and get them out of harm's way, as well as to save them future anguish if Hermione didn't survive.

But why couldn't she have simply explained the situation to them and let them know the danger they were in — like Harry did for the Dursleys? It's like that episode of ST:TNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11001001) where the Bynars steal the Enterprise to use its computer to save their planet. Captain Picard says, "Why didn't you just ask us?" The Bynars, being binary, reply, "You might have said no."

And how dare some worthless Muggles say "no" to the greatest witch of her age! Oh, but they're just Muggles, they really don't know any better. Best to just make the decision for them and not let them worry their pretty little heads about it.

Lare
12-03-2010, 10:56 AM
I say again: Why not delete Sirius and Cedric from Harry's mind? Surely, he'd be better off without the pain?

Where do you draw the line? Why not delete Dumbledore from Harry's mind? Why not his parents?

muldoonthief
12-03-2010, 10:57 AM
But why couldn't she have simply explained the situation to them and let them know the danger they were in — like Harry did for the Dursleys?

Because Hermione's parents love her dearly, and would never, ever, let her face danger like that while they're safely in hiding, while the Dursleys loathe (or at best, slightly tolerate) Harry, and are more than happy to hide while he saves the world. If my 17 year old daughter came up to me and tried to convince me that she had to do something terribly dangerous, and I had to stay in hiding while she did it, there's nothing whatsoever she could say to convince me. It simply would not happen.

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 11:09 AM
Because Hermione's parents love her dearly, and would never, ever, let her face danger like that while they're safely in hiding, while the Dursleys loathe (or at best, slightly tolerate) Harry, and are more than happy to hide while he saves the world. If my 17 year old daughter came up to me and tried to convince me that she had to do something terribly dangerous, and I had to stay in hiding while she did it, there's nothing whatsoever she could say to convince me. It simply would not happen.

And, so, you'd have not the slightest moral qualm with your daughter erasing your mind and packing you off to Australia like some 19th-century convict on the Gloria Scott? You'd have no problem losing the dental practice you'd spent your whole life building up, not to mention all your other assets as your Muggle friends had you declared missing and presumed dead? (But of course the Grangers don't have any friends. Anyone who's not specifically mentioned in the books doesn't exist.)

And, afterwards, when your beloved daughter oh-so-graciously removed the Memory Charm — would you ever be able to trust her again?

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Where do you draw the line? Why not delete Dumbledore from Harry's mind? Why not his parents?

That is my whole point. Why not delete every single painful memory from Harry's mind? Since nearly everyone I've ever discussed this with agrees that Hermione's actions were 100% morally right, I usually try a reductio ad absurdum and ask them to give me a reason why Hermione shouldn't do the same thing to Harry. No one ever does.

Lare
12-03-2010, 11:35 AM
Sorry, didn't catch that. (Goes off in search of caffeine. MORE caffeine, that is.)

SecretaryofEvil
12-03-2010, 11:49 AM
Ahem. Secretary used the word "epitaphs," and I think he/she meant "epithets". That's all I was saying.

He did mean epithets. Sometimes he gets careless.

muldoonthief
12-03-2010, 12:20 PM
And, so, you'd have not the slightest moral qualm with your daughter erasing your mind and packing you off to Australia like some 19th-century convict on the Gloria Scott? You'd have no problem losing the dental practice you'd spent your whole life building up, not to mention all your other assets as your Muggle friends had you declared missing and presumed dead? (But of course the Grangers don't have any friends. Anyone who's not specifically mentioned in the books doesn't exist.)

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that for Hermione, explaining things to her parents and expecting them to meekly go into hiding just isn't an option, and she knows it.

And, afterwards, when your beloved daughter oh-so-graciously removed the Memory Charm — would you ever be able to trust her again?

I don't know. Maybe. 17 year olds do stupid things. I'll get back to you in 7 years when my oldest turns 17 and does something to break my heart.

Sampiro
12-03-2010, 12:25 PM
The set up was at the wedding. There are competing stories about Dumbledore and Harry learns that Bathilda Bagshot was a friend and neighbour of Dumbledore's at Godric's Hollow (where Harry's family also lived).

When Harry goes to Godric's Holow to find his parent's gravesite, "Bathilda" silently invites him to follw her back to her house and seems to be showing him some information on Dumbledore - but really she is Nagini (Voldemort's pet snake) in disguise. Voldemort has guessed where Harry would go and laid a trap for him.

That scene was very close to the book version.

It's also super important because that's where they get the advance copy of Rita Skeeter's tell all bio of Dumbledore which has some major plot devices for the final film.

Sampiro
12-03-2010, 12:28 PM
That is my whole point. Why not delete every single painful memory from Harry's mind? Since nearly everyone I've ever discussed this with agrees that Hermione's actions were 100% morally right, I usually try a reductio ad absurdum and ask them to give me a reason why Hermione shouldn't do the same thing to Harry. No one ever does.

The title of each book in the series has begun Harry Potter and the ______, not Hermione Granger and the ______. Presumably there's a lot more to her life than what's let on in a series where she's a supporting character (albeit a very important one) and if she were the main character it would probably go into a lot more detail on her parents, their friends, their money, and the obliviate spell, etc.. What you do know about Hermione from the HP books is that she is the most thorough and critically thinking and complete student at Hogwarts, so you can be pretty sure she didn't just zap them into the Outback without a nickel or the ability to dress themselves.

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 12:55 PM
What you do know about Hermione from the HP books is that she is the most thorough and critically thinking and complete student at Hogwarts, so you can be pretty sure she didn't just zap them into the Outback without a nickel or the ability to dress themselves.

Well, we "knew" that Dumbledore was always pure and untainted until the 7th book as well. My point is that no matter how well meaning Hermione was in doing this, it was not 100% morally right any more than the Human Centipede is 100% medically accurate. :)

Irishman
12-03-2010, 01:17 PM
Well, then, why weren't the Dursleys forced to drink a gallon of brain bleach? Surely, as the only living relatives of Undesirable Number One himself, they'd be in the most danger? That, of course, is why Harry had the Order protect them. Why couldn't they protect the Grangers?

