A Harry Potter thread.

ins0mn1ac · 16 Jul 2011 at 23:46

Gustov said:
SPOILER!

So Harry had to die to kill Voldermort's WHOREcrux within Harry.

So why did Harry come back alive? Surely he had to genuinely die for the WHOREcrux to be destroyed?

I am confused.

Also Tummy, the whole 'ZOMG IT CONTAINS LESS CONTENT THAN THE BOOK' argument just makes you look like a silly noob The film has been split into TWO parts and it still barely covers the depth of the novel. Why? It's simply not possible. They have to make huge cuts where necessary.

Good film, but not a touch on Lord of the Rings - Return of the King back in 2003.

It's because, as I understand it anyway.. Voldy only killed himself when he cursed Harry, the part of his soul in Harry. But part of Harry was alive in Voldy so he had the choice to come back, and I think that's why you see him all weak and dying while he's in that strange bit with Dumbledore.

Gustov · 16 Jul 2011 at 23:57

deleted said:
Voldy only killed himself when he cursed Harry, the part of his soul in Harry. But part of Harry was alive in Voldy so he had the choice to come back, and I think that's why you see him all weak and dying while he's in that strange bit with Dumbledore.

How can that part of Harry be alive in Voldermort when Voldermort just killed it? I'm guessing Voldermort killed that part of himself in harry which only wounded him (which makes no sense)

Glaucus · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:14

Well as you know I'm not a fan, and I really struggled for the first hour to stay awake. But one they started attacking the school it was a pretty decent action film.

However throughly enjoyed the old bristolian drinks after.

Efour · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:25

Never read the books but saw this tonight and thought it was ok. Glad they explained a bit about Alan Rickmans "nasty" but nice character and redeemed him kinda Obi Wan style to me lol.

I love the whole fighting style they use looks great.

Couple of things i dont get, maybe if i read the books i would but

1) when the goodies hit/shoot/spell on a baddy do they actually kill him ? i thought only the baddies killed people
2) why did the Malfoy ? (white haired family) Run off at the end? At what point did dad and mum change their mind?

Whatever: it was decent, will be odd not to have another film. Hope there is some other good films like this in the pipes.

Morgoth · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:50

Efour2 said:
2) why did the Malfoy ? (white haired family) Run off at the end? At what point did dad and mum change their mind?

It could be argued a few ways why the Malfoy's had a a change of heart, falling out of favour with Voldemort may have been a large part of it or they realised that the deatheaters were an evil and twisted regime that weren't only interested in only keeping magic for purebloods but rather complete domination of the magical world.

Whichever you prefer.

Glaucus · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:52

I thought it was they were cowards, as shown in most of the films. Fine when they feel in power and crumbled when they where in trouble and could see they weren't going to win.

Morgoth · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:52

Gustov said:
How can that part of Harry be alive in Voldermort when Voldermort just killed it? I'm guessing Voldermort killed that part of himself in harry which only wounded him (which makes no sense)

The way it's explained in the books is that Harry's mum died without putting up a fight which put a protection on Harry from Avada Kedavra. When Harry went to the showdown in the forest he also put up no fight which in doing so protected himself from the Avada Kedavra and only destroyed the part of Voldemort's attached soul.

Or something.

Gustov · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:57

Morgoth said:
The way it's explained in the books is that Harry's mum died without putting up a fight which put a protection on Harry from Avada Kedavra. When Harry went to the showdown in the forest he also put up no fight which in doing so protected himself from the Avada Kedavra and only destroyed the part of Voldemort's attached soul.

Or something.

So they missed out a pretty significant bit of information there...

Some serious fail David.

Tummy · 17 Jul 2011 at 01:31

Gustov said:
So they missed out a pretty significant bit of information there...

Some serious fail David.

LOLOLOL BOOK NOOB.

They've left lots out, much of which detracts from the enjoyment and understanding of the book.

