Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

[Emperor]

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here fresh from a press screening of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 and I’m happy to report that it’s just as dark as the book was. Moreso even.

 

I’d be willing to bet that this generation’s small children will point at this film as one of those that made a huge impression on them. For me it was watching Artax sink into the Swamps of Sadness, that f-ing horrible bog witch from Legend and Toht’s face melting in Raiders of the Lost Ark. For them it’ll be moments from this film, particularly the opening.

 

Some might consider this spoiler material, so you’ve been warned, but one of the very first things we see is Snape showing up to an evil dinner with Voldemort and all the top Death Eaters. In a corner is a woman in obvious pain, floating in mid air facing skywards, back arched. Voldemort explains this is a Hogwarts teacher, a specialist in Muggle studies.

 

She’s moved over the table and when she sees Snape she begs him to save her. “We’re friends, Severus! Please!” Alan Rickman plays it stone-faced, but there’s something in his eyes that betrays sympathy at a near microscopic level and watches as Voldemort murders her.

 

As we watch as Voldemort murders her. It’s not so much the killing. It’s not so much the begging (although that is very effective), but there’s a shot of her corpse as it hits the table, a single lifeless tear rolling down her cheek, that signals from the beginning that this isn’t a kid’s movie anymore.

 

Anybody who has been watching this series (or read the books) knows that as the central three characters mature so does the tone and complexity of the series. That’s the brilliance of JK Rowling’s story and what the movie’s have more than adequately reflected: the audience is growing with the characters.

 

The first book is simple, short and filled to the brim with happy wish fulfillment broad characters. The first movie is on a similar level. The second gets a little darker, but is still a kid’s story at heart. The third film and book mark a real course change and then when Cederic is killed in Goblet of Fire we know that this world has real stakes, that people can go and that magic and fix everything.

 

In the past Warners has kept the series fresh by bringing in different filmmakers, but in this film we finally get out of Hogwarts and the cycle of storytelling isn’t the same old same old we’ve watched 6 times over. Harry goes to Hogwarts, things happen, Harry solves them with a little help from his friends and then they all eat in the magic hall and go on summer vacation.

 

Not this time. In fact outside of one moment towards the end of the film we don’t see Hogwarts at all.

 

This is the dark times. Voldemort has all but won. He controls everything either through fierce loyalty of the evil wizards or fear of the good ones. The Order of the Phoenix has put all their eggs in the Potter basket, but even with that support they essentially are just trying to sneak Potter from safe spot to safe spot and barely getting away with even that.

 

There’s a sense of hopelessness in this movie that I love. I know that sounds macabre and I swear I’m not a brooding loner that likes to cut myself in candlelight, but what I do love in these kinds of stories is seeing a situation where the heroes aren’t having an easy time overcoming evil.

 

If I hadn’t read the book I’d have no clue how the hell Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley could possibly succeed. For every victory they suffer two defeats. This is war and they are losing. Their side has no army and all their hope rests in what essentially amounts to a treasure hunt.

 

Tone wise the film is perfect, the acting is a career best for all the kids and they did a surprisingly good job at keeping the pace up through a ton of exposition. From a filmmaking standpoint I have a few issues, problems that stem from the book, so I can’t really get on too high of a soap box about them, but they still stood out to me anyway.

 

The biggest one happens early on when a character that has been a part of the series for a long time dies off screen. It’s literally “Hey, (___) is dead. Now where were we?” If my memory isn’t deceiving me it happened very similarly in the book, but a book’s a book and a movie’s a movie. It’s a cinematic moment begging to be included and is just glossed over.

 

I get it. It’s war, it’s chaos, big things happen in the blink of an eye. But even here there is no blinking because there’s no eye to see it. That moment could have been powerful, but instead it’s just an offhand comment and a sad look for two seconds.

 

But that’s a nitpick. I totally admit that. It is indicative of a flaw of the movies and that’s the reliance on the audience to be read up on the material. There always seems to be one thing in every movie I find myself having to explain to someone, whether it’s why it isn’t bullshit that Gryffindor won the house cup in the first movie or why specifically the Marauder’s Map means a lot to Harry (his parents, Wormtail and Sirius created it, an emotional revelation we never get in the film that is one of the biggest oversights in the otherwise brilliant film from Alfonso Cuaron).

 

My nitpick isn’t so much relying on me to explain something, but a general feeling that the audience knows the book already and either won’t accept a shift in focus or will understand the value of a moment that is simply not dwelled upon in the finished film.

 

Other than that moment and one towards the end of the film where it feels like a re-introduction scene to a character we haven’t seen in nearly a decade was just lopped off, I find no fault in David Yate’s direction. In fact, he overcame a huge cinematic hurdle with the story of The Deathly Hallows themselves, a fairy tale that is crucial to understanding the MacGuffin of the finale of the series.

 

He very smartly uses an animated sequence, narrated by Hermione, and makes it feel as Grimm’s Fairy Tale as possible. He took one vital bit of exposition and made it visual, employing a stylized Gothic look that fits perfectly with the tone of the rest of the film.

 

And hell, he even throws a little jab at Twilight, which absolutely didn’t go unnoticed by me or my friends.

 

I mentioned earlier that this film is a career best for the leads and I wasn’t lying. Emma Watson is outstanding, having learned how to stop acting with her eyebrows a movie or two ago. She really is a standout with a movie star quality that forces you to watch her when she’s on screen. I know that probably reads creepy, but I don’t mean it in a perverted way, believe it or not. There’s a depth to her performance, starting from the beginning of the film where she essentially erases herself out of her parent’s heads as a means to protect them from the evil that’s spreading in the world.

 

Hermione is a haunted figure who seems to be relying on her burgeoning love of Ron and the friendship she has with both Ron and Harry to keep her sanity.

 

One of the core messages of the films and books is that true friendship can overcome any obstacle and it rings truer in this film than any other.

 

Daniel Radcliffe is in his element and is totally comfortable holding this massive film (and even more massive franchise) on his shoulders. I really hope he survives this series. As iconic as he is in the role, I think there’s a real talent there that I’d had to see get squashed by typecasting.

 

And Rupert Grint is just as dependable as ever. His comic timing and sincerity make Ron the friend we all hope to have. There’s bickering, sure, but when the chips are down Ron’s always dependable.

 

The chemistry between these three has impressed me from the first film, but it wasn’t until last year’s THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE where I got the impression that their off-screen familiarity was fully caught on camera. The glimpse you get in the Gryffindor common room is now more fully formed in their characters. Every scene radiates that comfort and warmth, making that friendship the one glowing light of hope in another wise hopeless situation.

 

Rowling has said this is her favorite movie of the series so far and I understand why. It takes a lot of stuff from the book that could have been dull (the wandering around in the woods looking for a Horcrux segment, for instance) and made them very cinematic and by virtue of cutting the massive book into two movies they were able to spend more time building character. So this film is the least offensive in terms of cutting huge moments out. It almost makes me wish they’d been doing this for each book since Goblet of Fire.

 

Also, this film almost retroactively helps some of the weaker moments of the early films, mostly in the form of Dobby, the House Elf. If you don’t love Dobby by the time the credits roll then there’s something wrong with you, something I wouldn’t have said about The Chamber of Secrets. And it’s not just in the better effects that bring him to life, but his actions and the moments Yates decides to focus on.

 

Part 1 of The Deathly Hallows is incredibly strong, incredibly tense and incredibly emotional. Having read the book, I’m so excited to see the next film it’s not even funny. If they were able to get me with this part, what could be considered the boring part of this particular book, I can’t imagine what we’re in for during the final, epic confrontation.

 

If Yates doesn’t put it together on a level similar to the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers I’m going to be incredibly disappointed. The whole thing builds to this final 2 ½-ish hours that we’ll see next summer. I was anxious before seeing this film and now that I’ve seen and loved it I’m now more excited than anything. I have a feeling Yates is going to stick the landing and I can’t wait to witness it.

[Krakalakachkn]

I'm so upset that I won't be able to see this film until late December!

 

I'm really glad Yates come back as director. He did a fantastic job with Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince (which were easily the best two films in the series so far) and, when you think about it, bringing him on as director was a daring move considering that before starting on Harry Potter, he only had a few shorts and tv mini-series on his resume.