Harry and the Order didn't set up protection for the Dursleys. The Dursleys ran away so they wouldn't get caught in the crossfire. But the Dursleys aren't much of leverage against Harry. Consider:

*Harry gets a mental vision*
Voldemort: "Oh Harry, I have someone new that's very important to you. I think you'll want to come try to save them."

Harry: "Who? Hermione? The Weasleys? Hagrid?"

Voldemort: "Much more important - your loving aunt and uncle who raised you like their own."

Harry: "Wot, the bloody Dursleys? You can have them. Hell, give them a few cruciatus blasts for me. Tell them Harry sent you."


And exactly what protection does the brain bleach actually give them? We already know that Memory Charms can be broken. Voldemort has done it himself in a previous book — and severely damaged the mind of the person he did it to in the process.

First he has to know he has the right people, and that they have a memory charm on them that needs to be broken. The point of the memory charm is to keep them from being identified as someone other than any other muggle couple. There's no accidental leak of information that they're really the Grangers in hiding, because they don't know they are the Grangers in hiding.


Oh, and the Memory Charm could certainly be broken, but why would the bad guys do it? To learn that Hermione was gone and her parents had no idea where she was? Hermione did it not so that she could hide information from the Death Eaters but so that there would be no impediment to her parents leaving England abruptly to go to Australia and get them out of harm's way, as well as to save them future anguish if Hermione didn't survive.

Actually, I think it did offer protection. People can unintentionally let slip some detail that breaks their cover, have a drunk moment and sob into a beer at the local bar and be overheard by the wrong person, etc. Things happen. But you can't give yourself away if you don't know yourself. I could certainly see, however, Voldemort getting the Grangers to his lair and torturing them not just because they are muggles who had a wizard kid (sacrilege), but putting the word out that he has them to manipulate Hermione into trying to rescue them, probably bringing Harry along. Or getting Hermione in order to then get Harry to come rescue her. That's why they had to be protected, not just from knowing Hermione was in danger and they couldn't do anything about it, but also for their own safety and to prevent them from being used as leverage.

Yeah, I don't have that much of a problem with what Hermione did, but over the series of books I *have* had a problem with the cavalier way that wizards use memory charms, Obliviate, and other memory modifying spells to wipe muggles' memories whenever they see or are subjected to something they shouldn't. I'm thinking specifically of the muggle family who were tossed around by the Death Eaters during the Quidditch World Cup in book 4, along with the guy who ran the campsite who was getting Obliviated every couple of hours. I just wonder if those people (especially the kids) are going to grow up with serious residual problems and nightmares and end up in therapy, but never know why. Wizards (even good wizards--I never see any of the "good guys" getting the least bit upset about modifying other human beings' memories for their own convenience) seem to treat muggles as almost like intelligent pets--they're nice to have around, but if they interfere with the wizarding world's most trivial activities, it's okay to alter them to make everything all right. That's actually kind of contemptible. No, on second thought, that's really contemptible.

It is hard to argue that there is a bit of benign contempt. The whole Ministry of Magic is secret, and Wizards are hidden from the rest of the world. That's the underpinning of the whole concept. And I agree, they do throw obliviate around a lot on muggles, which we're just supposed to assume can't cause any long term problems. Overall that is a valid argument, and I suggest that Rowling didn't think that deeply about it, she was crafting a world where magic and wizards and witches exist right alongside our modern world and we don't know about it. She had to justify that somehow for her concept. But the resulting implications aren't that nice.

If my 17 year old daughter came up to me and tried to convince me that she had to do something terribly dangerous, and I had to stay in hiding while she did it, there's nothing whatsoever she could say to convince me. It simply would not happen.

What if she had extensive training with and access to automatic weapons, and you had both hands and feet amputated? Because that's what we're talking about. She has access and ability with weapons they just cannot use - it's not lack of interest, it's complete functional inability to use them.

By the way, Hermione is 18 by this book/movie. Their birthdays are in spring, and she and Ron are of age before Harry - that's why they can participate in the polyjuice subterfuge - they were of age and consented, but Harry is not of age so he doesn't get a vote.

So what would you say if your 18 year old daughter came to you and wanted to join the marines, or become a police officer? "Sorry, you can't unless I join with you"?

Sampiro said:
What you do know about Hermione from the HP books is that she is the most thorough and critically thinking and complete student at Hogwarts, so you can be pretty sure she didn't just zap them into the Outback without a nickel or the ability to dress themselves.

In fact, it's highly likely she had the moral dilemma debate with herself before deciding to do it.

maggenpye
12-03-2010, 01:59 PM
So what would you say if your 18 year old daughter came to you and wanted to join the marines, or become a police officer? "Sorry, you can't unless I join with you"?


That's not what she's doing. The equivalent in the Potterverse would be Hermione becoming an Auror. What she's actually doing is living in Afghanistan and deciding to go up against Osama Bin Laden with a couple of school chums - she does not expect her parents to sit by and cheer from the sidelines.

Harry expects the Dursleys would be cheering the Taliban.

JKR said that she deliberately let the characters make bad moral decisions occasionally Harry performs a cruciatus curse with feeling near the end of book 7 because one of the themes of the series is that no-one is entirely good or bad.

Irishman
12-03-2010, 02:11 PM
maggenpye, I'll accept the correction to the analogy, but still my point remains. The parents are incapable of participating at the level Hermione can. They are defenseless against the tools Voldemort wields, which she is not - even if it seems she is well overmatched. She's armed and dangerous, if outnumbered. They are unable to arm themselves, much less be anywhere near dangerous.

