PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Discussion Thread (Spoilers!)



not_HarryS
11-15-2010, 05:43 PM
Spoiler Warning! This thread might contain spoilers, so if you haven't read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows yet, then... well, geez... you really should have read it by now, honestly.

Ok, so I'm re-reading HPATDH one last time before the movie comes out and I'm curious: where do you think they're going to split it? Or better yet, where would you split it?

I'm thinking one of two places:

For a more dramatic, oh-no-whatever-will-they-do? ending to the first half, I was thinking they might split it when Ron, Hermione and Harry get in a fight, and Ron stomps off, leaving Harry and Hermione by themselves.

Or, for a more oh-my-god-that-was-freaking-intense-what-will-happen-next?! ending, I was thinking they might end it right after Ron comes back and they destroy the first Horcrux.

Any thoughts?

katiemac
11-15-2010, 06:38 PM
They've announced where the film is split. Although I can tell you they've also done a little rearranging so it doesn't strictly follow the book's chronology.

not_HarryS
11-15-2010, 06:59 PM
Oh. Well that's no fun. In that case, I guess we should stick with the latter question: If you were in charge of rewriting this book for the screen, where would you opt to split it?

katiemac
11-15-2010, 07:07 PM
I actually agree with where they split it, so that was going to be my answer anyway. But I'll keep my mouth shut in case people don't want to know. :)

not_HarryS
11-15-2010, 07:15 PM
I actually agree with where they split it, so that was going to be my answer anyway. But I'll keep my mouth shut in case people don't want to know. :)

Yeah, I just looked it up. Seems like a decent spot to split it, but that's pretty dang far along in the story, isn't it?

katiemac
11-15-2010, 07:22 PM
Yes and no. Page count-wise, I think it's a little under 3/4 through. Storywise it works, especially if they want any kind of decent battle at the end. But they moved up Voldemort's retrieval of the wand and moved one scene out-of-order for Part II. So it kind of works out, even though I thought they still could have placed that scene in order.

Grrarrgh
11-15-2010, 09:00 PM
Plus, I think that they really want Part 2 to focus heavily on the battle at the end. I think the plan is for that to be a majority of the movie, so it makes sense to split it fairly late in the book.

Grrarrgh
11-15-2010, 09:04 PM
Also - and I know that this is a little off topic regarding the split, but I saw Shirley Henderson, who plays Moaning Myrtle, in an episode of Doctor Who last night, and out of curiousity, I looked her up. She's 45 years old!! 45!! Not that 45 is old or anything, but that means that when she first played Moaning Myrtle in the second movie, she was already in her late 30s! This may be common knowledge to some, but I had no idea. She looked perfect as Myrtle; I would love to be able to play a 16 year old. :)

ChronicSelfEditor
11-16-2010, 12:40 AM
I couldn't think of where else this might be put, so if the mods think it's better off elsewhere, please move it.

I just finished re-reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows last week and then over the weekend watched various parts of earlier movies on ABC Family. After watching the end of The Order of the Phoenix, I'm a bit confused.

It's established in Deathly Hallows that the Elder Wand is the most powerful wand ever. It's also established that Dumbledore has been in possession of the Elder Wand for quite a while.

Why, then, was he not able to overcome Voldemort when they fought inside the atrium of the Ministry of Magic at the end of The Order of the Phoenix?

katiemac
11-16-2010, 12:51 AM
The Elder Wand has acquired legendary status. It's rumored to be an unbeatable wand, but that doesn't mean it is an unbeatable wand. It's extremely powerful, yes, but both Dumbledore and Voldemort are incredibly powerful wizards. And don't forget Dumbeldore defeated Grindelwald without having the Elder Wand.

Merging this with the latest "Where will they split Deathly Hallows" thread.

ChronicSelfEditor
11-16-2010, 01:03 AM
Um.... okay.

DavidZahir
11-16-2010, 01:13 AM
It is important to recall that Voldemort was trying to kill Dumbledore, a task at which he failed. However, Dumbledore was not trying to kill Voldemort -- a fact the Dark Wizard noticed at the time. In truth, Dumbledore didn't want to kill him at that point because it would do little good. He'd already figured out Voldemort had created more than one Horcrux (the first being Tom Riddle's journal) and that Harry Potter himself was likely one of them (hence his link to the Dark Lord and his ability to speak parseltongue).

ceenindee
11-16-2010, 02:51 AM
I just finished the book last week myself. :)

The Elder Wand itself may be unbeatable, but the wizard himself isn't. In fact, everyone who's ever had the wand was killed or defeated for its possession, the story goes (for example, Dumbledore had to beat Grindelwald to get it, so obviously it didn't do Grindelwald enough good). You need all three hallows to truly master death. The wand just provides you with an edge over others, but, as we see, Voldemort is very powerful anyways.

mscelina
11-16-2010, 02:54 AM
Um...and Voldemort flees when the Ministry arrives. Hard to kill someone who disappears. The arrival of the Aurors ends the fight, which was already being played out on another level with Voldemort's possession of Harry.

fredXgeorge
11-16-2010, 04:16 AM
The split is when Voldemort gets the Elder Wand from DUmbledor's tomb.

fredXgeorge
11-16-2010, 04:17 AM
Also - and I know that this is a little off topic regarding the split, but I saw Shirley Henderson, who plays Moaning Myrtle, in an episode of Doctor Who last night, and out of curiousity, I looked her up. She's 45 years old!! 45!! Not that 45 is old or anything, but that means that when she first played Moaning Myrtle in the second movie, she was already in her late 30s! This may be common knowledge to some, but I had no idea. She looked perfect as Myrtle; I would love to be able to play a 16 year old. :)
I know, I remember seeing her in Bridget Jones years ago and being like omg I think that's Murtle!

MissMacchiato
11-16-2010, 04:32 AM
oh wow, that's REALLY far along!

I think it's a good place to split it though, just before

the battle.

I'm seeing it friday evening. I couldn't get my relatives to agree to a midnight session, boo. I'm definitely wearing my Gryffindor scarf though!

not_HarryS
11-16-2010, 07:10 AM
Also - and I know that this is a little off topic regarding the split, but I saw Shirley Henderson, who plays Moaning Myrtle, in an episode of Doctor Who last night, and out of curiousity, I looked her up. She's 45 years old!! 45!! Not that 45 is old or anything, but that means that when she first played Moaning Myrtle in the second movie, she was already in her late 30s! This may be common knowledge to some, but I had no idea. She looked perfect as Myrtle; I would love to be able to play a 16 year old. :)

Oh, totally. Kinda creepy when you think that she as a 30+-year-old was trying to sneak a peek at Harry's wand in the bathroom, though :) I freaked out when I first saw her outside of her HP role. Especially 'cause the Myrtle voice is actually her real voice. Haha.

If the entire second movie is going to focus on that battle, I guess that's cool. I just hope that they include enough expository scenes beyond all the fighting. An extended scene with Dumbledore's ghost/otherworldly presence/whatever would be cool. I dunno -- I like it when people talk and things get explained.