[Ashaman Kovan]

Why won't you be able to see it until December?

 

I'm not as eloquent about it as you guys, and I know basically nothing about film making on a professional level. But I've been a "pothead" since I was 11 so I'm psyched about this lol.

[Toy and Minion]

All I know is I'm glad Dumbledore's finally dead in the movies. Hated that guy. So wrong. And he couldn't even die correctly.

 

[rant off]

 

Anyways, was going to avoid this one like the plague, but the company I work for bought out two showings and I got 5 tickets, so I'm going.

 

*smirks in a very snobbish way*

[Lynchgrinch]

eugh! just saw it today.

 

i never expected much tbh because i dont like the HP films, i'm a book loyal myself

 

But Daniel radcliffe is so damn wooden! it's unreal!! its all the hand gestures and awkward convo's and feigned "emotional" scenes that just get me so wound up!!

 

it's horrible!!

 

Rupert and Emma were realy good, though. And Rickman was great as always, but i just can't bring myself to like the films.

 

shoot me if anyone EVER makes a WOT film, i think i'll cringe for a month solid.

[Majsju]

I'm so upset that I won't be able to see this film until late December!

 

I'm really glad Yates come back as director. He did a fantastic job with Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince (which were easily the best two films in the series so far) and, when you think about it, bringing him on as director was a daring move considering that before starting on Harry Potter, he only had a few shorts and tv mini-series on his resume.

 

Oh come on, december is nothing. I decided to not see this until pt.2 is released, so I have to wait until next summer to see it.

[Krakalakachkn]

I'm so upset that I won't be able to see this film until late December!

 

I'm really glad Yates come back as director. He did a fantastic job with Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince (which were easily the best two films in the series so far) and, when you think about it, bringing him on as director was a daring move considering that before starting on Harry Potter, he only had a few shorts and tv mini-series on his resume.

 

Oh come on, december is nothing. I decided to not see this until pt.2 is released, so I have to wait until next summer to see it.

 

Well that was your choice! And I would do that, but I'd rather see it on the big screen.

[Mystica]

eugh! just saw it today.

 

i never expected much tbh because i dont like the HP films, i'm a book loyal myself

 

But Daniel radcliffe is so damn wooden! it's unreal!! its all the hand gestures and awkward convo's and feigned "emotional" scenes that just get me so wound up!!

 

it's horrible!!

 

Rupert and Emma were realy good, though. And Rickman was great as always, but i just can't bring myself to like the films.

 

shoot me if anyone EVER makes a WOT film, i think i'll cringe for a month solid.

 

 

lol I get what you're saying, especially after reading the books. I hadn't read them before I saw the fifth movie and when I finally did, I couldn't stop blinking in surprise. Until I read the books, the movies were ok. Fun entertainment, but nothing to fret about. So I kept wondering what all the fuzz was about all the way through the fifth movie. Then decided to find out through the books and bought the entire series in one go. And wow..... I was hooked. Those books are fenominal (sp?). Hollywood being Hollywood, however, it's no real surprise the movies are what they are. Yet what really pissed me off was how Snape's storyline in the movies was completely killed in the Prisoner of Azkaban. In the books you never once, ever, see him in some super heroic act protecting the kids from the big bad wolf with nothing else than his body, flinging his arms out in a protective gesture. In the books he's unconscious up to and including the part where Harry collapses after saving Sirius from the Dementors. In the books you are forced to take the side of the main characters against Snape. There's no other option. In the movies, from that point onwards, Snape is forever labeled as a dark, missunderstood hero. That aspect only comes in the final book, in the last part of the book. So yeah, I think the third movie royally screwed up Rickman's chance of being even more brilliant in portraying this character.

 

Still, that's what you get, England, for not properly appreciating a good thing when it's biting you in the nose. You didn't want it, well Warner Bros did. More fool you, I say. Count your lucky stars (and ours) that Rowlings insisted on an all English cast. And now Hogwarts is part of some american theme park, instead of a major attraction in England or Schotland, where it SHOULD be. I suppose you'll need another Tolkien to create another English mythology before you'll finally start taking some pride in the hordes of talented people you produce. If ever. Enjoy your tea though, I'm sure it's nice. And proper.

 

 

I decided to not see this until pt.2 is released, so I have to wait until next summer to see it.

 

Same here, I'm not watching part 1 till part 2 is out, because I know I'll just get grumpy otherwise lol.

[Majsju]

I'm so upset that I won't be able to see this film until late December!

 

I'm really glad Yates come back as director. He did a fantastic job with Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince (which were easily the best two films in the series so far) and, when you think about it, bringing him on as director was a daring move considering that before starting on Harry Potter, he only had a few shorts and tv mini-series on his resume.

 

Oh come on, december is nothing. I decided to not see this until pt.2 is released, so I have to wait until next summer to see it.

 

Well that was your choice! And I would do that, but I'd rather see it on the big screen.

 

I am counting on a theatre here running a couple of special shows, when they have both movies, with just a shortish break between them.

[Toy and Minion]

It was better than I thought it would be. Better than 6 anyway.

[Alanna]

Still, that's what you get, England, for not properly appreciating a good thing when it's biting you in the nose. You didn't want it, well Warner Bros did. More fool you, I say. Count your lucky stars (and ours) that Rowlings insisted on an all English cast. And now Hogwarts is part of some american theme park, instead of a major attraction in England or Schotland, where it SHOULD be. I suppose you'll need another Tolkien to create another English mythology before you'll finally start taking some pride in the hordes of talented people you produce. If ever. Enjoy your tea though, I'm sure it's nice. And proper.

 

*blinks* Where did this come from?

 

Oh, and forgot to add: I loved the film too. It was dark but I think it needed to be to stay true to the film. I was worried it was going to be boring because a lot of that bit of the book is boring, but it was so dark and creepy that it kept the tension up. And the big scense (the Ministry break-in, Godric's Hallow, Malfoy Manor) were all done really well. And I don't usually care about whether they stay too true to the books or not (doesn't have any bearing for me on whether it's a well-made film or not), but I did like that this film did stay quite true to the book. Obviously splitting it in two helped, I think.

[Mystica]

Still, that's what you get, England, for not properly appreciating a good thing when it's biting you in the nose. You didn't want it, well Warner Bros did. More fool you, I say. Count your lucky stars (and ours) that Rowlings insisted on an all English cast. And now Hogwarts is part of some american theme park, instead of a major attraction in England or Schotland, where it SHOULD be. I suppose you'll need another Tolkien to create another English mythology before you'll finally start taking some pride in the hordes of talented people you produce. If ever. Enjoy your tea though, I'm sure it's nice. And proper.

 

*blinks* Where did this come from?

 

 

Just some frustration I have concerning a typical attitude from Brittain towards their own talent. I should probably have posted an /rant or something, like I've seen others do. Keep forgetting that.

[Lynchgrinch]

Schotland

 

sorry, *scotland.

 

yeah that was annoying me :p

 

But yeah i agree about pretty much everything you were saying...although the britain rant WAS a bit uncalled for, we dont all talk with a snooty accent and sip on tea. Try saying that to ANYONE from *scotland....especialy...no just anyone. Also, i'm sure a few English, Irish and Welsh would be pretty angry at that too....JUST SAYIN'!!

[Feral]

eugh! just saw it today.

 

i never expected much tbh because i dont like the HP films, i'm a book loyal myself

 

But Daniel radcliffe is so damn wooden! it's unreal!! its all the hand gestures and awkward convo's and feigned "emotional" scenes that just get me so wound up!!

 

it's horrible!!

 

Rupert and Emma were realy good, though. And Rickman was great as always, but i just can't bring myself to like the films.

 

shoot me if anyone EVER makes a WOT film, i think i'll cringe for a month solid.

 

I enjoyed the film, but agree with you on Daniel's acting. He makes everything between the three main characters so darn awkward, it literally makes me cringe! Also, having not yet got round to reading the books, I found some things a little confusing like what's going on at the ministry? Why are people putting up with all the anti-muggle propaganda?