They can argue that she shouldn't be doing it, but she's 18. How can they stop her, except by emotional blackmail? Joining her wouldn't help her, it would be an extra burden to her.

a35362
12-03-2010, 02:35 PM
Shall I just point out that The Three are 17, not 18? Witches and wizards come of age at 17. Harry has just turned 17 at the beginning of Deathly Hallows.

Ahem. Carry on.

PeskiPiksi
12-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Yes, but (can't believe I know this without looking it up) Hermione turned 18 in September, so for all intents and purposes, was 18 for the vast majority of the last book. Ron turned 18 in March.

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 06:02 PM
JKR said that she deliberately let the characters make bad moral decisions occasionally Harry performs a cruciatus curse with feeling near the end of book 7 because one of the themes of the series is that no-one is entirely good or bad.

Yes, but the decision you mentioned was called "gallant" by Professor McGonagall. I have no problem with characters making bad decisions that are called bad — I do have a problem with people calling these decisions not only good, but the best.

maggenpye
12-03-2010, 06:22 PM
Who says McGonagall is the final arbiter of what is gallant? She's as imperfect as anyone else.

There's still no proof Hermione did this without her parents prior approval, they may have understood that this was their best chance of protection.

Irishman, we seem to be on the same side.

For whatever reason she actually did it, I think Hermione had very few options that would keep her parents safe. Whether or not I agree with it, I can accept Hermione thinking this was her best decision at the time. And McGonnagal backing her difficult choice at a difficult time.

After all, you don't want your frontline soldiers distracted by moral quandries.

ricksummon
12-03-2010, 09:10 PM
Whether or not I agree with it, I can accept Hermione thinking this was her best decision at the time. And McGonnagal backing her difficult choice at a difficult time.

No, McGonagall called Harry's decision to use Crucio on Mr. Carrow "gallant." Now, in Book 5, it was considered downright shocking for Harry to do this to Bellatrix; a sign that he'd really been pushed too far. Of course, we all understood why Harry would do it, and we'd certainly forgive him for it under the circumstances, but we still wouldn't say it was the right thing to do. In Book 7, however, McG said it was right, proper, and gallant to Crucio someone. I don't agree.

maggenpye
12-03-2010, 09:37 PM
No, McGonagall called Harry's decision to use Crucio on Mr. Carrow "gallant." Now, in Book 5, it was considered downright shocking for Harry to do this to Bellatrix; a sign that he'd really been pushed too far. Of course, we all understood why Harry would do it, and we'd certainly forgive him for it under the circumstances, but we still wouldn't say it was the right thing to do. In Book 7, however, McG said it was right, proper, and gallant to Crucio someone. I don't agree.
And that's exactly why it was included - to show that Harry could make bad choices. He was not wholly good - exactly what Dumbledore told him in the first book and various characters prove in each book. No-one is wholly good or wholly evil. He'd learned not just from Dumbledore and the rest of the good guys, he'd also learned from Belatrix that for the Cruciatus curse to work, he had to mean it. He even says that at the time.

He was protecting other students, Harry's 'bad' choice saved them from almost certain torture and death. Don't you think that might affect her attitude? She was surprised by the appearance of Luna I've just checked the scene and that way I read it, the "gallant" was in keeping with her character's phasing more than an outright judgment and her "But-" would have been telling Harry off.

Where does she ever say it was right or proper?

I'm still not saying it's right - I'm saying the good guys can make bad choices and even the other characters in the book might be swayed more by circumstance than moral standpoint.

ricksummon
12-04-2010, 10:06 AM
But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

Unintentionally Blank
12-04-2010, 10:29 AM
But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

Because it's just a story?

Sir T-Cups
12-04-2010, 12:28 PM
But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

How are you defining "good" though?

There's a difference between "good" and "unquestioningly 100% percent good". Our universe and the Potterverse are the same in that nothing is black and white. The point has been made that Rowling had the kids purposely make bad decisions in order to show the good and bad sides, and maybe with the exception of Voldemort (who never does anything remotely good so it seems) everyone's decisions can be thought of in a "good or bad depending on perspective" mindset.

The ones who are agreeing with Hermione's decision of erasing her parent's memories (me included) are doing it with a sense of "it was the right thing to do given the situation at hand" and not "there is no question that this was totally right no matter what". Unless I am wrong and someone somewhere actually brought up that sentiment...I just don't see it.

muldoonthief
12-04-2010, 01:35 PM
But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

2) She erased her parents memories so they wouldn't come after her & prevent or assist her in her battle against Voldemort. As I said before, I do not believe that her parents would have just gone into hiding and not contacted her, and let her fight this battle alone, regardless of how well she explained matters to them. She knew that any contact with them would (a) put them in danger, and (b) make her own mission riskier. So she had a practical reason for erasing their memories of her - to control their behavior.

The same is not true of Harry. Erasing his memories won't prevent him from doing something she doesn't want him to do. It would purely be an emotional move, not a practical one.

ETA: I'm not in this post claiming that it was good or moral for her to erase her parents memories. I'm merely saying that the reasoning that leads to her erasing her parents memories would not also lead to her erasing Harry's memories.

Enuma Elish
12-04-2010, 06:08 PM
Harry's memories help to make him what he is: a wizard who, when the chips are really down, will chose compassion and selflessness instead of selfishness and power. It would an evil thing to take away his memories.

CorneaGenii
12-04-2010, 08:22 PM
But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

Harry's memories help to make him what he is: a wizard who, when the chips are really down, will chose compassion and selflessness instead of selfishness and power. It would an evil thing to take away his memories.

This.

I can 't speak for 1), though I agree with the consensus that what she did was good.
As for 2), I flashed on this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLzJAebfEIg&feature=related) (0:35 - 0:50) from Star Trek V. Harry's memories, including all the sadness and loss he's endured, influence the decisions he makes. Hopefully someone can articulate this better than I can.

ricksummon
12-04-2010, 08:49 PM
Harry's memories help to make him what he is: a wizard who, when the chips are really down, will chose compassion and selflessness instead of selfishness and power. It would an evil thing to take away his memories.