I just don't want this movie to go the way of Half-Blood Prince, where there was so much action and so little explanation that people who'd never read the books were kinda left in the dark. Wasn't good movie-making, in that case.

katiemac
11-16-2010, 12:42 PM
Merged two threads.

MsGneiss
11-16-2010, 10:35 PM
I just want to add that I love everything about this thread. Carry on.

ChronicSelfEditor
11-16-2010, 11:23 PM
I don't understand why the threads were merged.

katiemac
11-16-2010, 11:33 PM
We have a lot of Potter threads cropping up, and I'm sure we'll get new ones/bumped threads once the film opens. The same individuals who are likely to participate in one Harry Potter thread will likely participate in another. Keeps everything in one place.

And it seems like my answer about the Elder Wand didn't make sense. So I'll try again.... The Elder Wand was created by the Peverell brothers along with the other Hallows. So whereas they are extremely powerful objects, they're not completely infallible. It's just that throughout history, being passed from one wizard to another, it took on this legendary status and mythology to the point where wizards started talking about it as being unbeatable.

DavidZahir
11-17-2010, 01:09 AM
Why, then, was he not able to overcome Voldemort when they fought inside the atrium of the Ministry of Magic at the end of The Order of the Phoenix?Because Voldemort is a very powerful wizard in his own right. The wand maybe awesome and everything, but it isn't really unbeatable. After all, Dumbledore got it from Grindelwald.

eyeblink
11-17-2010, 03:06 AM
The split is when Voldemort gets the Elder Wand from DUmbledor's tomb.

I saw the film last Friday (press showing) and can confirm this. In the scene immediately before this Dobby dies and Harry, Ron and Hermione bury him.

MissMacchiato
11-17-2010, 03:25 AM
yargle I am so excited to see this movie.

Eyeblink, without giving anything away.... just tell us if it was good or not?? :D

cmi0616
11-17-2010, 03:33 AM
My gripe with the harry potter movies is this- they take too long to make them. As the seventh movie comes out, i have completely forgotten what happens in the 6th. I read the books such a long time ago, and I refuse to re-read them because of they are too long for me read for a second time.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

eyeblink
11-17-2010, 03:51 AM
Yes, I liked it. I haven't written my review yet though...

Without spoilers, there's a lovely scene early on (which isn't in the book) featuring Hermione and her parents.

Most reviews and word of mouth I've seen here have been positive, with a few exceptions - which I suspect are from critics who haven't been especially taken by the previous films. I do think that on the whole they are an example of maintaining some level of quality control over a long and very high-budget series. Hiring a talented screenwriter (Steve Kloves, for all except Order of the Phoenix) and talented directors (especially from Prisoner of Azkaban onwards) helps a lot.

One thing I am interested in is how many people are following the film series who haven't read the book? They would have a different kind of anticipation to those of us who have read the books, maybe similar to the kind we had when Deathly Hallows the book came out in 2007.

not_HarryS
11-17-2010, 08:16 AM
My gripe with the harry potter movies is this- they take too long to make them. As the seventh movie comes out, i have completely forgotten what happens in the 6th. I read the books such a long time ago, and I refuse to re-read them because of they are too long for me read for a second time.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Personally, I'm exactly the opposite. I want them to take as much time as possible to make these movies decent, rather than rush them out and do a crappy job. And I always welcome the opportunity to re-read the books before the movie comes out -- that's actually my favorite part :)

fredXgeorge
11-17-2010, 11:45 AM
My gripe with the harry potter movies is this- they take too long to make them. As the seventh movie comes out, i have completely forgotten what happens in the 6th. I read the books such a long time ago, and I refuse to re-read them because of they are too long for me read for a second time.

Am I the only one who feels this way?
I'm not sure how they could do them much quicker. They have to film it and then do all the post-production. And there are a lot of special effects.

not_HarryS
11-17-2010, 11:49 AM
I'm not sure how they could do them much quicker. They have to film it and then do all the post-production. And there are a lot of special effects.

Have you seen videos online of the actors filming without (obviously) any special effects in place? It looks terribly awkward, their swiping at each other with sticks in the absence of any sound or sparklies and whatnot. Definitely a difficult job.

Grrarrgh
11-17-2010, 06:51 PM
I am so ticked that I have to wait until Monday to see this movie. Mr Grr, who is now teetering dangerously on the brink of divorce, scheduled himself a trip out of town this weekend.

katiemac
11-17-2010, 07:46 PM
I am so ticked that I have to wait until Monday to see this movie. Mr Grr, who is now teetering dangerously on the brink of divorce, scheduled himself a trip out of town this weekend.

Midnight show on Thursday? ;)

Nakhlasmoke
11-17-2010, 09:07 PM
omg Eyeblink, I am jealous LIKE WHOA.

ugh I won't be able to see it before the end of the month at the very earliest. Waah.

Grrarrgh
11-17-2010, 09:13 PM
Midnight show on Thursday? ;)

He's leaving Thursday morning, or I would. He knows he's a jerk for it.

MissMacchiato
11-18-2010, 03:32 AM
My gripe with the harry potter movies is this- they take too long to make them. As the seventh movie comes out, i have completely forgotten what happens in the 6th. I read the books such a long time ago, and I refuse to re-read them because of they are too long for me read for a second time.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

I have to say I'm also the opposite. For such long books I found them very quick to read. A day or two at most.

They do take too long to make them, and the only way around that would have been to hold the release of the first one back until they had the second instalment half done, or something like that.

I'd much prefer them to be good though, so I'm happy to wait.

I'd like it if they re-showed the last movie at the cinema though, since I would totally go and see it.

They could even have a weekend marathon of all the movies so far, so that people could catch up on them in one sitting. That'd be so unbelievably hardcore, lol!

I wish they did!

fredXgeorge
11-18-2010, 04:27 PM
I saw it today! There may be spoilers in here. As per my facebook status: "Harry Potter was fricking AMAZING!!! Dobby's death was so sad I don't think I've ever cried so much at a movie (even Titanic)"

And a quick review I did on Rotten Tomatoes before I hop off to bed cos its late: "Amazing film! Best Harry Potter to date, stuck with the book so well and didn't plod at all. I found it filled with action throughout the whole way. All the actors are so good now. Dobby's death was so beautiful and sad...Ive never cried so much at any film ever. 100% for me I absolutely loved it and can't wait until Part 2."

katiemac
11-18-2010, 06:57 PM
Since people are starting to see it, I'll jump in and say: I liked it a lot more the second time. (Yes, I'm ridiculous, I've seen it twice.)

The actors are at their bests. I'm confident Part I and Part II combined will take that title of best Potter film.

I liked very much what they did with the Three Brothers story. I was really confused about one particular aspect of the Nagini fight in Godric's Hollow, more of a directorial choice than anything, but I'll wait on that until others have seen it.