[Alanna]

Because Voldemort's takeover was virtually smooth; they "know" that probably Voldemort has taken over, but they don't know for sure; it seems there's just been some big changes in Ministry policy. So going against it all, well, they know that probably Death Eaters would come after them.

 

Sorry if that's a bad explanation lol; it's hard for me to look at it from a not-having-read-the-book perspective. All I know is it didn't seem weird to me when I read the book.

[Feral]

Yeah see in the movie it seemed to happen rather suddenly for me and not smooth at all lol. I'm putting the books on my Christmas list so hopefully I'll understand what you mean by the time the next film is released :)

[Lynchgrinch]

yeah, the films must be realy hard to "get" if you've not read the books, i was watching it with my brother who hasn't read the series ands he was leaning over and asking me plotline questions every 2 seconds....

 

I just can't bring myself to like the films!

 

Another cringy scene was the 7 potters bit, the dialogue before they set of was so poorly done, there was no real banter between folk who had been friends of almost 6 years...it was more like awkwardness camp and cheesey one liners...meh

[Krakalakachkn]

I like the books as much as the next person, but for the most part I've enjoyed the movies. The first one was cute, the second one was lame, the third one was extremely well done, the fourth was entertaining, the fifth finally saw the films going in the right direction, and the sixth was pretty good.

 

I think the movies have followed the book plot lines as they're best able, but everyone has to realize that you can't make a movie exactly based on the book. There are literary elements and devices that don't make good transitions into film and vice versa. While not all of the movies have been good and a lot of the scenes and characters that endear the books to us have been cut for the movies, the movies have still been pretty faithful...especially considering the sheer amount of plot they have to relate in a reasonable amount of time.

 

I LOVE the books and I can say that I've enjoyed the movies as well. Not nearly as much as the books, but there aren't many things I would change about the movies. Sure, I would like to see them longer so they can fit in extra stuff, sure Daniel Radcliffe is a bad actor, and sure the directors sometimes mess up scenes, but hey - it's still Harry Potter and I still really enjoy it.

[Red2111]

so you all will most likely be surpised to know that you wont get a huge rant from me this time. *La- Gasp* the residental Voldy fanatic HP book snobb actually liked Part 1!!!! now now, don't faint, there were some parts i cringed and shook my head at; but overall i give it good marks.

 

if yoru going to rate which movies i think followed the books best i'd say all but GoF & HBP hit the marks that needed to be hit without going way too off on their own tangent. especaily after what they did in HBP (which i equate to Warner Bros treating the series like a $3 hooker) its was wonderful.

 

soem of the added scenes actually added to the movie and book, such as hedwigs death in the movie, showing many more places they traveled and the Ministry break in; as well as the opening where you see the characters thinking over whats to come. Also, giving Dobby more screen time ... well i'm never going to complain about that!! his added in lines were wonderful and i liked that he pushed his way into grimuald place (it almost makes up for not having him in GoF ... almost ...)

 

 

a few things i didn't like though:

 

1. opening meeting with the DE's. the Malfoys were cowed, you could see that; but the snide comments about Lupin & Tonks wedding should have been added, as well as Lucius's glance for Voldy's wand. whiel you can believe the Malfoys place in Voldy's circle has been taken down a notch, it's not believable thats he's been knocked down to Omega (which in the books he has) you just don't get teh feeling of them being beaten down and deafeted enough to turn traitor on him. and they had a different actress for Cissy as well ... or she just changed her hair ... either way, it was very noticable. and seeing snape fly to the gate miffed me ... ONLY THE DARK LORD CAN FLY YOU NIT WITTS!!! *throws various HP books at the screen writers*

 

 

2. 7 potters scene & DE chase afterwards. i agree that the meeting between them all was rushed, but the Twins were great as normal. i felt sad during the entire encounter knowing Moody was about to be killed. out of the short lines, the added bit about the taste of polyjiuce potion between Moody & the twins was brilliant, though i had hoped to hear George say the famous "Yeah, because 13 full grown wizards, against an underaged git who can use magic will really stop us" in that matter of fact weasley tone they have. the chase is where i have the main problem, or rather how Voldy identified Harry. they should have left it as it was in the book, though i liked Hedwigs death in the movie much better they still could have included the bit about the Expelliarmus Curse.

 

 

3. the Burrow. first, Hollywood got the wrong ear. it was the right ear in the books, not the left (but thats just me nit-picking lol) the part i don't like is how all the deaths of the characters seem to be glossed over. Cedrics death, they laughed after, DD's they didn't even show his funeral, Sirius's was mostly ignored after the fact. now we have Moody's & Hedwigs, Moody's is mentioned but then forgotten; and i don't believe Hedwig is even brought up after she's hit with the curse. i guarentee that my tone towards this movie would be much more different if the same treatement had been shown to Dobby *nods*

 

 

4. Grimuald Place. as i said, i liked Dobby's addition to the scene. it made sense to have him there in a way. what i don't liek is the down playing of Kreacher for this scene. i woudl have enjoyed to see him given the fake locket as he was given in the book; just the ensure his loyalty to Harry for the final battle at Hogwarts. i would have also liked to see Lupins appearance here as well, and the fight that ensued. also, another major piece missing was Philius's portrait; as this is how Snape learned the location to place the sword at later.

 

 

5. the Ministry Break in. was also rushed imo, but adapted well to the screen. the only part that left me a bit miffed was Harry leaving Moody's eye in that witches door; again, they gloss over the importance of a minor characters death.

 

 

6. Forest of Dean. they kinda needed to have the meeting between the 3 wizards & the 2 goblins over heard; so that Harry could later explain to Griphook that he needed to lie to Bella about he sword. i guess Hollywood sorta tweaked this plot point in an okay way, but i prefer the original tbh.

 

 

7. Dance scene after Ron leaves. no, just no. totally pointless and ruins the effect of ron's leaving.

 

 

8. Godric's Hallow. this is the scene i liked the least. the entire thing was done wrong; from harry's lack of realy emotion to seeing his parents grave, to the lack of a flash back the night Voldy killed his parents. the whole "i'm not comming home as someoen else" was way to corny a line to be put in and was literally laughable. and the scene with Bathilda wasn't visual enough, the point when Nagini comes out of her body. Her head was supposed to role off her shoulders, the hallowed out carcess is fallign as the snake lauches itself out of the carcess towards harry like an arrow loosed from a bow. this was honeslty one of THE most disturbing and grosteques images in the entire series and Hollywood dropped the ball. not to mention, yet another point where the great lord Voldy was supposed to be foiled yet again by the potter brat.

 

 

9. Locket. okay, a bit too sexually graphic for the age range this movie is targetted towards Warner Bros. seriously, the whole naked HP & Hermy in eachothers arms and making out with the appearance of having sex was a bit much! you coulda gotten the same point across with clothes on and a nice sensual kiss with intimate carasses on the cheek *shakes head*

 

 

10. Snatchers. it was an okay scene, adapted nicely to screen; but i preferred how it happened in the book due to Potter Watch being added in.

 

 

11. Malfoy Manor. the torture scene was done wrong. adding Bella carving the words mdblood into hermy was good though, it's excatly something her character would do ... cause she's psycho like that. but ron's lack of reaction to hermy's screams of pain was irritating; he should have been in panic, not dumbfounded. and here we also have a character that was supposed to die yet didn't. why did hollywood not let wormtail strangle himself, it's closure to a major plot point that should have been added, especially as they included the bit of him getting the hand back in GoF.

 

 

 

other than the above mentioned points, i thoroughly enjoyed the movie

[Alanna]

I think the movies have followed the book plot lines as they're best able, but everyone has to realize that you can't make a movie exactly based on the book. There are literary elements and devices that don't make good transitions into film and vice versa. While not all of the movies have been good and a lot of the scenes and characters that endear the books to us have been cut for the movies, the movies have still been pretty faithful...especially considering the sheer amount of plot they have to relate in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, this, THANK YOU. Books and films are two different mediums that cannot be done the same way. Unfortunately, as many times as I have said this elsewhere, those people who cling to their argument that the movies suck because they are not done exactly like the books don't really tend to listen. Or they just don't get it, I don't know.