I agree. I just think it's also evil to do the same thing to the Grangers.

It's certainly true that the painful events Harry has endured are part of what makes him "him". However, it seems that nearly everyone agrees that Hermione was right in deleting her parents' memories of herself to spare them the pain in the event that she is killed. I say there isn't a single person alive, even (perhaps especially) those who have lost a loved one, who would want to forget that their loved one ever existed.

In addition, consider this: If Hermione had been killed, the Memory Charm would never have been removed. For all intents and purposes, Mr. and Mrs. Granger would be dead, having been replaced by "Monica and Wendell Wilkins." Hermione would have murdered her parents as surely as if she'd written their names into a Death Note. (Assuming, of course, that they have names.) They actually use this in lieu of the death penalty on Babylon 5; they call it "death of personality."

maggenpye
12-05-2010, 03:29 AM
Every member of the Order would have to die - they were aware of the memory charm and could have removed it if Hermione couldn't. Erasing Harry's pain would have harmed his ability to fight Voldemort. Erasing Hermione from her parents memory protected them during the worst period of fighting.

People do 'bad' things for very 'good' reasons and vice versa. It's one of the themes of the series. Snape betrayed many teachers while playing double agent for the death eaters. He also accidentally provided another layer of protection on Harry because he couldn't forgive James Potter's behavior.


Still not claiming it was an absolutely 'right' thing. Just the best option in a bad situation. JKR said she expected her readers to be growing up as Harry did, so this was the book aimed at 17 year old readers. I never expected anything more than adolescent level morality.

ETA, ricksummon's sig has to be the best post/sig combo ever.

MrDibble
12-05-2010, 06:13 AM
--I loved, loved, Loved! the animation of the Tale of the Three Brothers. I thought it looked really cool and creepy.

I was reminded of the animated scene in the beginning of Hellboy: The Golden Army.

I liked the movie, it all worked for me.

ricksummon
12-05-2010, 08:24 AM
Every member of the Order would have to die - they were aware of the memory charm and could have removed it if Hermione couldn't.

That's not what Hermione said, though. She specifically stated that if she died, her parents would never know they ever had a daughter. That would seem to indicate that it was Hermione's intent to commit death of personality in the event of her own death. That is, the Memory Charm would only be removed if she survived.

velomont
12-05-2010, 10:54 AM
When Harry and Hermione were dancing to the radio, does anyone know what song was playing on the radio?

Thanks

MrDibble
12-05-2010, 11:47 AM
When Harry and Hermione were dancing to the radio, does anyone know what song was playing on the radio?

Thanks

Oh Children by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds

nashiitashii
12-05-2010, 12:17 PM
I also loved Hermione's bottomless purse. It was a normal thing to book readers, and one of those bones I appreciated. I don't know if any non-book readers were confused by it, but if they were, what difference does it make? It's magic. It was a bottomless purse that could hold just about anything of any size. That's all anyone who hasn't read the books needs to know.

Have you ever looked at the contents of a woman's purse? That was a Muggle item if ever I saw one.
There's a reason I own mostly small purses-- I can find things in them, and it's less temptation to carry a lot of stuff.


[b]Acid Lamp[b] and I saw this on Friday, and enjoyed it. I love the dark visuals throughout the movie, including those bleak winter "happy tent time" scenes. Up until recently, I hadn't read any of the book series, and I'm now in the middle of book four, so I've got some catching up to do. I am starting to get more of those "reader" bones that were not present for all the other movies, and I'm sure that, upon re-watching the movies after reading the series, I'll catch more of them.

Some quick notes:

I didn't initially get the horcrux-locket was drowning him to get away, but I did figure there was something in the magic pushing him away. My brain just didn't connect that far until Ron appeared.
I'm enjoying the later movies much more than the earlier ones-- I guess the drama and the higher exposure to the rest of the magical world (and their costuming) appeals to me.
In case it isn't obvious, I love to watch creatively and interestingly dressed people in a movie. Even if it's crap otherwise, the costuming is a bonus when done well. It also pings a "dressing well and dressing strangely can go hand-in-hand" urge to reevaluate my wardrobe and dress much more formally than I do. (See Gangs of New York for the costuming, stay for the lack of anything else interesting. Okay, so Daniel Day-Lewis has some great facial hair in the movie. Same goes for A Series of Unfortunate Events and Jim Carey's overdone acting-- just look at the costuming and the intricacies of tailoring and detail in there. Why didn't I become a costumer?)
I loved the Nick Cave dance scene-- somehow it seemed appropriate. He's not mainstream in the States, and probably not in the UK either, so it fits the "wizards like odd things" bit while being ridiculous.
The Three Brothers animated scene was really breathtaking as well-- I loved the animated woodcut/silhouette effect of the characters-- it made me think of all those old books of fairy tales JKR was referencing when she introduced the book to the story.
Why a doe patronus for Harry? In the book, "Prongs" was a stag, and that's what he saw in book 3 when all the Whomping Willow/Buckbeak/Sirius drama was going on. Can someone clarify as to whether he saw a stag or a doe in the movie version of PoA? I haven't seen it in a while, and I just finished reading the book.

Unpronounceable
12-05-2010, 01:00 PM
Why a doe patronus for Harry? In the book, "Prongs" was a stag, and that's what he saw in book 3 when all the Whomping Willow/Buckbeak/Sirius drama was going on. Can someone clarify as to whether he saw a stag or a doe in the movie version of PoA? I haven't seen it in a while, and I just finished reading the book.

er...what?
When Harry used his patronus in the ministry, it was just the "umbrella of light" effect...the doe that lead him to the sword was

Snape's

I did wonder at the ball-o-ghosts announcing the ministry's fall, since in the book it was an otter.