*ETA: Did a fancy title change on this thread.

fredXgeorge
11-19-2010, 02:37 AM
Oh, and the scene with Harry, Ginny and George was hilarious!

Edit: and when George got hurt, Fred's reaction was so sweet. You could just see how sad he was. And how he called him Georgie awww.

I'm going to see it again with my friends next week. Must remember to take tissue this time haha.

ChronicSelfEditor
11-19-2010, 02:47 AM
How long is the movie?

Belle_91
11-19-2010, 02:54 AM
I'm going to see it tomorrow at like 9:30 pm. It's 5:52 pm right now and I dont think I can take it anymore!!! All of my friends are going to the midnight premire and I cant
:(

Anyways, have you all seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MahTKZDHXaA

Also, I highly recommend watch A Very Potter Musical...it's three hours long and its the next best thing since the original Harry Potter lol. It's hilarious!

fredXgeorge
11-19-2010, 03:28 AM
How long is the movie?
About 2.5 hours

MissMacchiato
11-19-2010, 03:32 AM
oooh I'm so glad people are enjoying it! I'll be watching it in exactly 8 hours time!!!

Soccer Mom
11-19-2010, 05:25 AM
Gah! Can't wait. I'm so jealous of everyone who has seen it already. Going to see it with my sister on Saturday when I can ditch husband and kids.

katiemac
11-19-2010, 08:40 AM
How long is the movie?

Two hours twenty-six minutes.

K. Taylor
11-19-2010, 09:11 AM
We'll be seeing it and we haven't read the books, just seen the movies.

ceenindee
11-19-2010, 09:01 PM
This was amazing. My favorite HP movie to date. I'm going to see it again ASAP.

The acting was better, the writing was true to the book, and, if nothing else, it looked fantastic. That animation was out-of-control, and I feel like the cinematography deserves and Oscar nod.

Part II can come any time.

PattiTheWicked
11-19-2010, 10:39 PM
I have tix for the 515 show this afternoon. WoooohoooO!

SaraP
11-20-2010, 06:32 AM
Just got back from it. LOVED it.

I agree with has been said, the adaptation works very well, the acting is great and the special effects wonderful. Great lines here and there, and a great movie experience.

One thing irked me: the way Harry is always looking at the mirror shard without any explanation as to why.

Two things I thought were absolutely amazing: the animation telling the story of the Hallows and the effects coming from the open locket.

Sage
11-20-2010, 06:50 AM
They could even have a weekend marathon of all the movies so far, so that people could catch up on them in one sitting. That'd be so unbelievably hardcore, lol!

I wish they did!Our theater is doing this before the last one. 20 hours or something.


I was really confused about one particular aspect of the Nagini fight in Godric's Hollow, more of a directorial choice than anything, but I'll wait on that until others have seen it.Haha, I wonder if it was the same thing I thought was weird about that scene.


Just got back from it. LOVED it.

I agree with has been said, the adaptation works very well, the acting is great and the special effects wonderful. Great lines here and there, and a great movie experience.

One thing irked me: the way Harry is always looking at the mirror shard without any explanation as to why.

Two things I thought were absolutely amazing: the animation telling the story of the Hallows and the effects coming from the open locket. Those were probably my favorite things about the movie. They were both better than the books. I also really liked the Hermoine stuff at the beginning, which was only told to us in the book.

There were a lot of missing explanations. That one was pretty striking because I don't think there was any lead in to it at all. Some of the explanations I assumed would come in the next film, but that one needed some kind of introduction to why Harry even has the mirror.

I really liked the movie. I thought the way they streamlined some of the more dragging parts of the book worked well. They also managed to do a decent job making things they skipped in the earlier movies work out in this one. It didn't matter that they didn't see the locket in OotP. It didn't matter that Hermoine hasn't been all about elf rights (although it would have taken all of five seconds to offer Kreacher Regulus' locket and make him happy). It didn't matter that we hadn't met Bill yet, or introduced Fleur's and his romance.

There was one scene that they added that I thought was a really odd choice. It was cute in some ways but in others it just made me uncomfortable, and really it was unnecessary.

katiemac
11-20-2010, 09:38 AM
Yes, I forgot to mention upthread how well I thought the scene with the locket was done. Evil Harry and Evil Hermione, "more beautiful but more terrifying" than the real ones--they nailed that. Plus, the effects of the locket exploding the instant it opened... that was great.



Haha, I wonder if it was the same thing I thought was weird about that scene.Probably. I'm not the only one who's mentioned it--the baby's room? My only guess is that it's some kind of nod to when Harry was last in Godric's Hollow, but still. It really bothers me because if that was the point, I don't think it was well done.




There were a lot of missing explanations. That one was pretty striking because I don't think there was any lead in to it at all. Some of the explanations I assumed would come in the next film, but that one needed some kind of introduction to why Harry even has the mirror.

Agreed. But I don't think the transition to Umbridge with the locket was well done, that whole discovery was kind of awkward. And there were things they brought up but didn't follow through and I didn't understand why... things like Tonks's pregnancy (why nearly mention it but withhold that info until Part II?) and Mad-Eye's eye on Umbridge's door but Harry doesn't take it, Harry tortured about not knowing anything about Dumbledore...



There was one scene that they added that I thought was a really odd choice. It was cute in some ways but in others it just made me uncomfortable, and really it was unnecessary.Are you talking about the dancing? I actually rather love that... In fact, I like all the scenes they added. Hermione and her parents, Harry and Hermione, Neville telling off the Death Eaters on the train (about 30 seconds but I LOVED it), George walking in on Harry and Ginny...

Although I try not to do a direct comparison (impossible), I'm more than a little disappointed Ron did not give Dobby his socks.

fredXgeorge
11-20-2010, 10:04 AM
Hmm I loved the baby's room thing. And the dancing. I think I loved all of it, really.

MissMacchiato
11-20-2010, 10:06 AM
Ha! Okay! I have returned and have comments to make!

Agreed, puppet thing was awesome. Loved it.

The dancing also made me a tad uncomfortable, but it was a lovely scene for the bittersweetness of it, and I loved it at the same time that it made me awkward.

Things I wanted which we didn't get -

Harry telling Ron it had never been like that between him and Hermione. I think that they really needed that, and for me it felt unresolved. There was no real chemistry between Ron and Hermione, IMO. Although he did an awesome job of being suspicious and bad tempered, haha!

The other thing I would have liked is more about the story between Kreacher and Regalus.

And yeah, the pregnancy half-mention thing was weird. And the fact that Remus and Harry didn't argue, he didn't turn up and offer his services in the search for the horcruxes. It would have added something, in my opinion, and I don't know why they didn't keep it in.

For the most part I thought they did a really good job with a part of the book that I know a lot of people thought was slow and boring, but there were some things that just didn't quite hit the nail for me.

Smish
11-20-2010, 10:08 AM
I liked it a lot. And I agree that all the added scenes worked well (and generally, I HATE the added scenes).