 

Actually Snape does fly in the TDH, though not until the end. And that's just a film device they've been playing with since OotP, I believe; they have all the Death Eaters do a kind of shadowy/apparating/flying thing *shrug* It's not in the books, but it's one of those things that looks cool in the movies.

 

I liked Hedwig's death better in the movie too. The thing is, having the Death Eaters identify Harry by him Disarming Stan Shunpike - that wouldn't have worked at this point, because Stan Shunpike is one of these minor, minor characters who has never been mentioned (and had never needed to have been mentioned) before, and it wouldn't have made any sense. So I thought that change made sense, and they managed to do it without straying too far from the books.

 

I LOVED THE DANCE SCENE. IT WAS HILARIOUS AND CUTE. When I first realized he was going to dance with her, I thought it would be weird, but they were so cute, they danced like little kids. And IMO it didn't ruin the effect of Ron leaving at all; if anything, it made it sadder, because he tried to cheer her up and it worked for a minute, but then they both got all sad again as soon as the song was over and it made Ron's leaving even more horrible.

 

I'm surprised that you think the nude Harry&Hermione making out scene was not appropriate for this film's targeted audience, yet you think the grotesque and violent scene of the snake emerging from Bathilda's neck should have been included. It never fails to amaze me how people find nudity so much worse than violence. I wouldn't have minded the snake thing being more graphic, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the nude Harry and Hermione (and they weren't really totally nude, it was just hinting at nudity). This whole movie, in my opinion, was most definitely not a children's movie anyway, just as the book really isn't either. JKR herself has said that. The whole movie was incredibly dark; I don't think the "nudity" can really take it further than the tone already does.

 

I was also surprised and a little disappointed they didn't kill Wormtail, but I also think that, film-wise, it would've dragged that sequence on too long and actually taken the focus away a bit. I imagine they are going to kill Wormtail in the second half.

 

I don't think it's so much as that they "gloss over the importance" of minor details, it's that there simply is no time to fit every minor detail into the film. They're small things, but they add up.

[Red2111]

Yes, this, THANK YOU. Books and films are two different mediums that cannot be done the same way. Unfortunately, as many times as I have said this elsewhere, those people who cling to their argument that the movies suck because they are not done exactly like the books don't really tend to listen. Or they just don't get it, I don't know.

 

it's when the movies blatantly change things, like having Neville give harry the Gillyweed in GoF, then add scenes (like the dragon chase) and say "we can't add that cause we've gone over budget (like the dobby example) or when actors take it into their heads to potray a character exactly opposite than how they are done in the book because they feel Voldemort is Humanly evil, when HBP was out and if he had read it he would have foudn there was nothing Human left in Voldemort.

 

it's not that poeple LIKE ME don't get it, it's that Holly wood takes a great book series and leaves out important bits. take the entire HBP movie. they had about 10 minutes worth of the actual book in the movie and the rest was the screen writers changing stuff and focusing on teen angst. because focusing on the teen love aspect was ofcourse much more important than acutally learning how to defeat voldemort, or glossing over DD's death or seeing the awesome battle at hogwarts at the end so the audience isn't left scratching their head during majority of this film.

 

Actually Snape does fly in the TDH, though not until the end.

 

actually Snape doesnt, he's cornered by Minerva and flitwick when Harry pops in and Snape flings himself (literally jumps) out a window and transfigures himself into a bat and then flys to the shrieking shack were Voldy is waiting. it's in Chapter 31 near the middle, trust me i've read the series enough to know major arguing points off the top of my head.

 

And that's just a film device they've been playing with since OotP, I believe; they have all the Death Eaters do a kind of shadowy/apparating/flying thing *shrug* It's not in the books, but it's one of those things that looks cool in the movies.

 

it looks cool, your right. they did the same thing in the Ministry Battle with both the OoTP (white smoke) & the DE's (black smoke). because of the issue i have with Snape and his BS of "fooling" voldy, i take a specail affront to giving that sneak theif of a greasy ball the apperance of beign able to fly *cross arms and humphs*

 

 

I liked Hedwig's death better in the movie too. The thing is, having the Death Eaters identify Harry by him Disarming Stan Shunpike - that wouldn't have worked at this point, because Stan Shunpike is one of these minor, minor characters who has never been mentioned (and had never needed to have been mentioned) before, and it wouldn't have made any sense. So I thought that change made sense, and they managed to do it without straying too far from the books.

 

he has been mentioned. I think back in HBP when Scrimgor meets with Harry at teh burrow Harry asks him "Stan still in Azkaban?" like he did in the books. i could be mistaken as i've only watched that movie once. also, Stand was in the PoA movie, so it wouldn't have been a stretch. really, they could have done the scene without stan, all the spells Harry was flinging during the chase scene coud have been the disarming spell instead of the stunning jinx and that would have sufficed to bring notice with hedwig beign the icing on the cake.

 

 

I LOVED THE DANCE SCENE. IT WAS HILARIOUS AND CUTE. When I first realized he was going to dance with her, I thought it would be weird, but they were so cute, they danced like little kids. And IMO it didn't ruin the effect of Ron leaving at all; if anything, it made it sadder, because he tried to cheer her up and it worked for a minute, but then they both got all sad again as soon as the song was over and it made Ron's leaving even more horrible.

 

we're goign to have to agree to disagree on this one because i equate it to them laughing after Cedrics death in GoF with the "we'll never have a normal year at hogwarts will we *har har har*"

 

I'm surprised that you think the nude Harry&Hermione making out scene was not appropriate for this film's targeted audience, yet you think the grotesque and violent scene of the snake emerging from Bathilda's neck should have been included. It never fails to amaze me how people find nudity so much worse than violence. I wouldn't have minded the snake thing being more graphic, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the nude Harry and Hermione (and they weren't really totally nude, it was just hinting at nudity). This whole movie, in my opinion, was most definitely not a children's movie anyway, just as the book really isn't either. JKR herself has said that. The whole movie was incredibly dark; I don't think the "nudity" can really take it further than the tone already does.

 

again, we'll have to agree to disagree. the only reaons why i wanted the snake scene a bit notched up was because that is in the book and with the snake scene it's seen out of the side of the eye and blurry cause harry's lookign for the sword. so i woudln't have expected ti to be in focus, just a bit more graphic than what it was.

 

as for the locket, they expanded on it and not in a good way (again, here's another point of hollywood focusing on the sex appeal than the actual storyline) and yes, as far as i'm concerned they were totally nude with the smoke being in conveinent places. in this series, violence was a part of it; you learned that from the beginning; sex was not and is not though.

 

and it is a childrens movie, the target audience for the Harry Potter franchise is 10 yr olds at the start of SS. yes the books progressively get darker and more adult as the series progresses, after OoTP there is a blatant change from tween to teen. and JKR trying to say her books are targetted in the tween/teen range is like her trying to say "they aren't fantasy". and as far as dark, not relaly, it was on par with the tone of OoTP, which is fine because in the books the tone doesn't progress much from there either; it only seemed darker because of the light heartedness HBP was in the movies; had it maintained the same tone, it's wouldn't have seemed "so much more darker"

 

and i'm not saying nudity is any worse or better than violence; all 'm saying is that the soft core cinemax porn scene that was the locket scene added nothign to the story and actually took away from teh integrity of the series itself.

 

 

I was also surprised and a little disappointed they didn't kill Wormtail, but I also think that, film-wise, it would've dragged that sequence on too long and actually taken the focus away a bit. I imagine they are going to kill Wormtail in the second half.

 

yeah they'll probably have him betray Voldy and tell him Harry's dead instead of Cissy nah, i don't think they'll waste the budget. honestly theres no point where they can squeeze a meeting in between the two and have Wormtail strangle himself. even if they do it at hogwarts it woudl make no sense plot wise and detract away from the battle at hand and finding the last 2 horcruxes.

 

I don't think it's so much as that they "gloss over the importance" of minor details, it's that there simply is no time to fit every minor detail into the film. They're small things, but they add up.