Lamia
12-05-2010, 01:13 PM
Why a doe patronus for Harry? In the book, "Prongs" was a stag, and that's what he saw in book 3 when all the Whomping Willow/Buckbeak/Sirius drama was going on. Can someone clarify as to whether he saw a stag or a doe in the movie version of PoA? I haven't seen it in a while, and I just finished reading the book. To expand a little on what Unpronounceable posted, the doe Patronus was neither Harry's nor his father's. (If it had been then you're right, it would have been a stag.) The doe Patronus was sent by someone else to guide them to the sword, although who that was won't be revealed until the second movie. You may be confused because Ron said that when he saw the Patronus he thought it was Harry's stag, but as Harry pointed out a stag would have had antlers. At this point in the story Harry/Ron/Hermione have never seen a doe Patronus before and don't know who could have sent it.

maggenpye
12-05-2010, 02:33 PM
That's not what Hermione said, though. She specifically stated that if she died, her parents would never know they ever had a daughter. That would seem to indicate that it was Hermione's intent to commit death of personality in the event of her own death. That is, the Memory Charm would only be removed if she survived.

They were very minor background characters. There was no point in JKR dropping the main storyline to go into every details of what may or may not happen to them in every eventuality.

They may never have their memories of Hermione restored, saving them the pain of losing a daughter since they weren't required to fight 'ultimate evil'. There's no evidence that they'd be left wandering Australia under aliases either. Or that the morality of that particular choice was a prime consideration of an auther who killed off a kids parents and had another set of parents tortured into insanity. Old men and innocent bystanders are killed for the simple expedient of moving the plot along.

The fact that the families of the three protagonists used three different methods to protect their families was shorthand for the entire wzarding world doing what they felt was neccesary to protect their loved ones.

It's a metaphor.

You seem to have a real issue with this one specific scene, way beyond the simplified morality of a kids series. Perhaps you could start your own thread on this. I only paid for a five minute argument, not the full half hour.

PeskiPiksi
12-05-2010, 02:47 PM
Just curious, ricksummon, what do you think Hermione should have done about her parents?

rocking chair
12-05-2010, 03:02 PM
er...what?
When Harry used his patronus in the ministry, it was just the "umbrella of light" effect...the doe that lead him to the sword was

Snape's

I did wonder at the ball-o-ghosts announcing the ministry's fall, since in the book it was an otter.

the doe was lily's patronus as well as snapes. lily's doe matched james' stag, and snape's doe matched lily's. harry's was a stag like his dad's. when tonks fell for lupin her patronus changed to a wolf to follow her heart.

the ball-o-ghosts was to be kingley's lynx. the otter belonged to hermione. later in the book arthur weasley's weasel patronus speaks to the trio in the black's house.

thus far we know:

weasel = arthur weasley
doe= lily and snape
stag= james and harry
bunny rabbit=luna
jr terrier=ron
otter=hermione
lynx=kingsley
phoenix=albus
goat=aberforth
horse=ginny
wolf=tonks

nashiitashii
12-05-2010, 03:13 PM
Thanks guys-- I had gotten a wee bit confused with the doe patronus, and now it makes some more sense. I'm sure I'll probably have more commentary and questions as I get through the rest of the books.

Unpronounceable
12-05-2010, 03:16 PM
ah...lynx, right. Got that mixed up.

Thinking about it though, they cut the plotline that let Snape know where to put the sword - so I wonder if they'll bother to explain that one.

And summoning patronuses would probably have worked better than all that pass-code nonsense.

Enuma Elish
12-05-2010, 05:55 PM
I agree. I just think it's also evil to do the same thing to the Grangers.

It's certainly true that the painful events Harry has endured are part of what makes him "him". However, it seems that nearly everyone agrees that Hermione was right in deleting her parents' memories of herself to spare them the pain in the event that she is killed. I say there isn't a single person alive, even (perhaps especially) those who have lost a loved one, who would want to forget that their loved one ever existed.

In addition, consider this: If Hermione had been killed, the Memory Charm would never have been removed. For all intents and purposes, Mr. and Mrs. Granger would be dead, having been replaced by "Monica and Wendell Wilkins." Hermione would have murdered her parents as surely as if she'd written their names into a Death Note. (Assuming, of course, that they have names.) They actually use this in lieu of the death penalty on Babylon 5; they call it "death of personality."

In the Weasley's house, before the wedding, Harry is talking about going to look for the Horcruxes by himself. Hermione, who at this point (and until King's Cross) has always understood the 'Big Picture' better than anyone else tells him the preparations she has made for the three of them to search and then says this:

From HP and the DH (hardcover, p.96), "'I've also modified my parents' memories so that they're convinced they're really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life's ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That's to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me --- or you, because unfortunately, I've told them quite a bit about you."

"Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I'll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don't ---- well, I think I've cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkins don't know that they've got a daughter, you see."

Hermione's eyes were swimming with tears again. '"

This wasn't an evil decision. This was an incredibly difficult decision. Hermione knew, from having grown up a muggle and then entering the world of magic, that Voldemort could not only destroy the magical world, but also the muggle world.
He could become what every evil dictator since time immemorial has strived for: One who controls everyone and everything to the point of even being able to read your thoughts and control your emotions.

She knew that to help Harry win this fight, she had to remove her parents from the scene, not because she was evil, but because she loved her parents so much that she would do anything to save them from not only the fight, but from what very well might happen if the fight were lost.

This wasn't an evil decision. This was an incredibly mature adult decision.

velomont
12-05-2010, 07:41 PM
Oh Children by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds

MrDibble,

Thanks very much for that. Though it provides an atmosphere for that scene, it isn't in the soundtrack album so I wasn't sure how I would be able to identify it.


Cheers,


Velomont

ricksummon
12-05-2010, 08:44 PM
She knew that to help Harry win this fight, she had to remove her parents from the scene, not because she was evil, but because she loved her parents so much that she would do anything to save them from not only the fight, but from what very well might happen if the fight were lost.