I agree that the Ministry of Magic scenes should have been more detailed, though. There was no mention of Moody's eye at all! It could have been any eye stuck in the door, really. However, overall, a great job throughout, in my opinion.

katiemac
11-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Hmm I loved the baby's room thing. And the dancing. I think I loved all of it, really.

What did you like about the baby's room? Can you pinpoint it? Only asking because I still find it very perplexing, even after a second viewing. And perplexing enough to hound people about it who have also seen it ... ;)

(And while we're at it - they crashed into the neighbor's apartment, right, not some creepily pristine room Bathilda had secreted away?)

GVChamp
11-20-2010, 11:14 AM
I'm going to spoiler this whole post:

I disliked most of it. Too much sitting around in tents, felt jarry and discombobulated. I was psyched up after the opening, particularly when Hermione obliviates her parents. And the start of that Death Eater fight scene? Woah boy.

But too much was lost. The sense of discovery and Dumbledore's betrayal (Ariana is never even mentioned?), critical descriptions about the importance of wands and elvish magic, the establishment of Grindenwald as a truly menacing figure in the wizarding world and his friendship with Dumbledore, the whole Hallows vs. Horcruxes line of thinking (so far, anyways), etc.

Instead, we get lots of tent scenes where nothing happens besides "character development." But I don't like the main characters, so the movie doesn't really work for me. Harry is an idiot that thinks it is all about him, Hermione strikes me as a terribly under-developed smarty pants, and Ron is perfectly willing to let the entire world fall to Hitl-Voldemort because someone is scamming his girl.


Also, the audience "awwwwww"'d when Dobby got dagger-pwnt. And laughed during his speech. What. The. Hell?

MissMacchiato
11-20-2010, 03:56 PM
hmm. GV you do have some good points there. I DO like the main mcs, but I totally agree with the points about dumbledore...

Toothpaste
11-20-2010, 08:32 PM
Loved it.

Loved it even more that I hadn't read the book in 3 years, and so didn't know what was being left out.

Minor quibbles: a lack of exposition surrounding the use of the word "Voldemort", it was implied yes, but one line where the word had a trace attached to it would explain why Harry at the start was saying You Know Who after years of insisting people say Voldemort.

The timing with the actors in group scenes is always off in these movies. The actors need to jump on each other's cues more, like when Tonks almost announces she's pregnant the interruption comes a fraction too late etc. It always frustrates me as the slight bad timing distracts from some really fun scenes.


But other than that, loved loved loved it. Emma Watson will never be my fav actor but she did some lovely work, as did Grint. Radcliff is just soaring these days. The cinematography was stunning, and some scenes were truly terrifying for me to watch. The pacing was wonderful, not too slow, but still able to take it's time with certain moments. And I personally adored the Ministry of Magic section.

In all it was the fist time I felt that a Harry Potter movie stood on its own as a work of art, not just as a companion piece to the books.

katiemac
11-20-2010, 11:26 PM
The timing with the actors in group scenes is always off in these movies. The actors need to jump on each other's cues more, like when Tonks almost announces she's pregnant the interruption comes a fraction too late etc. It always frustrates me as the slight bad timing distracts from some really fun scenes.Yeah, I definitely agree with you here. The pacing of the film was fine, but sometimes the pacing within scenes doesn't quite gel.

PattiTheWicked
11-20-2010, 11:54 PM
I enjoyed it, and it's probably my favorite of the Harry Potter movies after "Prisoner of Azkaban," which I have always thought was the best. I loved the way they told the story of the Three Brothers, and I think any scenes with those ginger Weasley boys are comedy gold.

I'm not sure how I felt about the dancing scene. I get that Harry was trying to cheer Hermione up, and show how much he cares about her, but I think they were trying to hint that his feelings towards her are more than "best friend"y, and that's simply not the case. Harry loves Hermione, and she loves him, but not in a romantic sense, and that scene sort of teetered on the line between "does he or doesn't he?"

I also felt like it dragged a bit in the middle, where it was "let's walk around England and sleep in a tent and watch Ron be all emo" for a while, but I felt that way when I read the book too, so no surprise there.

Finally, I feel like the kids have finally come into their own as actors. I still think Emma Watson is the weak link of the three, but at least she's not painful to watch, as she was in the first five movies. Rupert Grint is adorable as ever, and I'm really hoping that Dan Radcliffe goes on to do some amazing things after this is all over and done with.

On the whole, I enjoyed it very much - because despite it's failings, it felt *right* as a movie, if that makes any sense.

Sage
11-21-2010, 04:12 AM
Probably. I'm not the only one who's mentioned it--the baby's room? My only guess is that it's some kind of nod to when Harry was last in Godric's Hollow, but still. It really bothers me because if that was the point, I don't think it was well done. LOL, nope that was exactly the thing that bothered me. I was like, "Where did this baby's room come from? Whose is it? Why is the light in it blinding me?"


Are you talking about the dancing? I actually rather love that... In fact, I like all the scenes they added. Hermione and her parents, Harry and Hermione, Neville telling off the Death Eaters on the train (about 30 seconds but I LOVED it), George walking in on Harry and Ginny...I like all those scenes, except parts of the dancing scene.


I'm not sure how I felt about the dancing scene. I get that Harry was trying to cheer Hermione up, and show how much he cares about her, but I think they were trying to hint that his feelings towards her are more than "best friend"y, and that's simply not the case. Harry loves Hermione, and she loves him, but not in a romantic sense, and that scene sort of teetered on the line between "does he or doesn't he?"
This was my problem with the scene. Like the parts where they were twirling each other around and just having fun, it was clear that Harry was trying to cheer Hermoine up as a friend. But when it starts and at the end, it really looks like they were trying for romantic tension there, especially moments after Ron stormed out accusing them of that very thing.

So I was thinking about this today, and while I am a big fan of movies following the books, I think that this movie would have benefited from moving the description of the Hallows up. The MCs barely have time to react to it. To consider the repercussions of Voldemort (or them) finding the elder wand. While I didn't really understand why Harry would ever think that it would be better to find the Hallows over Horcruxes (an unbeatable wand isn't any good if you can't kill the guy), thinking about why he wants the Hallows made them important to the reader. The moviegoers, especially those who didn't read the books, need a reason to care that Voldemort got the wand, and I'm not sure the movie did an effective job of connecting the Hallows story to Dumbledore's wand and stressing the importance of it.

childeroland
11-21-2010, 06:25 AM
I wish they had included Potterwatch and the whole idea of the wizarding world seeing Harry as a folk hero.

The scene of Hermione wiping her parents' memories is wonderful.

I forget--what the hell was with Harry and that mirror shard? Is it Sirius's mirror or the Mirror of Erised?

I would have liked to see Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr.

Sage
11-21-2010, 06:32 AM
Gaunt and TRSr were actually supposed to be in the last movie. They skipped a lot of the Voldy past stuff in HP6, which is sad because I loved that part.