 

most of the stuff i tend to point out and get disappointed in are the big things; like everythign i said about this movie. the fight between Lupin & Harry is important becuase it leads to Harry becoming Teddys grandfather and puts more emotional loss to both Tonk's & Lupins death in the battle (if your sad cause i spoiled this tough luck. read the book it's been out for 3 years now!) giving kreacher the locket is what makes kreachers mind up to acept Harry as his new master and gets him to lead the house elfs on harry's side during the battle at Hogwarts against mistress Cissy & Bella. DD's funeral is needed to give harry closure among other things that DD repersented in this series.

 

 

but when they take out stuff, or switch it up because of budget problems; while at the same time adding in a bunch of scenes that serve no real plotwise purpose that costs loads of money due to the amount of CGI ... yeah, as a fan i tend to get a bit frustrated. take the battle in HBP (or lack of one) if they hadn't of put so much time and budget into kids snogging and going all doe eyed over eachother, then we coudl have had that really awesomely great battle at the end; instead we get Bella hopping on a few tables wagging her wand around yelling "Laddy-Da" and Hagrids hut on fire. yeah GREAT battle there. and you know the best part of said battle they missed out on; they wouldn't have had to waste a line for Bill to explain his scar in this movie cause we woulda seen it happen in HBP.

 

 

i understand they can't get all the book in there, i do. but at the same time, hollywood needs to get their priretys striaght on what they do need to include instead of pulling andother HBP; otherwise change the name of the movies and say "Based of the Harry Potter series by JKR"

[Alanna]

it's when the movies blatantly change things, like having Neville give harry the Gillyweed in GoF, then add scenes (like the dragon chase) and say "we can't add that cause we've gone over budget (like the dobby example) or when actors take it into their heads to potray a character exactly opposite than how they are done in the book because they feel Voldemort is Humanly evil, when HBP was out and if he had read it he would have foudn there was nothing Human left in Voldemort.

 

it's not that poeple LIKE ME don't get it, it's that Holly wood takes a great book series and leaves out important bits. take the entire HBP movie. they had about 10 minutes worth of the actual book in the movie and the rest was the screen writers changing stuff and focusing on teen angst. because focusing on the teen love aspect was ofcourse much more important than acutally learning how to defeat voldemort, or glossing over DD's death or seeing the awesome battle at hogwarts at the end so the audience isn't left scratching their head during majority of this film.

 

See, I don't see it the way you do, so we might have to agree to disagree lol. I do find Voldemort 'humanly evil' (if I'm understanding the term correctly), in that, the reasons he became evil are incredibly human. And I like that about Voldemort; a villain who is simply evil just because is incredibly boring and one-sided.

 

And I'm sorry, Red, I actually wasn't referring to you at all when I said that to Krak. You make a lot of good points. But in RL I know some truly crazy people lol, who get upset the tiniest things left out in the movies. Anyhow, but again, we'll have to agree to disagree about the HBP movie. I don't know, I'd reread HBP right before I saw the movie and I didn't feel they'd concentrated on the teeng angst anymore than the book did. There's a lot of that in HBP. HBP is actually an extremely funny book...until the end, of course :D

 

actually Snape doesnt, he's cornered by Minerva and flitwick when Harry pops in and Snape flings himself (literally jumps) out a window and transfigures himself into a bat and then flys to the shrieking shack were Voldy is waiting. it's in Chapter 31 near the middle, trust me i've read the series enough to know major arguing points off the top of my head.

 

From Deathly Hallows, Chapter 30:

 

"No, he's not dead," said McGonagall bittertly. "Untlike Dumbledore, he was still carrying a wand...and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master."

 

With a tingle of horror, Harry saw in the distance a huge, bat-like shape flying through the darkness towards the perimeter wall.

 

I don't believe this means he literally turned into a bat. McGonagall says he's learned a few tricks from his master (such as flying). He is a 'huge, bat-like shape.' He is not an actual bat, he looks 'bat-like' probably because he's wearing long bacl robes spreading out around him. The only way, I think, that Snape could turn into a bat is by being an Animagus, which we have never heard of before, and if that were true, he would be an actual bat, which are not huge but quite small. And, if that were the case, I think Rowling would've said he was a bat, not a bat-like shape.

 

he has been mentioned. I think back in HBP when Scrimgor meets with Harry at teh burrow Harry asks him "Stan still in Azkaban?" like he did in the books. i could be mistaken as i've only watched that movie once. also, Stand was in the PoA movie, so it wouldn't have been a stretch. really, they could have done the scene without stan, all the spells Harry was flinging during the chase scene coud have been the disarming spell instead of the stunning jinx and that would have sufficed to bring notice with hedwig beign the icing on the cake.

 

No, that scene is not in the movie, in fact, Scrimgeour did not appear in the HBP film at all. Stan Shunpike has never been mentioned as a 'Death Eater.' Of course he was in the third film on the Knight Bus, but this whole business of him supposedly being a DE was never brought up, and I think most people (who hadn't read the books) would be really confused, either because they don't remember Stan or because they wouldn't understand why Stan was a DE and why Harry was trying to protect him. I think you're right that they could've had him throw a Disarming Spell anyway, and it might've been nice to have Lupin get all mad at him about it like in the books, considering how Harry does defeat Voldy in the end.

 

I LOVED THE DANCE SCENE. IT WAS HILARIOUS AND CUTE. When I first realized he was going to dance with her, I thought it would be weird, but they were so cute, they danced like little kids. And IMO it didn't ruin the effect of Ron leaving at all; if anything, it made it sadder, because he tried to cheer her up and it worked for a minute, but then they both got all sad again as soon as the song was over and it made Ron's leaving even more horrible.

 

we're goign to have to agree to disagree on this one because i equate it to them laughing after Cedrics death in GoF with the "we'll never have a normal year at hogwarts will we *har har har*"

 

You're right, because I have no idea what you're referring to about Cedric's death and them laughing. It's not like they were laughing at him. To us, the audience, it seems like they were laughing just a few minutes after he died, but it was days after. They can't try to laugh to feel better? You have to go living, and hopefully living a happy life, even after someone dies.

 

I'm surprised that you think the nude Harry&Hermione making out scene was not appropriate for this film's targeted audience, yet you think the grotesque and violent scene of the snake emerging from Bathilda's neck should have been included. It never fails to amaze me how people find nudity so much worse than violence. I wouldn't have minded the snake thing being more graphic, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the nude Harry and Hermione (and they weren't really totally nude, it was just hinting at nudity). This whole movie, in my opinion, was most definitely not a children's movie anyway, just as the book really isn't either. JKR herself has said that. The whole movie was incredibly dark; I don't think the "nudity" can really take it further than the tone already does.

 

again, we'll have to agree to disagree. the only reaons why i wanted the snake scene a bit notched up was because that is in the book and with the snake scene it's seen out of the side of the eye and blurry cause harry's lookign for the sword. so i woudln't have expected ti to be in focus, just a bit more graphic than what it was.

 

as for the locket, they expanded on it and not in a good way (again, here's another point of hollywood focusing on the sex appeal than the actual storyline) and yes, as far as i'm concerned they were totally nude with the smoke being in conveinent places. in this series, violence was a part of it; you learned that from the beginning; sex was not and is not though.

 

Well, see, this is a whole different argument, though. In America, we have this whole cultural thing about how inappropriate sex and nudity is, and yet we don't find violence inappropriate. A film is more likely to get a higher rating from nudity than violence. Which is ridiculous, because there is ntohing inherently wrong about nudity or sex, whereas violence is incredibly wrong. But that's a whole different picture. I don't think they were at all focusing on sex appeal; it's not like you were watching them and thinking 'ooh, this is awesome.' It emphasized, actually, how awful it was for Ron to see.