If the fight were lost, then the world would be doomed. Every Muggle would either be dead or a slave. Monica and Wendell Wilkins would suffer just as much as the rest. Mr. and Mrs. Granger would not, because they'd be dead already, their minds snuffed out of existence by their daughter. Bless her heart, she means well. :(

Just curious, ricksummon, what do you think Hermione should have done about her parents?

She should have told them what was going on and asked the Order to hide them — just as Harry did for the Dursleys. The fact that he did that proves that it was not an utterly impossible task. Yes, Hermione's parents love her and the Dursleys detest Harry. That's why it's utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone, much less everyone, believes that a technique used as a punishment for serial killers on Babylon 5 is the right, proper, and good thing to do to the people you love the most.

PeskiPiksi
12-05-2010, 08:54 PM
If the fight were lost, then the world would be doomed. Every Muggle would either be dead or a slave. Monica and Wendell Wilkins would suffer just as much as the rest. Mr. and Mrs. Granger would not, because they'd be dead already, their minds snuffed out of existence by their daughter. Bless her heart, she means well. :(

Well, maybe...but by putting them in Australia, she's putting them in a place that's likely one of the last that will be conquered, if it ever is. Like sending your parents to the U.S. from Germany during WWII. They might well die of old age before it comes to that.

She should have told them what was going on and asked the Order to hide them — just as Harry did for the Dursleys. The fact that he did that proves that it was not an utterly impossible task. Yes, Hermione's parents love her and the Dursleys detest Harry.

They never would have allowed it if she tried this. Never would any decent parent (which the Grangers certainly seem to be) knowingly allow their child to go off to fight a horribly dangerous battle while they go safely into hiding.

maggenpye
12-06-2010, 02:15 AM
That's why it's utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone, much less everyone, believes that a technique used as a punishment for serial killers on Babylon 5 is the right, proper, and good thing to do to the people you love the most.

This whole hijack is about your preference for the moral code of a TV show? There's no magic in Babylon 5.

Just because you saw that before you saw Harry Potter doesn't make it the gold standard of morality.

What makes their writers better judges than JKR?

Those serial killers you're so concerned about can never feel remorse or atone for their crimes. The families of their victims will always know that those killers are free. I consider that far more evil than the protection Hermione is giving her parents.

Hermione, from the quoted passage earlier, seems to care more for her parents safety, than for the moral pronouncements of a fictional space station. She's fictional too. Different stories, different rules.

maggenpye
12-06-2010, 02:34 AM
And please stop saying that everyone thinks it's Right and Proper and Good.

We've said countless times - it's not right or proper or good, it's the best in the circumstances. Not everything is black and white, even if it's printed that way.

a35362
12-06-2010, 05:12 AM
Were the Dursleys under the Order's protection indefinitely, or just while they were transferring Harry to the Burrow? I don't remember all their furniture being missing from the sitting room in the book as seen in the movie.

Walker in Eternity
12-06-2010, 05:37 AM
Sorry to interrupt this thread, but I've not yet seen this film, but I have read the book. At which point do they end the film?

My family and I plan to see this over the Christmas holidays, but were curious as to where it ended, and if that means that the final film would just be one long magic fight scene.

Other than blatant profiteering, I can't see why they would split the final book into two parts, Order of the Phoenix, for example, was a much longer book and still only had enough real material for one film. It seems that unless there is a lot of fleshing out of material and quite a lot of "aftermath" in the final film there should not be enough to fill 5-6 hours of screen time

JohnT
12-06-2010, 06:07 AM
They ended the film with Voldemort getting the Weirding Wand from Dumbledore's grave.

Not being a Harry Potter fan/follower, I'll offer my near-useless observations to the delight of all...

I liked how gloomy the movie was. I didn't really follow it all that well (I kept nodding off, which had nothing to do with the film), but nobody looked as if they were having a good time.

Harry and Hermione need to hook up. Her and that redhead guy? Blech.

Speaking of Emma Watson, she's one of those actresses who would look so much better with an additional 20 pounds. Seriously chicky, you're too thin. And are breasts outlawed by the Powers that Be? I swear it was like all the young women were bound in corsets or had their breasts taped down ("There's no jiggling in the Potterverse!") or something.

As a personal note, as the father of a nine year-old who brought her Hedwig stuffed animal to the movie, Sophie was strangely non-reactive when Hedwig was killed - and, imho, the movie didn't place enough emphasis on the loss of Hedwig who was, IIRC, the first thing you saw at the very beginning of HP1 (she was flying to Harry's home with the note in her beak, right?) It was odd in that Hedwig wasn't even mourned, but Harry did take the time to lay the blame on the ambush on her. ("How did they find you?", "It was Hedwig - she follows me everywhere.")

I hope I'm wrong about the above - like I said I dozed a couple of times - but it seemed a lame send-off to Harry's animal companion.

Marley23
12-06-2010, 06:08 AM
A gentle reminder, everybody: please be careful about spoilers. It's better to be too cautious than to spoil something for someone else. I've added spoiler tags to two posts, but since I'm not a big fan I don't know what all the key plot points are.

TruCelt
12-06-2010, 06:32 AM
I'll respect your request; but I really think that anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled has no business in this thread. It's right there in the OP and in the title. It seems a bit precious to me.


Does anyone know if that was Robert Duvall playing Kreacher? It sure looked like him!

ricksummon
12-06-2010, 09:59 AM
This whole hijack is about your preference for the moral code of a TV show? There's no magic in Babylon 5.

Well, there are Technomages... as well as telepathy and telekinesis.

Those serial killers you're so concerned about can never feel remorse or atone for their crimes. The families of their victims will always know that those killers are free.

That was pretty much the whole point of the episode in question. (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/048.html) The serial killer's personality was deleted and replaced with the personality of a Christian monk, who is understandably freaked out when he finds out who he used to be.

We've said countless times - it's not right or proper or good, it's the best in the circumstances.

And I suppose I haven't been clear on my position. It was an evil act. It was the worst thing any human being could have done.

