I couldn’t even remember where the Prince’s Tale took place, although I didn’t remember it being in a boathouse. On looking it up, it was in the shrieking shack. I’m guessing the director (or screenwriter) didn’t want to have to explain how everybody got wa-a-a-y over to a place most moviegoers wouldn’t recognize anyway, and then back to the school grounds to use Dumbledore’s pensieve. Better to keep it someplace on the grounds.
On seeing the movie a second time, when Voldy used the Elder Wand to take down the school’s defense shield, it was shown as cracking. Was V using the wand beyond its capacity (ha!) or was it because he was not the true master?
Actually I thought Ron got shortchanged in that shot. It started with a shot of Ron, Hermione, Harry, & Ginny. Ron & Ginny looked like they were a few feet behind Hermione & Harry. The camera slowly zoomed in - first Ginny went out of focus, then Ron went out of focus too!
I think of wands being like the amplifier to an electric guitar, maybe with a synthesizer built in. You can increase the sound, change the tone, and different builds will produce different strengths and sounds.
The elder Wand was directing and producing magic, but not amplifying in the manner he had expected.
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that scene! “gee, that was lucky!”
Yeah… this is why I made sure not to read the books for years before I saw the movie. I’ve found this always helps with book adaptations.
Hm, reading the book that was pretty much exactly what I pictured. Like, he’s lost his whole life and is drowning in despair and – almost – untouchable (except by the job that he has to protect Harry). That’s why I thought Rickman did such a great job.
I don’t know, the Dark Poet might agree. I loooove the LOTR books just about infinitely more than the HP books, and I liked the HP movies quite a bit more than the LOTR movies. In fact, I liked them better probably because I like the books less, so when they deviated from it I wasn’t all upset and crushed.
I saw it Saturday (I almost said “finally saw it,” but it was only the second weekend!).
Loved it! I know there were changes from the book, but I’d read it however many years ago when it came out, so all of the details weren’t fresh in my mind and I wasn’t sitting there counting the differences. Anyway, I think what they did with the film worked really well for a film. An author can describe something happening between two characters in great detail, even when all sorts of other stuff is going on around them. Much harder to do so in a movie. We really needed to focus on Harry and Voldemort at the climax, so it made perfect sense to physically remove them from the chaos and mayhem of the rest of the battle. In general, I tend to be impressed by screenwriters who understand what does and doesn’t translate well verbatim from novels to films.
There may be a few nits I could pick, but I choose not to. I was highly entertained throughout, and moved in a few spots. Overall, it was a fantastic, exciting ride. I thought the 3D added a nice depth and richness to the visuals, and wasn’t used to gimmicky effect. At the same time, I don’t think much would have been lost watching in 2D.
I just saw it too. I like it. I couldn’t help wishing though, instead of the “19 Years Later”, they had done something a little more current…like maybe 5 years later, with the rebuilding going on. It would have been more realistic, rather than the awful aging jobs. (And I can foul on Ron’s potbelly…isn’t he working as a Auror? I can’t see him running down Death Eaters with that…)
i always thought ron’s pot belly was a callback to the running joke of ron always stuffing his face in any scene where there’s a meal. finally caught up to him…
about the epilogue, i thought they did a really nice job on harry, and draco just looked silly. the book does have a line that mentions his hairline is beginning to recede (BEGINNING to recede, makeup people) but they took it a bit far.
The nineteen years later was taken straight from the book. I think the author’s idea was that Harry Potter finally had the thing he was missing his entire childhood; a family.
Over the years I’ve cared less and less about the films following the books, and more about having a good experience…in particular, having read the books so many times, I actually enjoy being surprised by plot deviations, as long as they aren’t too silly.
With that in mind I really enjoyed this. So Snape meets his demise in the boathouse (this was suggested by the cinematographer, I seem to recall reading)? In some ways that actually makes more sense than the Shrieking Shack. So the battle ranges all over Hogwarts and has them finish alone? Cinematically it worked for me. And I definitely liked the expansion on the Snape backstory.
My only complaint is that at 2 hours it was rushed…there was no reason they couldn’t have added some more scenes and come in at 2:30.
Dumbledore implies that the the Kings Cross “limbo” may have been entirely within Harry’s head. Not an afterlife, a hallucination - with, perhaps, a bit of Dumbledore’s spirit using it to talk to Harry.
Yeah, well, McKellen wasn’t available.
Here’s my take: keep the epilog, but have Dudley be there to put his daughter Petunia on the Hogwart’s Express. “Mom’s proud as punch, but it’s just as well Dad didn’t live to see it.”
Other than Snoggin’ Teddie I had no problems with the epilogue. Among other things I think it was there to emphasize that Voldemort really was dead, unlike the previous time he died.