 

and it is a childrens movie, the target audience for the Harry Potter franchise is 10 yr olds at the start of SS. yes the books progressively get darker and more adult as the series progresses, after OoTP there is a blatant change from tween to teen. and JKR trying to say her books are targetted in the tween/teen range is like her trying to say "they aren't fantasy". and as far as dark, not relaly, it was on par with the tone of OoTP, which is fine because in the books the tone doesn't progress much from there either; it only seemed darker because of the light heartedness HBP was in the movies; had it maintained the same tone, it's wouldn't have seemed "so much more darker"

 

I completely disagree. This movie was DARK, much darker than OOTP. OOTP was creepy at times, because Dolores and what she does to Harry is creepy and awful. But the tone throughout this film was dark, despairing, and frightening; there was a sense of hopelessness pervading throughout it. This was helped a lot by the lighting and the sound; the scenes were often literally lit so dark it was hard to see, and there was very little background music, sometimes no background music, making it very quiet. The scene in Bathilda's house could've been a scene from a horror movie. And the film itself was rated PG13, was it not? Which would indicate it's not a children's movie. Of course children can still see it, but that is what that rating means - that it's really only considered appropriate for someone 13 years or older.

 

I was also surprised and a little disappointed they didn't kill Wormtail, but I also think that, film-wise, it would've dragged that sequence on too long and actually taken the focus away a bit. I imagine they are going to kill Wormtail in the second half.

 

yeah they'll probably have him betray Voldy and tell him Harry's dead instead of Cissy nah, i don't think they'll waste the budget. honestly theres no point where they can squeeze a meeting in between the two and have Wormtail strangle himself. even if they do it at hogwarts it woudl make no sense plot wise and detract away from the battle at hand and finding the last 2 horcruxes.

 

I hope they let Narcissa do that part, because she's awesome in that bit :D I don't think it should be too difficult to add another death to the battle, especially since part of the reason they cut the book where they did was so they could really focus on the battle. From what I understand, most of the second film will be the battle.

 

most of the stuff i tend to point out and get disappointed in are the big things; like everythign i said about this movie. the fight between Lupin & Harry is important becuase it leads to Harry becoming Teddys grandfather and puts more emotional loss to both Tonk's & Lupins death in the battle (if your sad cause i spoiled this tough luck. read the book it's been out for 3 years now!) giving kreacher the locket is what makes kreachers mind up to acept Harry as his new master and gets him to lead the house elfs on harry's side during the battle at Hogwarts against mistress Cissy & Bella. DD's funeral is needed to give harry closure among other things that DD repersented in this series.

 

See, but neither Kreacher, nor, let's face it, Tonks and Lupin, have been given as much screen time in the films as in the books. Maybe it sucks for us diehard fans, but as a fan that has only seen the movies and they won't cite any of those people as huge characters. Lupin maybe is a little borderline, but Tonks and Kreacher are barely seen in the movies. The whole deal with Kreacher betraying Sirius, and Harry inheriting Kreacher, was never mentioned in the films, so there was no reason to dwell on his big scene at Grimmauld Place in the film. Don't get me wrong, Red, I love that scene. It's one of the only places in that book that I really, really cry in, when Kreacher tells his story. But everything about the plight of the house-elves that we get from the book is something we don't have in the films. And then, let's face it, Kreacher leading the house-elves to fight in the battle was a tiny little paragraph in the book, it really isn't a big thing.

 

Tonks and Lupin's relationship has been barely mentioned in the films. There's no reason Harry can't still be made grandfather, and I'm sure even the people who have only seen the movies will draw the parallel between Harry and Sirius when they die. If anything, I'm mad that Rowling glossed over their deaths in the book! I hope we'll actually get to see them die in the films.

 

As for the funeral, again, I love that in the book, but it's simply never bothered me in the films. And I don't think it's left people confused about anything. Sometimes I think we don't give the people who have only seen the movie enough credit; they aren't stupid, after all.

 

but when they take out stuff, or switch it up because of budget problems; while at the same time adding in a bunch of scenes that serve no real plotwise purpose that costs loads of money due to the amount of CGI ... yeah, as a fan i tend to get a bit frustrated. take the battle in HBP (or lack of one) if they hadn't of put so much time and budget into kids snogging and going all doe eyed over eachother, then we coudl have had that really awesomely great battle at the end; instead we get Bella hopping on a few tables wagging her wand around yelling "Laddy-Da" and Hagrids hut on fire. yeah GREAT battle there. and you know the best part of said battle they missed out on; they wouldn't have had to waste a line for Bill to explain his scar in this movie cause we woulda seen it happen in HBP.

 

i understand they can't get all the book in there, i do. but at the same time, hollywood needs to get their priretys striaght on what they do need to include instead of pulling andother HBP; otherwise change the name of the movies and say "Based of the Harry Potter series by JKR"

 

I get what you're saying, but... argh, how do I explain? LOL! It just doesn't bother me like it bothers you and other people, Red. Films are always only based on the books; they don't spell that out because it should be understood. They don't intend to, or promise to, do everything exactly the same way as it is in the book. Not only is that not possible, but you know what? It still wouldn't be the same as the book, it would never be the same experience as reading the book, and you don't really want it to be, do you? If the films could totally replicate the book, why would you ever read them?

 

So I'm okay with the films only being based on the books. I'm okay with the film as long as it is a good representation of the book; I absolutely don't care when they change things or leave stuff out. Why do I need a visual of my favorite moment in the book? I already have that in my head when I read it. If you're worried how the audience interprets the series, when they haven't read the books, well, why worry about it? It's their loss for not reading the series. (Note, I'm not saying everyone should read the series, because the fact is, a lot of people are perfectly happy not reading it, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

[LedZepMan]

I thought the movie was awesome.

 

I agree they dropped the ball a little when it came to HBP, but whats done is done. You cant fix it. TDH on the other hand was amazing. I never once got upset with the way they made the movie, and i do admit i was perplexed about the dance scene, but i agree with Alanna, it was good. And i am still seeing Emma Watson parading around in that red dress.....

[Red2111]

See, I don't see it the way you do, so we might have to agree to disagree lol. I do find Voldemort 'humanly evil' (if I'm understanding the term correctly), in that, the reasons he became evil are incredibly human. And I like that about Voldemort; a villain who is simply evil just because is incredibly boring and one-sided.

 

soo the reason why i get so miffed about the whole humanly evil thing is because of how Ralph potrayed Voldy in the cementary scene. jumping around like a kid hopped up on a sugar rush. in that scene, Voldy was cool, calm & collected. there was no doubt in his mind he'd destroy the potter brat and he was more intent on the future happenings; such as punishing his DE's and toppling DD. he's wasn't liek an excited little cocker spannel with a new toy, he was more like a police dog that has a perp pinned to the ground.

 

by humanly evil, Ralph ment a having voldy express a wide range of emotions (he explains this on the cut scenes in the extras for GoF) that Voldy is excited to be back to life, feelign out his new skin, enjoyed that he has potter and will kill him. in the book, this is different, and Ralph realizes this since you see a change of direction he's taken Voldy in this movie and OoTP. he's gone from the spastic out of control idoit to a more controlled "i know i'm goign to win and you will die" type villian.

 

yes, there is still a part of Voldemort that is technically human, his flaws and what drives him; to include the reason why he sought out immortality. but emotionally, he lacks majorily in this to include expressing any emotion aside from sever anger (even what he expresses as happiness, comes across as anger & rage)

 

 

And I'm sorry, Red, I actually wasn't referring to you at all when I said that to Krak. You make a lot of good points. But in RL I know some truly crazy people lol, who get upset the tiniest things left out in the movies. Anyhow, but again, we'll have to agree to disagree about the HBP movie. I don't know, I'd reread HBP right before I saw the movie and I didn't feel they'd concentrated on the teeng angst anymore than the book did. There's a lot of that in HBP. HBP is actually an extremely funny book...until the end, of course :D

 

*snuggles her fellow Blue* sorry i took it personally i think for me, why i dislike HBP so much is becuase the book focuses mostly on Voldemort. his history and how to destroy him; the movie totally glosses this over for the most part and down plays the importance of these things for tDH's & harry's sucess.

 

From Deathly Hallows, Chapter 30:

 

"No, he's not dead," said McGonagall bittertly. "Untlike Dumbledore, he was still carrying a wand...and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master."

 

With a tingle of horror, Harry saw in the distance a huge, bat-like shape flying through the darkness towards the perimeter wall.