Hermione, from the quoted passage earlier, seems to care more for her parents safety, than for the moral pronouncements of a fictional space station. She's fictional too. Different stories, different rules.

Murder is usually considered evil in any fictional universe in which good and evil exist at all. If Hermione had died and the Memory Charm had not been removed, her parents would have been dead. I suppose they'd be "safely" in the afterlife — no, not even that, since their souls would still be trapped in their bodies until Monica and Wendell died of old age.

How do you consider being dead to be safe?

Unpronounceable
12-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Oops, sorry Marley.


As a personal note, as the father of a nine year-old who brought her Hedwig stuffed animal to the movie, Sophie was strangely non-reactive when Hedwig was killed - and, imho, the movie didn't place enough emphasis on the loss of Hedwig who was, IIRC, the first thing you saw at the very beginning of HP1 (she was flying to Harry's home with the note in her beak, right?) It was odd in that Hedwig wasn't even mourned, but Harry did take the time to lay the blame on the ambush on her. ("How did they find you?", "It was Hedwig - she follows me everywhere.")

I hope I'm wrong about the above - like I said I dozed a couple of times - but it seemed a lame send-off to Harry's animal companion.

Nah, Hedwig was purchased when they went to Diagon Alley. Earlier owls were just mail-delivery.

In the book,

They ID'd him because he used a disarm spell against an obviously mind-controlled person, rather than trying to kill him. Which makes even less sense. And Hedwig dies via a near-miss while still in her cage.

amanset
12-06-2010, 12:49 PM
Finally saw it last night and, well, I thought it was awful, far and away the worst of the series. Thinking back, very little actually happened. There was little in the way of plot, it felt like the end of "Return of the King" stretched out to an entire film. It also suffered (but pretty much all the books do as well, but as they take longer to read you don't notice it so much) from random shit being pulled out of arses. As soon as they get stuck, out of nowhere someone decides that what they really have to do is meet person X or go to place Y that has never been mentioned before. "Oh, I've found something!"

I love the books, but the films for me show the plot up to be quite poor. It is the additional stuff, the background and explanations that make the books compelling reads. Not the plot.

Eyebrows 0f Doom
12-06-2010, 01:30 PM
I'll respect your request; but I really think that anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled has no business in this thread. It's right there in the OP and in the title. It seems a bit precious to me.


I may be wrong, but I believe the things Marley is referring to are plot points that were not in The Deathly Hallows Part 1. As this thread is about the movie, not the novel, things that will be revealed in Part 2 are considered spoilers.

maggenpye
12-06-2010, 02:33 PM
Well, there are Technomages... as well as telepathy and telekinesis.



That was pretty much the whole point of the episode in question. (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/048.html) The serial killer's personality was deleted and replaced with the personality of a Christian monk, who is understandably freaked out when he finds out who he used to be.



And I suppose I haven't been clear on my position. It was an evil act. It was the worst thing any human being could have done.



Murder is usually considered evil in any fictional universe in which good and evil exist at all. If Hermione had died and the Memory Charm had not been removed, her parents would have been dead. I suppose they'd be "safely" in the afterlife — no, not even that, since their souls would still be trapped in their bodies until Monica and Wendell died of old age.

How do you consider being dead to be safe?

But it's only an evil act if you're using Babylon 5 as a guide. And even they did not explore what would happen if the killer never found out what he was, but got killed as an innocent by a relative of a victim. Or how the families would feel about the killer's new life, free of guilt or penalty (from their point of view). You're only seeing a tiny part of the moral implication and using that as a blanket stance for a different situation.

In The Wind in the Willows, Pan erases the memory of his presence from the main characters as an act of compassion. The joy of knowing him and removal of that joy would destroy them.

In A Clockwork Orange, depending in which edition you read, the modification of Alex's personality is either the only good thing preventing his continued sociopathic violence, or the evil act that prevents his choice of redemption.

In the Dollhouse, identity erasure and replacement is merely a nifty tool for solving crimes.

There is no clear stance of fiction on the alteration/erasure of memory or personality. It's used as either a major or minor plot point by any number of authors for any number of artistic effects.

Real world. People's personalities are changed, or erased all the time through head injury, illness and trauma, we still value the lives of the people left.

You are using 'Life' and 'Identity' as interchangeable. Dementia patients are not dead.

Do you think adoption is evil too? It certainly changes the lives (including names and backgrounds) of the adoptees. They will never be the people they would have been in their biological homes. It is done with the intent of improvng their lives. They are not murdered. What about the dependent children of families in the witness protection program?

British parents sent their children away from home during the second world, some as far away as Australia and New Zealand. Some children never came home, for various reasons that ranged from benign to evil. Some were sent away so young that they lost all memory of their original home and family. But the intent of the parents was to keep their children safe.

Do you think they would have been better off dead in a bomb crater, or can't you see any difference?

Hermione's parents in the fictional Potterverse are as helpless as children in the face of a magical war. She does what she feels is neccesary to protect them - it is not done with indifference, she mourns their loss to her while comforting herself with the idea that they are happy, together and safe.

Why should we watch any movie or read any book through the filter of "What would Babylon 5 say about this?"

I read different authors to explore different viewpoints, which is their intent.

maggenpye
12-06-2010, 02:35 PM
A gentle reminder, everybody: please be careful about spoilers. It's better to be too cautious than to spoil something for someone else. I've added spoiler tags to two posts, but since I'm not a big fan I don't know what all the key plot points are.


Sorry.

Will try to get this thread back to the movie.

ricksummon
12-06-2010, 04:45 PM
Real world. People's personalities are changed, or erased all the time through head injury, illness and trauma, we still value the lives of the people left.

Yes, but if someone deliberately causes a head injury, we throw that person in jail. Do you think we shouldn't?

Do you think adoption is evil too? It certainly changes the lives (including names and backgrounds) of the adoptees. They will never be the people they would have been in their biological homes.