The mirror shard is from the mirror Sirius gave him to communicate between the two of them, which I'm not sure was in the movie (can't remember).

childeroland
11-21-2010, 07:08 AM
So did I. I wished they'd cut down the romantic subplot in favor of that.

lastlittlebird
11-21-2010, 11:55 AM
I might be wrong about this... haven't read the books in a wee while, so I might be wrong. Beware, spoilers ahead.


But, one part I loved that I don't think has been mentioned yet, is the way they did Hedwig's death. As far as I remember in the book, she was in a cage with Harry on the motorcycle and just gets blasted and that's it. And they identify Harry as the real Harry because he throws stunning curse, rather than something stronger...
I always thought that was a bit weak, considering his friends are the other Harry's, and they aren't any more blood thirsty than Harry is (in some cases, less so). Having Hedwig attack the Deatheater and that being the way they ID him, and having the poor wee girl go out in a blaze of glory as a free bird... I thought that was cool.

And I liked the dancing scene too. I can see why people felt awkward about it, but I didn't feel like there was all that much tension... it looked to me like a very depressed girl getting comforted by her big brother in war time.
And if there was anything more intended... well, they were teenagers, alone in a very very intense situation. Frankly, I think it would be unrealistic not to give a nod to the idea.

regdog
11-21-2010, 03:50 PM
I forget--what the hell was with Harry and that mirror shard? Is it Sirius's mirror or the Mirror of Erised?


The mirror shard was from Order of the Phoenix

mellymel
11-21-2010, 06:15 PM
Since the dancing scene seems to be one of the more talked about and controversial ones of this movie, I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.

I loved it and I think I totally got the point of it and I don't think it was JUST about Harry trying to cheer Hermione up because she was depressed about Ron. What I got from that scene was that Harry was trying to just have a small moment of "fun". To let loose for just a small moment and smile and laugh and remember why they're doing what they are doing. It reminded me a lot of the scene in the film Armageddon when Bruce Willis' character tells the NASA people he wants his men to have one day to go and do whatever they want before they leave. To have some fun so they can remember what they're fighting for.

Throughout most of it I didn't feel there was a romantic tension. They have been best friends for the past 6 years and have been through A LOT and since I knew the story ahead of time, I knew it wasn't romantic in a sexual way. However, I would imagine that someone who has not read the books may have seen it differently. I'll have to ask my husband what he thought about that scene later. I think I remember during the movie, him making faces and gestures that implied a sort of what-the-hell-is-going-on-between-these-two reaction. I think I may have even turned him and said, no, they're just friends. However, I think at the end of the scene, when they break away, it could have been done differently as that is where it really felt a bit awkward to me. But overall, I thought it was an endearing scene.

As for Hermoine, I was quite impressed with her acting in this movie.

I just loved this movie so much. I thought they did a fantastic job with it. There wasn't a moment when I was bored though I can't say the same for my husband who has not read the books but has seen all the movies with me and is a "fan". He thought some of the scenes in the woods were a bit long and boring and I guess I could understand that from his POV. But man wasn't every place they went incredibly BEAUTifUL??? The cinematography was just fantastic! I can't wait to see the second half!!!

Cricket18
11-22-2010, 08:42 AM
The timing with the actors in group scenes is always off in these movies. The actors need to jump on each other's cues more, like when Tonks almost announces she's pregnant the interruption comes a fraction too late etc. It always frustrates me as the slight bad timing distracts from some really fun scenes.



Yeah, I definitely agree with you here. The pacing of the film was fine, but sometimes the pacing within scenes doesn't quite gel.

Are you two actors? Just curious, because I was and, well, those are the kinds of things we notice. :)

I loved the movie. I may be alone in my thoughts, but I loved the dancing scene. It actually made me want Hermione and Harry to be together. They have ten times the chemistry than Hermione / Ron and Harry / Ginny do, imho. Then again, I've always wanted them to be together. So this just sealed the deal for me.

katiemac
11-22-2010, 08:52 AM
I'm no actor. But I watch a lot of movies. ;)

It's funny, because I still don't see the dancing scene as romantic. To me, it was an extra nudge that even within the "trio," there are strong relationships... they do a nice job with Harry and Ron, and Ron and Hermione, and this proved that Hermione and Harry aren't just friends out of convenience, but because they care about each other. It takes a lot of guts for Hermione to stick with Harry, and to Harry, his friends are his family.

I'm not surprised the Hermione/Harry shippers are loving it, though.

Toothpaste
11-22-2010, 05:08 PM
Yeah, an actor. And director :) .

I actually don't mind the dancing scene either. And didn't consider it romantic. Like others have said, it was about lightening the mood. But further, I wouldn't mind if Yates was playing around with the idea of a slight romantic triangle, even if it isn't in the book. So what? It's compelling, and it isn't like it's a big deal that is taking away from other more important elements that were in the book. Personally I don't think it's romantic, but even if it was, is it such a crime? The only problem would be if she actually wound up with Harry at the end. But adding some tension to a film that might not be in a book, I don't get why it would be a big deal anyway (if it were true, which I'm not sure it even is).

DavidZahir
11-22-2010, 10:55 PM
Here is my review. (http://zahirblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/deathy-hallows-pt-1-review.html)

And I had no trouble with the dancing scene. Indeed, I don't even understand why it would be considered an issue.

Smish
11-23-2010, 01:56 AM
But, one part I loved that I don't think has been mentioned yet, is the way they did Hedwig's death. As far as I remember in the book, she was in a cage with Harry on the motorcycle and just gets blasted and that's it. And they identify Harry as the real Harry because he throws stunning curse, rather than something stronger...
I always thought that was a bit weak, considering his friends are the other Harry's, and they aren't any more blood thirsty than Harry is (in some cases, less so).

Yes, I agree completely. That always bugged me a bit, too. Yes, Harry used Expelliarmus (or however you spell it!) against Voldemort in book 4, but it's a standard for all wizards, young and old. Having Hedwig identify the real Harry was far more realistic - and touching - in my view.



It's funny, because I still don't see the dancing scene as romantic. To me, it was an extra nudge that even within the "trio," there are strong relationships... they do a nice job with Harry and Ron, and Ron and Hermione, and this proved that Hermione and Harry aren't just friends out of convenience, but because they care about each other. It takes a lot of guts for Hermione to stick with Harry, and to Harry, his friends are his family.


Yes! That's not quite as clear in the movies as it is in the books; Harry and Hermione really do love each other, in a best friends sort of way.

fredXgeorge
11-23-2010, 02:10 AM
I agree. Harry and Hermione do love each other. And you know, when Hermione said they should just stay in the Forest of Dean and grow old together I think a part of her really wanted that. And she stayed with Harry. It's like the love of a brother and sister.

Hedwig's death was so sad. You see this little white thing protecting Harry and just want to yell at her to go away :(

katiemac
11-23-2010, 02:20 AM
Yes! That's not quite as clear in the movies as it is in the books; Harry and Hermione really do love each other, in a best friends sort of way.

