I thought a few of the Slytherins returned to fight, though I could be misremembering.
Actually, it’s addressed specifically in the books, though I can’t recall the exact wording at the moment. His not-quite-human appearance (which in the books is augmented by snake-like eyes) predates his rebirth and was the result of his many transfigurations of his body (I inferred from this that he was an animagus, but I don’t think Rowling had started using that term yet) and his pushing the boundaries of dark magic further than any other wizard.
Thanks. I remembered that in the book, the Battle of Hogwarts took place in the dining hall and the main entrance of the school (I think the book described that the roof of the dining hall was demolished in the battle) while the movie had much of the action in the courtyard in front of the school and on the staircase.
BTW, I wonder about Ron and Hermione’s wedding. Presumably her parents were there and they wouldn’t have been surprised by the presence of magic. But did she also invite various Muggle cousins, aunts, uncles and so forth? How would that have worked?
Here’s what’s on the Harry Potter wiki:
The footnotes for that part of the article suggest that info came from Goblet of Fire, so I guess my animagus inference is off.
Last week we watched Part One to get ready for Part Two. Both my husband and I commented on the strange scene in Malfoy Manor where the shot shows Hermione post torture. The scene shows a hair falling down towards Hermione and both of us commented, “what’s that for?”
Strangely, we’d never brought up this peculiar plot device before.
Then when we watched Part Two, Ron says something to the effect of, you’re sure this hair belongs to Bellatrix… we turned to each other and said “Oh.”
Neville and Luna:
I don’t have a problem with them winding up together. I was expecting that to happen when reading the books. The problem I have is how clumsy it was executed in the movie. Neville’s “love” for Luna pretty much comes from nowhere.
Why did Dumbledore give Hermione the Tales of Beedle the Bard?
Ron’s gift makes sense as it allows them to regroup if they get separated.*
Harry’s gift sort of makes sense as it helps Harry face his upcoming murder (I think this is weak, but it is at least plausible)
Hermonine’s gift makes no sense to me. Why did Dumbledore want them to find the Elder Wand? The Elder Wand is clearly not a horcrux. Harry already has the cloak. And Dumbledore hid the resurrection stone in the snitch. Hermione’s gift is a huge red herring!
Also if Dumbledore really wanted Harry to have the Elder Wand. Why not bequeath his wand to Harry?
- I really wanted them to all disapparate when confronted by the snatchers. Why not split up by apparating to different places then have Ron get the group back together with the deluminator?
Well, two things: Dumbledore’s original plan was for Snape to be master of the wand, not Draco. And Dumbledore didn’t know that Harry would be able to come back after being killed by Voldemort.
So I guess the plan was for Harry & co to get the Horcruxes, for Harry to then sacrifice himself, and then for Snape to kill Voldemort the way Harry did it?
And after typing all of that out I realize it still doesn’t answer why Dumbledore sent Harry on a Hallows hunt…
I am getting no work done today at all, btw…
How was Harry’s resurrection explained?
I think only Horace Slughorn, who is Slytherin.
Yeah, he damaged his soul and it manifested physically.
He didn’t die, Voldy’s soul fragment did. However, this seems to have sent him to the “limbo” kind of afterlife and according to Dumbledore, he could have moved on(died), but could also choose to go back to life.
Thanks. As I remember that was explained in the book, but I don’t remember it being explained in the movie.
I also think that Narcissa’s lie in the Forbidden Forest should have been better motivated. I get that she was concerned for Draco’s safety, but why did lying about Harry’s deadness make a difference at all? Why wouldn’t she just say, hey, he’s not dead yet. Makes no sense. It would make more sense if she was simply mistaken and checked him for deadness while he was ‘mostly-dead’ and chatting with Dumbledore.
But the conversation about Draco really mucks things up. She clearly knows he isn’t dead, but decides to lie about it with no motivation what-so-ever.
Explained in the book as Narcissa realized the only way she could get in to Hogwarts was as part of the conquering army. Moldyfart had marginalized the Malfoys by that time for not being reliable.
I think it boils down to “because he knew she’d read it.”
Plotwise, it explained the Deathly Hallows and gave three people who would never have any reason to talk about them an excuse to do so. By chance, it also included the symbol, which helped get them moving toward Mr. Lovegood’s house. The movie focused on the latter.
And Harry Potter needed to be alive because?
Well, if he was truly dead, he couldn’t answer the question about Draco, could he? 
In the book, it’s made clear that most versions of the book were censored and made to be really childish. Dumbledore’s copy was a first edition and contained the story of the Hallows that would provide clues to the kids. Also, he drew the deathly hallow symbol in it to get them going.
I also think she is hoping that Harry will defeat Voldemort and free herself, her husband, and Draco from serving him. They screwed up getting involved with this guy and they want out. She is helping Harry by concealing his survival.
Also, if Voldie knows Harry’s alive, he’s going to be busy trying to kill him, not marching into the castle. And maybe the fact that Harry is alive makes Narcissa realize that she’s been on the losing side so far, and if she wants to see her son she better switch.
My wife and I really enjoyed it, kind of sad that it’s over.
One question: at shell cottage, Ollivander identifies one of the wands they have as belonging to Bellatrix. Then they go to Gringott’s, are asked for her wand as identification, and… they just didn’t bother bringing it with them? Did I miss something? Would have saved some unforgivable cursing.
Also, does anyone know why the killing curse is unforgivable, but other curses that can kill people (ie, whatever Molly does to Bellatrix) aren’t?
One general comment about the last few movies: I wish there had been more creative use of magic during fights. Way too much “this wand is basically a gun”, not nearly enough “Voldemort makes his cloak into big snake tentacles and grabs Harry”. This is particularly irritating in, for instance, the scene with the snatchers in DH1 where they’re chasing Hermione and Harry and Ron through the forest. Hermione is (we are frequently told) one of the brightest witches of her generation, and she can’t come up with any useful spell to stop baddies from chasing her? Darkness? entanglement? anything?
I assumed they had it, but the point was that she’s the type who would refuse to present it. That is, “Don’t you know who I am?”
Because it’s a children’s book and he’s the hero.