 

I don't believe this means he literally turned into a bat. McGonagall says he's learned a few tricks from his master (such as flying). He is a 'huge, bat-like shape.' He is not an actual bat, he looks 'bat-like' probably because he's wearing long bacl robes spreading out around him. The only way, I think, that Snape could turn into a bat is by being an Animagus, which we have never heard of before, and if that were true, he would be an actual bat, which are not huge but quite small. And, if that were the case, I think Rowling would've said he was a bat, not a bat-like shape.

 

i don't know if he has to be an animagus to turn into a bat. Crouch Sr wasn't an animagus and he was transfigured into a bone if you recall. alot of us (while debating the books on an HP forum) have thought that Snape was an animangus; we had narrowed the creatures down to a Spider or a Bat, because of the descriptions JKR always gave of Snape. There are large bats in this world btw so it doesn't have to be tiny.

 

given that JKR has never confirmed or denied this i guess its up for debate or interpretation. I think she did this on purpose as all she included the "bat-like shape" instead of saying outright that it was snape flying. given Snapes abilities with magic, i don't think its a far cry to say he was an unregistered animangus.

 

 

You're right, because I have no idea what you're referring to about Cedric's death and them laughing. It's not like they were laughing at him. To us, the audience, it seems like they were laughing just a few minutes after he died, but it was days after. They can't try to laugh to feel better? You have to go living, and hopefully living a happy life, even after someone dies.

 

it's not that they were laughing at him, but the lack of requard for Cedric and what his death meant. his death meant the Voldemort was back, he was the first victim of Voldemort's new reign and the first person for harry to see killed before him and understand what it meant (hence being able to now see the Threstrals)

 

harry struggles with this death because he feels it's his fault (much like Sirius's). it's more of a lack of tact and unconcren shown when in reality this is a turning point towards a darker theme for the books. it's the pivital point at which the books take a turn from childish/teen, into a more teen/adult atmosphere. it also changes the tone from teh books from one of percieved underlaying danger, to a known and real danger; as well as changing the atmospher in the wizarding world from one to tranquilaty to uncertainty and foreshadows the dark times to come. (all of this is in DD's speech at the end of GoF)

 

for the trio to laugh it off, is not only tactless but discounts & discredits what Cedrics death is suppose to mean, therefore downplaying his importance as a minor character.

 

 

 

Well, see, this is a whole different argument, though. In America, we have this whole cultural thing about how inappropriate sex and nudity is, and yet we don't find violence inappropriate. A film is more likely to get a higher rating from nudity than violence. Which is ridiculous, because there is ntohing inherently wrong about nudity or sex, whereas violence is incredibly wrong. But that's a whole different picture. I don't think they were at all focusing on sex appeal; it's not like you were watching them and thinking 'ooh, this is awesome.' It emphasized, actually, how awful it was for Ron to see.

 

i agree with you, both sex & violence are equally disturbing in some instances and should be rated the same. with this movie, the violence is a bit different as it's done with wands which are fictional. sex (or the apperance of sex) isn't fictional. as i also said, violence has a place in this book, as it's a war; sex doesn't (any more so than DD's sexual preferance did).

 

it's not that they were focusing on the sex appeal, its that they saw a place to include a sexually suggestive scene and did so because sex sells. imo it was an un-needed and distasteful addition to the movie.

 

 

I completely disagree. This movie was DARK, much darker than OOTP. OOTP was creepy at times, because Dolores and what she does to Harry is creepy and awful. But the tone throughout this film was dark, despairing, and frightening

 

dark, despairing & frightening is a tone that was started at the end of GoF in the graveyard and carried on to the epilouge of the last book. Cedrics Death was the catalyst for this turn in tone, OoTP broadened & expanded it with showing the Ministry's opposition to DD and targeting Harry, HBP was supposed to give youthe filling that times were turning and bring in the hopelessness & dispear as Harry learned the daunting task he had and that Voldy was apparently winning much more support (the giants, the Dementors, the Ministry). tDH is the conclusion to this, where Voldy reaches his peak of control and harry has a break through after Dobbys death, then hope begins to bloom.

 

with the movies, the kinda mucked up this smooth transition. Cedrics death was made more light hearted by the laughing scene; OoTP kept in the spirit of the tone, both with the ministry & Umbridge. then with HBO, they went back to being light hearted, not fucosing much on the task at hand and the overwhelmingness of this task, nor on the reaching control that Voldemort is abel to gain in the wizarding world. tDH's went back to the tone and did so brilliantly; but because HBP's tone was so light hearted, it made this movie seem that much darker in tone.

 

there was a sense of hopelessness pervading throughout it. This was helped a lot by the lighting and the sound; the scenes were often literally lit so dark it was hard to see, and there was very little background music, sometimes no background music, making it very quiet.

 

as it should have been, which is another reason why i didn't mind this movie and don't have much complaint toward it.

 

 

The scene in Bathilda's house could've been a scene from a horror movie. And the film itself was rated PG13, was it not? Which would indicate it's not a children's movie. Of course children can still see it, but that is what that rating means - that it's really only considered appropriate for someone 13 years or older.

 

maybe a B class horror movie, or a crappy american made japeness "horror" film liek the Grudge; imo it wasn't scary at all and was lacking majorly in what could have been done in comparrison to what was written.

 

as far as ratings, yes PG13 is still considered a kids movie to me. (tween/teen, which are still kids) when you get into the R ratings, then it's an adult movie. it all depends on the targeted audience (both books & movies the target audience is between 10-17 yrs) the content, and the level of violence/sex which is shown. the locket scene, i'd see that as being more appropriate for a movie like twilight, which targets 16+ age range. for 13 yr olds and below, it's a bit much if you ask me.

 

 

I hope they let Narcissa do that part, because she's awesome in that bit :D I don't think it should be too difficult to add another death to the battle, especially since part of the reason they cut the book where they did was so they could really focus on the battle. From what I understand, most of the second film will be the battle.

 

well relaly they don't have much choice. where they cut the film off (a good point too honestly) they only have 2 more plot points to hit. gringotts & the Hogwarts battle, the movie will probably end up to be 1.5 hrs depending on how much the expand the crappy un-needed epilouge which i expect hollywood will take that and run with it, inventing a bunch of stuff to make the movie 2 hrs long and seeing how they dropped the ball on the HBP battle, i'm hoping this one is spectacular enough to make up for it.

 

 

See, but neither Kreacher, nor, let's face it, Tonks and Lupin, have been given as much screen time in the films as in the books. Maybe it sucks for us diehard fans, but as a fan that has only seen the movies and they won't cite any of those people as huge characters. Lupin maybe is a little borderline, but Tonks and Kreacher are barely seen in the movies. The whole deal with Kreacher betraying Sirius, and Harry inheriting Kreacher, was never mentioned in the films, so there was no reason to dwell on his big scene at Grimmauld Place in the film. Don't get me wrong, Red, I love that scene. It's one of the only places in that book that I really, really cry in, when Kreacher tells his story. But everything about the plight of the house-elves that we get from the book is something we don't have in the films. And then, let's face it, Kreacher leading the house-elves to fight in the battle was a tiny little paragraph in the book, it really isn't a big thing.

 

agreed. the main reason why i say that Kreacher leading the house elves is a big deal is because of how powerful their magic is and how much it will help balance against Voldemorts forces. also, in the books, Kreacher being on Harry's side was a big deal because at any point he could have done to Harry what he did to Sirius.

 

 

Tonks and Lupin's relationship has been barely mentioned in the films. There's no reason Harry can't still be made grandfather, and I'm sure even the people who have only seen the movies will draw the parallel between Harry and Sirius when they die. If anything, I'm mad that Rowling glossed over their deaths in the book! I hope we'll actually get to see them die in the films.

 

oh, i have to agree. i was miffed at how she off-handedly killed alot of great minor characters. in the movie, they did include that Tonks & Lupin had gotten married, and hinted at her being pregnate. if you read the book you knew thats what Tonks was abotu to say when Moody cut her off; i expect (given the time allowance they've given themselves) that we'll see Lupin show up at Shell cottage and hand out the cigars.

 

 

As for the funeral, again, I love that in the book, but it's simply never bothered me in the films. And I don't think it's left people confused about anything. Sometimes I think we don't give the people who have only seen the movie enough credit; they aren't stupid, after all.