Something they chose not to include, which I wish they had, was Harry telling Ron after he destroyed the locket that he didn't like Hermione, not in that way. Again, a good moment to illustrate their friendship, especially since what Harry witnessed was highly personal. Ron's jealous streak and self-esteem have been somewhat integral in the series (or if that's too generous, then integral to the character), and it was at that point I felt he finally put it behind him and became a hero in his own right. He continued to show that in the rest of Deathly Hallows especially when it came to saving Hermione in Malfoy Manor and being the first one to stand up to Voldemort after he thought Harry was dead.

Highlight above for a Part II spoilers - safe if you've read the book, obviously. :)

MissMacchiato
11-23-2010, 02:25 AM
Katie, agreed. To quote myself -



Harry telling Ron it had never been like that between him and Hermione. I think that they really needed that, and for me it felt unresolved.

But I did like the inclusion of the dancing scene.

Kathleen42
11-23-2010, 02:32 AM
What did you like about the baby's room? Can you pinpoint it? Only asking because I still find it very perplexing, even after a second viewing. And perplexing enough to hound people about it who have also seen it ... ;)

(And while we're at it - they crashed into the neighbor's apartment, right, not some creepily pristine room Bathilda had secreted away?)

Is that what happened? I honestly couldn't tell if they'd crashed through into another house or if Bathilda has some creepy kid's room tucked away upstairs.

Overall, I really liked it (loved the change to Hedwig's death and loved the dancing scene) but I have no idea how anyone would follow it if they hadn't read the books.

As far as I can recall, the mirror was left out of the fifth movie so to throw it in without any sort of frame of reference seemed odd to me. I'm also not sure I would have understood who the snatchers were or what the ministry was up to if I hadn't read the book.

sassandgroove
11-23-2010, 09:12 PM
I haven't seen it yet. A lot of you are saying you "liked it but..." Can I go on record that I want one that we can just say we liked it...no buts about it? We're probably going to go see it tomorrow.

Toothpaste
11-23-2010, 09:24 PM
I have never seen a perfect film. Ever. Maybe this is because I also review films and work in the industry. I always have a "but'. Even for The Social Network which was probably my fav film of the year. And District 9 (my fav of last year).

In any event. I can say that this film is the closest Harry Potter film I've ever got to a lack of "but". This is a great film. It is a work of art. My two quibbles are so minor they almost look petty. Truly. I even think it's worthy of a few nominations come awards time.

Is that good enough for you? :)

maestrowork
11-23-2010, 09:31 PM
It's not my favorite in the series. Since I haven't read the book, I found it confusing. And certain things don't make sense... like how did Hermione know how to teleport everyone? I thought you needed a portal to do that? Little things like that (I'm sure they are all explained with logic in the books) make me feel frustrated about the whole "fantasy" genre -- like you can just make things up.

That said, it's much darker and creepier and I am not sure if it's "suitable" for children or young teens. The series definitely turns really dark and adult. The first half was really good. The FOREST scenes are SO BORING... are they like that in the book? I kept saying, "please move on already. Or switch to another point of view. Please, no more wandering around in the woods." And then it got interesting again but I can't help but think the climax of THIS movie (I fully understand the book has been split, so it's not really the climax of the book) is kind of lame. I didn't feel anything... although the lady behind me was sobbing.

But that's just me, as a person who haven't read the books. I'm sure for fans of the books, it's great.

mscelina
11-23-2010, 09:35 PM
You need a portkey or Floo powder to transport underage wizards. Once a wizard is of age, they can apparate--and Hermione, who is the best student of the three, is the only one who's really perfected the ability.

katiemac
11-23-2010, 10:30 PM
You need a portkey or Floo powder to transport underage wizards. Once a wizard is of age, they can apparate--and Hermione, who is the best student of the three, is the only one who's really perfected the ability.

Harry can do it, too--he Apparated himself and Dumbledore from the cave at the end of Half-Blood Prince. But Hermione always seemed to have more of a plan of where they could hide. Harry was only ever a few places in his life; Dursleys and Hogwarts, with the exception of Grimmauld Place. (And they couldn't go to the Burrow.)


The first half was really good. The FOREST scenes are SO BORING... are they like that in the book? I kept saying, "please move on already. Or switch to another point of view. Please, no more wandering around in the woods."A lot of people don't like the scenes in the forest in the book, either. I like them quite a bit... but there's a lot more going on in Harry's head at the time than what made it on screen.

katiemac
11-23-2010, 10:36 PM
As far as I can recall, the mirror was left out of the fifth movie so to throw it in without any sort of frame of reference seemed odd to me. I'm also not sure I would have understood who the snatchers were or what the ministry was up to if I hadn't read the book.Did Harry get the mirror at the end of the Phoenix in the movie? I could be making that up. In fact, I probably am -- when I first saw Deathly Hallows Part 1, I could have sworn they included Mundungus Fletcher in the fifth movie, but then changed the actor and pretended like he and Harry had never met.

Nope. I was just implanting scenes from the book into the movie. First appearance of Mundungus in the films is at the Dursleys home before they move Harry.

katiemac
11-23-2010, 10:45 PM
I haven't seen it yet. A lot of you are saying you "liked it but..." Can I go on record that I want one that we can just say we liked it...no buts about it? We're probably going to go see it tomorrow.I have a lot of faith in Part II. Other than some pacing problems, most of my issues with the films have stemmed from things being left out/confusing -- in Part II, there's no backstory or information really to leave out. Unless what hits the cutting room floor has to do with Dumbledore and Snape. But Part II is the best opportunity they've got to make a film the fans really embrace... at that point, there's not much to change/rearrange.

Kathleen42
11-24-2010, 12:30 AM
I have never seen a perfect film. Ever. Maybe this is because I also review films and work in the industry. I always have a "but'. Even for The Social Network which was probably my fav film of the year. And District 9 (my fav of last year).


There are very few films which I find absolutely perfect. Off the top of my head, the only two I can think of are Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Apartment.

Every movie starts out as words on a page and, as such, I think it's natural for writers to have have "buts" when discussing movies--especially when discussing them with other writers.

*shrug* But maybe that opinion stems from the fact that movies have always been an influence on my writing.

maestrowork
11-24-2010, 01:32 AM
You need a portkey or Floo powder to transport underage wizards. Once a wizard is of age, they can apparate--and Hermione, who is the best student of the three, is the only one who's really perfected the ability.

If Hermione can do it all along, why not just have her teleport Harry to some remote places, put a spell on themselves -- basically, the same scenes in the woods -- without all that stuff in the beginning? That could have save them from taking the risks (Mad-Eye Moody, George, etc.)... or am I missing something?

Like I said, if you hadn't read the books, it could be very confusing with changing rules, etc.

katiemac
11-24-2010, 02:57 AM
If Hermione can do it all along, why not just have her teleport Harry to some remote places, put a spell on themselves -- basically, the same scenes in the woods -- without all that stuff in the beginning? That could have save them from taking the risks (Mad-Eye Moody, George, etc.)... or am I missing something?