It's about the Love Harry has and the protection that his mum gave him, she died willingly to protect him with her love kind of thing, He gives up himself willingly too. It really doesn't come across at all well in the films. Nor does the tense nature of the final duel.

Tummy · 17 Jul 2011 at 01:34

Gustov said:
Also Tummy, the whole 'ZOMG IT CONTAINS LESS CONTENT THAN THE BOOK' argument just makes you look like a silly noob The film has been split into TWO parts and it still barely covers the depth of the novel. Why? It's simply not possible. They have to make huge cuts where necessary.

I'm not sure it does to be honest. I'm a fan and disappointed with whats left out, not because I'm a fan of long winded talky films, but because I'm a fan of films that make perfect sense.

They've missed out big chunks of the story and character development that imho, detracts from the enjoyment of the film from a fans point of view and a cinema fans point of view.

zootfloot · 17 Jul 2011 at 06:11

Tummy said:
I'm not sure it does to be honest. I'm a fan and disappointed with whats left out, not because I'm a fan of long winded talky films, but because I'm a fan of films that make perfect sense.

They've missed out big chunks of the story and character development that imho, detracts from the enjoyment of the film from a fans point of view and a cinema fans point of view.

Couldnt agree more.

The one part that was missing and i was really looking forward to it being shown on film was the part where Aberforth would explain to Harry about Dumbledore's youth, relationship with Grindewald and Arianna's death and how it affected Dumbledore.

The final duel didnt really work for me either.

DampCat · 17 Jul 2011 at 14:32

From a film-goers perspective, Harry's relationship with Dumbledore isnt hugely important, and Dumbledore's history with Grindelwald isn't either. Although why they included Aunt Muriel's speech about Dumbledore's past being unriddled by Rita Skita if they weren't goign to follow it up seems odd. The important plot point is that Harry has to destroy Voldemort, and some people are helping him. The relationship is undoubtedly a great part of the book, but it doesnt advance the story, merely sidestep or flesh it out.

You have to be brutal with a screenplay. Keep the books as "bonus material".

Tummy · 17 Jul 2011 at 15:09

Which I understand, but I still feel they could have fitted a lot more in story wise and character development wise with better writing.

They really didn't explore or explain Harry V Hewhomustnotbenamed enough, the Love v Hate relationship type thing.

Belloni · 17 Jul 2011 at 16:45

I went to school with Ron Weasley, AKA Rupert Grint.

His brother is cool he was in my class, never really spoke to Rupert though.

Morgoth · 17 Jul 2011 at 16:59

I like Rupert Grint, out of the three of them he always seems to give the most convincing acting.

DampCat · 17 Jul 2011 at 19:19

Ok my next question is... why didn't Harry repair his wand with the Elder Wand? Probably because people would have forgotten his was broken from the last film, but easy to fix that. Ron: "What'll we do with it?" Harry: "Something I've been wishing I could do ever since Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow". Or something.

Judgeneo · 17 Jul 2011 at 19:23

DampCat said:
Ok my next question is... why didn't Harry repair his wand with the Elder Wand? Probably because people would have forgotten his was broken from the last film, but easy to fix that. Ron: "What'll we do with it?" Harry: "Something I've been wishing I could do ever since Bathilda Bagshot's house in Godric's Hollow". Or something.

Harry has never been the sharpest tool in the shed

Morgoth · 17 Jul 2011 at 20:01

Judgeneo said:
Harry has never been the sharpest tool in the shed

He repairs it in the book though.

I'd imagine because it wasn't a plot point important enough for the film.

DampCat · 17 Jul 2011 at 20:02

But he fixed it in the book waaaaah

Crowort · 17 Jul 2011 at 21:17

Been awhile since I read it but isn't the point of Harry having all 3 of the Hallows that together they give 'mastery over death'? The mastery over death is mostly shown in the film and described in the book as being willing to die for love thou. The Hallows don't really give him any power (he never really uses them) so I don't know why Dumbledore would give them to him (in a round about way) unless it was to give him the ability to come back from dying.