 

well people who don't read the books and only see the movies ... lets just say i was one of those who was yelling out "DD dies" while buying tickets for HBP lmao i don't find them stupid, i find them LAZY; those people who enjoy the movies yet refuse to read the books. honestly they do urk me, especially when they want to debate over points in the series. (which has happened btw) then i feel like getting my hardcover edition of "The Way Of Kings" and smacking them a few times.

 

with the funeral, the reason why it bothers me so much that they left it out is because of what DD's character meant to not only the wizarding world but also to Harry. he was the only one Voldy feared, he single handedly lead the resistance agaisnt Voldy both times, he protected harry in ways that no one could imagine, he was harry's last protector and the last thing preventing Harry from being able to seek out Voldy or preventing voldy from beign able to seek out potter. he had to die, yes; but to gloss over his death like they did *shakes head*. with out DD, harry woudln't have had a chance. this is expressed in the movies, infact in both the movies & books DD was a pivital character just as important to the plot as Harry. they did him an injustice in the movie by glossing over his death and the impact it had on both harry and the wizarding world. when DD died, most of the resistance agaisnt Voldemort went with him.

 

it's also about closure, for botht he audience & Harry, as this is the first death Harry is able to actually get full closure on; which is important to his character devlopement and eventually making the decission to chase after horocruxes and not hallows.

 

 

I get what you're saying, but... argh, how do I explain? LOL! It just doesn't bother me like it bothers you and other people, Red. Films are always only based on the books; they don't spell that out because it should be understood. They don't intend to, or promise to, do everything exactly the same way as it is in the book. Not only is that not possible, but you know what? It still wouldn't be the same as the book, it would never be the same experience as reading the book, and you don't really want it to be, do you? If the films could totally replicate the book, why would you ever read them?

 

So I'm okay with the films only being based on the books. I'm okay with the film as long as it is a good representation of the book; I absolutely don't care when they change things or leave stuff out. Why do I need a visual of my favorite moment in the book? I already have that in my head when I read it. If you're worried how the audience interprets the series, when they haven't read the books, well, why worry about it? It's their loss for not reading the series. (Note, I'm not saying everyone should read the series, because the fact is, a lot of people are perfectly happy not reading it, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

 

see, thats the thing. i was okay with the movies up until HBP. imo that movie wasn't a good repersentation of the book at all as it totally lost what the book was about. and thats only because they left out major points from the book or did such a poor reperstentation they might as well have left them out (the Horcruxes & locations, the Battle, the Funeral).

 

why worry about those who watch the movies without reading the book, because their the same ones that want to argue about what has or hasn't happened with me in some cases; because their the same ones that ask me "what happens in the next movie??"

 

lol i'm like you, i dont need a visual image of my favorie scene in the book, but i get miffed when hollywood takes one of my fav scenes and totlaly rips it to shreds .. liek the Graveyard scene in GoF or the battle in HBP. if your goign to include the scene, good but do it right; if you can't do that, then don't include it at all.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alanna]

*snuggles her fellow Blue* sorry i took it personally i think for me, why i dislike HBP so much is becuase the book focuses mostly on Voldemort. his history and how to destroy him; the movie totally glosses this over for the most part and down plays the importance of these things for tDH's & harry's sucess.

 

See, I don't feel this way, though. When I read HBP, I feel the book itself focuses a lot on the romance, more so than on Voldemort. I guess that's just interpretation.

 

About Snape, I thought JKR made it very clear that you can only turn into an animal if you are an Animagus; it's not something you can do woth Transfiguration (not on humans, anyway). Which means Snape would have to be an Animagus. I guess that's not impossible, but I doubt it. I think JKR would have made that clear if it were true; why leave it out?

 

i agree with you, both sex & violence are equally disturbing in some instances and should be rated the same. with this movie, the violence is a bit different as it's done with wands which are fictional. sex (or the apperance of sex) isn't fictional. as i also said, violence has a place in this book, as it's a war; sex doesn't (any more so than DD's sexual preferance did).

 

See, but I don't think sex and violence are "equally disturbing," not by a long shot. Sex is not innately disturbing. Violence is. Sex can be made disturbing, depending on the context of the situation, but there is nothing wrong with sex, in and of itself. Violence, however, is wrong. If sex was wrong, nature would have provided a different way for humans to procreate and survive as a species.

 

dark, despairing & frightening is a tone that was started at the end of GoF in the graveyard and carried on to the epilouge of the last book. Cedrics Death was the catalyst for this turn in tone, OoTP broadened & expanded it with showing the Ministry's opposition to DD and targeting Harry, HBP was supposed to give youthe filling that times were turning and bring in the hopelessness & dispear as Harry learned the daunting task he had and that Voldy was apparently winning much more support (the giants, the Dementors, the Ministry). tDH is the conclusion to this, where Voldy reaches his peak of control and harry has a break through after Dobbys death, then hope begins to bloom.

 

See, I don't think you understand why I'm saying when I say 'tone.' It has nothing to do with the scenes, that is, it has nothing to do with what happens in the film. It's the tone created by the filmakers, the sound, the lighting, the angle of the shots. I'm talking purely about film making here, not anything to do with the plot. Yes, some of what happens in OotP is dark, but the movie itself was not shot that way, or at least, it wasn't shot the same way that TDH was.

 

maybe a B class horror movie, or a crappy american made japeness "horror" film liek the Grudge; imo it wasn't scary at all and was lacking majorly in what could have been done in comparrison to what was written.

 

as far as ratings, yes PG13 is still considered a kids movie to me. (tween/teen, which are still kids) when you get into the R ratings, then it's an adult movie. it all depends on the targeted audience (both books & movies the target audience is between 10-17 yrs) the content, and the level of violence/sex which is shown. the locket scene, i'd see that as being more appropriate for a movie like twilight, which targets 16+ age range. for 13 yr olds and below, it's a bit much if you ask me.

 

Actually, I'm not talking about a modern horror film at all; I have very little respect for most modern horror movies; they're defined by how gory they are whether than how frightening they are. I'm talking more like Alfred Hitchcock type stuff. The suspenseful way it was filmed.

 

Also, PG13 may mean to you, and others, than it's directed at kids, but factually, that is not what it means. It means that it may not be appropriate for people under 13. Period. That's what it means. That target audience, meaning the people that enjoy the Harry Potter series, may include some younger people, but that doesn't matter. The film makers have stated, with that rating, that it may not be appropriate for those younger people. If they choose to ignore that, that's their fault.

 

well people who don't read the books and only see the movies ... lets just say i was one of those who was yelling out "DD dies" while buying tickets for HBP lmao i don't find them stupid, i find them LAZY; those people who enjoy the movies yet refuse to read the books. honestly they do urk me, especially when they want to debate over points in the series. (which has happened btw) then i feel like getting my hardcover edition of "The Way Of Kings" and smacking them a few times.

 

I completely disagree with this. I don't think we can assume those people are lazy. Maybe they don't mind seeing a fun movie like Harry Potter, but don't really enjoy reading those types of books. That doesn't make them lazy. Some people also have a lot to read for school, and don't have time; I can cite my poor brother as one. He's a freaking genius, but his class load right now is nuts, so he has no time for reading on his free time. He has read the HP books, when they came out, but he wants to read WoT, for instance, and there's no way he can right now.

 

Also, I'm very much against the opinion, in general, that people who read are better than people who just watch movies or TV. I'm not saying that's what you're saying at all, because I don't think it is, but this just made me think of it, because someone else I know was talking about this the other day. I just know that I find just as much value in television or film as I do in books, as long as it's all quality materal. I think I get a lot more out of watching a quality show like Lost than reading a trashy romance novel.

 

I do understand your frustration with people who don't read the books but still like to debate over points of the HP world, since they are doing so without being fully informed. But I don't think those people are lazy. Maybe some of them are, but I don't think we can judge those people just because they haven't read a series that we love.

 

BTW, I know I sound super serious here, but I'm totally enjoying this debate with you, Red So if I come across offensively at all, it's totally not my intention. Just thought I should say that, because I know I really get too into it sometimes :D It's kind of great, actually, that we can both be such big fans of this series and yet have such different opinions about it :D