Like I said, if you hadn't read the books, it could be very confusing with changing rules, etc.

In the beginning, Harry is still seventeen and thus has the Trace on him, which means the Ministry can track the movements of him and those who do magic around him (he was nearly expelled in Chamber of Secrets when Dobby performs magic in his house; the Ministry believes Harry did it). The Ministry (corrupted) is also controlling/regulating the use of portkeys and Floo powder. They wanted untraceable way of traveling, which mean broomsticks and thestrals and the flying motorbike.

As for Harry Apparating himself or Side-Along Apparating, I don't remember if there was a reason they didn't go that route other than the Trace. Even if Apparating meant Harry was technically safe at the Burrow, they didn't actually want the Death Eaters being able to figure out where he went, hence the multiple Potters. (Admittedly, the Burrow itself is not so hard to figure.)

There's also whole other issue that wasn't quite explored in the film where they thought they were tricking Voldemort and the Death Eaters by moving Harry before he turned seventeen, but someone (Snape) tipped them off. [Can't remember if the highlighted portion is a spoiler or not. I think it's included in the film.]

The book's not perfect when it comes to this stuff, either, but there's a little more groundwork.

maestrowork
11-24-2010, 03:18 AM
If they had a trace on him, why didn't they nab him at the Dursleys' house? I know I am picking it apart, but I'm trying to illustrate a point: for those who have not read the books, it can be REALLY confusing and "doesn't make sense."

katiemac
11-24-2010, 03:51 AM
If they had a trace on him, why didn't they nab him at the Dursleys' house? I know I am picking it apart, but I'm trying to illustrate a point: for those who have not read the books, it can be REALLY confusing and "doesn't make sense."

He's untouchable at the Dursleys' house... This is an idea that should have been included in the other movies (I honestly don't remember if they did or not), in either Order of the Phoenix or Half-Blood Prince. I don't disagree that the films are not easy for non-readers.

For fun, there's a gallery on EW.com (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20431232_20444360,00.html) that brings up some things that are missing from Hallows Part 1 that were included in the book. Some of them I don't find that big of a deal--like Dean missing from the forest/Malfoy Manor, and the change in Hedwig's death like we discussed.

I also read a gallery on another film site that set up the differences between what Book Harry knew going into the Deathly Hallows that Movie Harry didn't. (Case in point: Book Harry knows what the Horcruxes are or are likely to be; Movie Harry has no idea.) I'll have to find that. ETA: Here it is (http://thefilmstage.com/2010/11/18/what-book-harry-knew-that-film-harry-should-know/).

Kathleen42
11-24-2010, 03:55 AM
If they had a trace on him, why didn't they nab him at the Dursleys' house? I know I am picking it apart, but I'm trying to illustrate a point: for those who have not read the books, it can be REALLY confusing and "doesn't make sense."

*nods* I actually thought Hallows was the worst of the films in terms of functioning on it's own without relying on the audience having read the book (second worst would be PoA, imo, which is actually my favorite of the movies).

To answer your question, though, the Dursley's house was under some crazy protective spell stuff having (in part) to do with the blood tie between Harry's aunt and his mum. Or something like that. Basically no one can attack Harry there until after he comes of age.

Kathleen42
11-24-2010, 03:57 AM
. Some of them I don't find that big of a deal--like Dean missing from the forest/Malfoy Manor, and the change in Hedwig's death like we discussed.
.

I wish they kept Dean in. It would have been a great way to explain that the ministry was persecuting wizards of muggle parentage AND it would have explained who the snatchers were and what they were doing.

katiemac
11-24-2010, 04:05 AM
I wish they kept Dean in. It would have been a great way to explain that the ministry was persecuting wizards of muggle parentage AND it would have explained who the snatchers were and what they were doing.True. But in terms of the movies, Dean never stood out, so I don't think losing his screen time really hurt the film. In the book, I loved learning more about his character (not knowing if his father was a Muggle or a wizard, so he was on the run), but I understand why they made this particular cut. I think the same thing you mention could have been accomplished with the radio show, especially if they'd kept it Potterwatch run by Lee, Fred and George.

There's no real essence in the film how the world (and other characters) are functioning while their in hiding. On one hand, it's interesting because the trio is so much more in the dark; on the other hand, I think you miss out a little on suspense and urgency.

Sage
11-24-2010, 07:19 AM
Well, they still got the persecution of the muggle-born witches in there through the scenes at the Ministry. Umbridge's questioning was all about how the witch in question must have stolen a wand because muggle-borns couldn't be born witches.

I think they did get the explanation of Harry being safe at the Dursley's in the 5th movie. Otherwise, how did they explain why it was such a big deal that Harry stays at the Dursleys after he'd been expelled? But I could be wrong.

Kathleen42
11-24-2010, 07:23 AM
Well, they still got the persecution of the muggle-born witches in there through the scenes at the Ministry. Umbridge's questioning was all about how the witch in question must have stolen a wand because muggle-borns couldn't be born witches.

Oh I know they got it in. I'm just not sure how clear it would be if you hadn't read the books.

Mr. Anonymous
11-24-2010, 07:39 AM
my biggest gripe is that I find the action scenes boring. Magic duels aren't supposed to be sparkly gun duels! It's supposed to be more akin to sword-fighting! Sorry, I just had to complain to someone.

fredXgeorge
11-24-2010, 07:51 AM
my biggest gripe is that I find the action scenes boring. Magic duels aren't supposed to be sparkly gun duels! It's supposed to be more akin to sword-fighting! Sorry, I just had to complain to someone.
I'm not sure I follow you. Wizards aren't doing spells right in someone's face, they're further away.

DavidZahir
11-24-2010, 08:00 AM
I think it a fairly clear choice to aim the film for those who've seen the previous ones. Such will make up the overwhelming bulk of the audience.

A dear friend of mine went to see the flick, never having read any of the books or seen any of the movies. Yet she said she understood the story just fine.

The Forest scenes were not boring to me, because stuff was always going on in them. Just no violence. Instead, we get a steadily rising count of the "missing" and growing tensions in Ron as a result of the Horcrux. Coupled with other bits, like Hermione going absolutely still in the presence of the Snatchers. Plus they were putting together clues.

katiemac
11-24-2010, 08:17 AM
Plus they were putting together clues.I think they could have shown this a little better in the film. Harry struggles with the Hallows vs. Horcruxes dilemma for awhile. I feel in the book, there was such a big enlightening moment for Harry when he finally puts the pieces together (I'll admit to be biased since it's probably one of the passages I'm more fond of in the entire series--digging Dobby's grave and he finally understands why Dumbledore made everything so difficult), but in the movie, it's hard until suddenly it's not.

The books always gave us enough information to work out the puzzle with Harry (RAB and Kreacher, especially). The films throw out the information as needed so they can move on. Granted, I understand why cuts are made but it does reflect differently on Harry's choices.