They still remember their old names and their old lives.

Do you think they would have been better off dead in a bomb crater, or can't you see any difference?

I said Hermione would have committed murder if the Memory Charm had not been lifted. If that's not sufficient, then no, I do not see any difference. Granted, if the charm was lifted, it would be more like imprisoning them in a dungeon for a year instead of murder. That makes it OK, then!

She does what she feels is neccesary to protect them - it is not done with indifference, she mourns their loss to her while comforting herself with the idea that they are happy, together and safe.

So, because she feels bad about it, that makes it OK? All right then. I see that no argument will ever convince you of this. Fine. I will not be convinced otherwise, either. I'm done here.

rocking chair
12-06-2010, 05:14 PM
sorry! didn't know that book knowledge was spoiler.

Irishman
12-06-2010, 05:18 PM
Shall I just point out that The Three are 17, not 18? Witches and wizards come of age at 17. Harry has just turned 17 at the beginning of Deathly Hallows.

Sorry, can't keep that straight. Point still stands - if 17 is the age of majority, then it is the age of majority. Our equivalent on most things is 18.

But everyone — without exception — appears to believe that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents were good.

I don't believe I have argued it was good, I have argued that it served a good purpose and was a difficult moral quandry.

Oh, and no one has answered the question of why:
1) Hermione should have erased her parents' memories of herself, but:
2) She should not have erased Harry's memories of all the dead people in his life.

As I said before: In these discussions, no one ever has.

You are wrong - I have given the reason several times. The primary point of erasing her parents' memories was to protect them from being identified, to protect them from thereby being tortured, and to thus protect Hermione and Harry from Voldemort learning what they know and from them being used as bait. None of which applies to Harry's memories of anyone.

In addition, consider this: If Hermione had been killed, the Memory Charm would never have been removed. For all intents and purposes, Mr. and Mrs. Granger would be dead, having been replaced by "Monica and Wendell Wilkins." Hermione would have murdered her parents as surely as if she'd written their names into a Death Note. (Assuming, of course, that they have names.) They actually use this in lieu of the death penalty on Babylon 5; they call it "death of personality."

That is certainly an argument in moral reasoning to consider. What is the nature of identity? What does it mean that they lose their identities but still live? Is that morally acceptable or repugnant?

Sorry to interrupt this thread, but I've not yet seen this film, but I have read the book. At which point do they end the film?

Harry, Hermione, and Ron have escaped from the Malfoy residence with the assistance of Dobby, A Free Elf, rescuing Luna in the process. Doing so got Dobby whacked, so they stuff him in the ground. Meanwhile, Voldemort finally scores the magic wand he thinks will allow him to kill Harry - the Elder Wand. He discovered it was possessed by Dumbledore and buried with him, so Voldemort raids the tome and raises the want in triumph.

My family and I plan to see this over the Christmas holidays, but were curious as to where it ended, and if that means that the final film would just be one long magic fight scene.

They still have to uncover the other horcruxes first.

Other than blatant profiteering, I can't see why they would split the final book into two parts, Order of the Phoenix, for example, was a much longer book and still only had enough real material for one film. It seems that unless there is a lot of fleshing out of material and quite a lot of "aftermath" in the final film there should not be enough to fill 5-6 hours of screen time

I suppose opinions can differ, but I disagree strongly. The other stories suffered from not being able to flesh out the side plots, and most Potter fans find plenty of things they wish were in the other movies - certainly starting with Prisoner of Azkaban. I can't say that the movies don't show a clear storyline, because I didn't experience them as a non-reader, so I'm comparing them to my memory of the books.

The thing is, they give little nods to the book that only serve to annoy more for the offhand way they are carried out and blown off.

This movie had a lot to accomplish. It had to do Harry's escape from the Dursleys', the wedding and fall of the Ministry, the trio's run to the Black house, the infiltration of the Ministry to get the locket, the escape that ended in the woods, the pointless wandering that takes an emotional toll and strains their relationship, the journey to Godrick's Hollow to acquire the tell-all history of Dumbledore and see the grave of what's his face, the discovery of the sword and return of Ron, meeting up with Luna's father and hearing the story of the Deadly Hallows, the capture by Greyback and inquisition by Belatrix, and finally the flight from the Malfoys.

The second half has to

identify, find, and destroy the remaining three horcruxes, which includes learning about Dumbledore, then go to Hogwarts for the big battle, end up with Harry confronting Voldemort and having his near-death experience, finally finishing off Voldemort, finding out about Snape and why Dumbledore trusted him and how he was really good all along, and then having a final wrap up scene with the kids.

That's plenty to fill the movie, keep it action-packed, and not feel stretched.

It was odd in that Hedwig wasn't even mourned, but Harry did take the time to lay the blame on the ambush on her. ("How did they find you?", "It was Hedwig - she follows me everywhere.")

That wasn't quite how that scene went. The ambush occurred and they didn't know why, but that wasn't what he pointed at Hedwig about. Rather, he was explaining how Voldemort knew which Harry was the real Harry - Hedwig came to defend him. As for not mourning, there was a lot going on, including the death of Mad-eye Moody, and the blasting of one of the twins' ears. Plus the paranoia about how the ambush occurred. Yeah, they didn't take a moment specifically for Hedwig, but it was included in the dramatic tension, and why Harry tried to storm off before the wedding, to be stopped by Ron.

I hope I'm wrong about the above - like I said I dozed a couple of times - but it seemed a lame send-off to Harry's animal companion.

At least she died being heroic - saving Harry - not just being an innocent bystander trapped in a cage. Yeah, there's reasons for each version.

And I suppose I haven't been clear on my position. It was an evil act. It was the worst thing any human being could have done.

No, you've been quite clear on your position, you just haven't been listening to everyone else, and assuming we're all saying the same thing when we are not.


If Hermione had died and the Memory Charm had not been removed, her parents would have been dead.

That's a philosophical position that isn't unanimously agreed.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.