DavidZahir
11-24-2010, 08:53 AM
My own guess (as stated in my review) is that the solving of the mysteries will make up a major part of the second part.

ceenindee
11-24-2010, 09:43 AM
Having seen it a second time now, I can safely say I like the dancing scene. It's a nice way to lighten the mood and establish Harry and Hermione as platonic.

I also didn't find the forest scenes boring at all. I expected to, since it wasn't new this time, but I can't think what they would take out. I liked all of it. *shrugs* I guess my fandom makes me blind.

BeatrixKiddo
11-24-2010, 09:55 AM
I finally saw Harry last night. It was excellent. I haven't read any of the books yet so I've really been enjoying the movies. I like the animated part where they had the back story of the three bothers. Very cool.

Looking forward to the next one.

Sage
11-25-2010, 02:24 AM
Although I didn't like Harry trying to figure out whether to go after Horcruxes or Hallows (seems pretty obvious to me), I did like when he makes the decision because it's a very coming of age moment, I think. And IIRC, he makes the decision, then tells Ron and Hermoine at the very last second before Voldy gets the wand so that there's absolutely no going back for him.

ChronicSelfEditor
11-25-2010, 02:45 AM
I would REALLY like to know where in the UK they filmed the camp site with Harry and Hermione when they decide to go to Godric's Hollow. Any ideas? Is it even out yet in the UK for them to see and guess? I tried looking at filming locations on IMDB and am still stumped.

katiemac
11-25-2010, 02:52 AM
They film at Leavesden Studios. Obviously that's not the outdoor location, but it might be a start...

But yes, the films open in the UK a week before the US.

Grrarrgh
11-25-2010, 04:48 AM
We went Monday night to see it and I'm still trying to decide exactly how I feel about it. I didn't dislike it, but there were a lot of things I was disappointed not to see. I really wanted to see the scene in the beginning with Harry and Dudley. I know that it's not that important to the plot of this specific movie, but I did think it was a big moment in the overall story. I didn't like that there wasn't even 1 quick "You-know-who's name has a trace on it." It was alluded to, but I don't think that I would have picked up on it if I hadn't read the books. It wouldn't have taken much. I wish they would have included Potterwatch. If they didn't want Dean in the movie, that's fine, but it still could have been something Fred and George were doing. They were listening to the radio anyway, it wouldn't have been that hard to include it. The dancing scene was fine. I thought that it was looked a little more than platonic, but I understood why they did it. However, I thought that on top of Naked Evil Harry and Naked Evil Hermione making out in front of Ron, they definitely needed Harry giving Ron the line about how he feels very brotherly toward Hermione.
We're probably going to go see it again this weekend, which will probably help me form a solid opinion. I definitely liked more than I disliked, but the things that they left out were really disappointing for me.
And I definitely think that it did the worst job of standing on its own. I think there's a lot that you wouldn't pick up on without having read the books.

Does anyone know the DVD schedule? The next one comes out in July; will this one be on DVD before then? Or will it still be in theaters? It seems a little quick for the DVD release, but I'm sure people will want to re-watch it before Part 2.

Sage
11-25-2010, 05:14 AM
If they're smart, they'll release it right before the 8th movie.

The Dursley's characterization (at least Petunia's and Dudley's) were really left out of the last two movies, so it's not surprising that Dudley's part was left out of this one.

katiemac
11-25-2010, 08:27 AM
Part I will release on DVD before Part II hits theaters.

Re: The Dursleys... Interesting, I was reading an article with David Heyman (I think, might've been Yates) and they were talking about how when the actor who plays Dudley came into the studio for his fitting, he'd changed radically from how he was last seen on screen in Order of the Phoenix. Apparently in his natural growing that includes slimming down, to the point where they scrambled last minute in make-up and costume and even had to put him in a fat suit to bulk him up a bit. I read all this, then saw the film...

... and Dudley's scene are all cut. I have no idea if it was cut for length, plot, what, but it sounds like they intended to have Dudley in the beginning a bit more.

fredXgeorge
11-25-2010, 12:12 PM
Yeah he slimmed down quite a while ago. Actually, slimmed down is kind of an understatement:
http://www.snitchseeker.com/gallery/albums/userpics/13923/normal_harry-melling_1495862c.jpg

Btw guys, just to let you know, there's more with the Dursleys in the deleted scenes so let's hoping it's the Dudley/Harry bit!

jvc
03-03-2011, 07:58 PM
It seems Warner Bros are having to pay 300,000 to the theatre where Daniel Radcliffe is performing to buy out five days worth of showings so he can appear at the premiere of the final movie.

SaraP
03-03-2011, 09:15 PM
:Jaw:

seun
04-08-2011, 06:35 PM
Quick question, people. All the feck off big spiders who lived in the forest are in the book - are they in the film? I'm guessing not as, if I remember correctly, they appear fairly late in the book. I have to ask for arachnophobic reasons. :)

katiemac
04-08-2011, 08:57 PM
Quick question, people. All the feck off big spiders who lived in the forest are in the book - are they in the film? I'm guessing not as, if I remember correctly, they appear fairly late in the book. I have to ask for arachnophobic reasons. :)

Are they in Part 1, you mean? No. There's no Hogwarts in Part 1. Well, very very minimal Hogwarts.

seun
04-08-2011, 08:59 PM
Are they in Part 1, you mean? No. There's no Hogwarts in Part 1. Well, very very minimal Hogwarts.

Cool. Thanks. Doubtless my wife will fall asleep twenty minutes in but the last thing I want is her waking up at the same time a giant spider jumps up on screen. Roll on part two. :evil

third person
04-08-2011, 09:44 PM
The best movie in the series so far. The progression from kiddie wonder to dark and serious was done wonderfully. Deathly Hallows pt 1, unlike The Half-Blood Prince, took its actors seriously, and for that we were rewarded excellent performances by the cast.

SaraP
04-09-2011, 01:07 AM
Quick question, people. All the feck off big spiders who lived in the forest are in the book - are they in the film? I'm guessing not as, if I remember correctly, they appear fairly late in the book. I have to ask for arachnophobic reasons. :)

Did you see The Chamber of Secrets? I surprised myself by actually being able to see it all (same as LotR).

seun
04-09-2011, 04:42 PM
Yeah, I saw Chamber. Spiders are no problem for me, but my wife isn't a fan to put it mildly.

SaraP
04-09-2011, 05:25 PM
Did she see it?

seun
04-09-2011, 06:43 PM
All bar the scene in the woods. :tongue

As for Deathly Hallows, Aragog and his mates aren't in it, but there were some spiders when Ron breaks the locket thingy. Luckily, she was asleep by then.

SaraP
04-09-2011, 07:37 PM
As an arachnophobe, I found Chamber to be viewable. First through fingers over eyes, then with no hands over eyes at all. Let's see what DH Part II holds.

Darren Frey
04-09-2011, 11:50 PM
I found this to be the most emotional for me to watch so far. When Harry and Hermoine danced to O Children by Nick Cave I felt a bit teary eyed haha.