PDA

View Full Version : Deathly Hallows Trailer



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

agalisgv
11-20-2010, 10:51 PM
I know the Deathly Hollow are important, I'm asking about the symbol... Hope it will be explained in 7.2 because right now it seemed like the 'symbol' was a plot device to move the story along and didn't explain why Luna's dad is wearing the symbol. Personally I don't think either the deathly hallows or the symbol are all that important save for the elder wand. In the book, it's explained that the deathly hallows were a delaying tactic to give the Order of the Phoenix cohort enough time to launch a successful challenge.

The elder wand becomes significant, but that could have stood on its own rather than as part of the deathly hallows imo.

rfisher
11-20-2010, 11:25 PM
Mixed feelings. It wasn't bad which is much better than the last three, but I won't go see it again. My only major eyerolling was at all the wizards wearing muggle clothing, including those at Malfoy Manor and the Ministry of Magic. GIMMEABREAK. I thought Dobby's death was anti-climatic. Maybe because that's one of the points in the book I always have a bit of a moment and have to put the book down for a spell. The scenes of the trio on the run were well done and conveyed the intent of the book. I don't have any real complaints about Godric Hollow except Voldemort was supposed to arrive just as Harry and Hermione escape.

Sadly, they left out a couple of my favorite parts of the book, one of which would have been very easy to include and that's Dudley's remarks to Harry as they are leaving. The other was Kreacher's story. People who don't read the books will miss one of JKR's better story telling bits with Kreacher's Tale. Another missing element was Harry's disillusionment with Dumbledore after reading Rita Skeeter's book. There was no anger at his mentor. Nor do we get his growing obsession with the Deathly Hallows. It was a key moment in the book when he choose to go after the remaining horcrux rather than the Hallows and let Voldemort take the elder wand instead.

I so totally love Alan Rickman. Of course, knowing the end of the story helps, but the expression in his eyes as he watched Charity Burbage die was an example of how much he can convey with just a look. I'm looking forward to his big reveal to Harry more than any other part of the next movie. Well, that and Neville's big moment. Jason Issacs once again was spot on as Lucius Malfoy at this point in the story. I've never been fond of Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix. While Bella is crazy as a loon, Carter plays the part way over the top.

I do have to say, young Mr. Radcliffe has grown into quite a handsome young man. I thought Rupert Grint did a good job as always. It's been an interesting experience to see all three of the kids grow as actors over the years.

rfisher
11-20-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm waiting for the movies to be all done before I'm going to read the books. I read Lord of the Rings before the movie and although the movies are excellent I found myself constantly comparing it to the book which took away a lot of my enjoyment.

I know the Deathly Hollow are important, I'm asking about the symbol... Hope it will be explained in 7.2 because right now it seemed like the 'symbol' was a plot device to move the story along and didn't explain why Luna's dad is wearing the symbol.

The symbol per se was the mark of Grindewald. The movie left out an important point when at the wedding Viktor Krum was very upset when he saw Xenophilus wearing the symbol. He explains to Harry that it was Grindewald's mark and was at Durmstrang. Grindewald killed his grandparents. It was sort of a prequel to Voldemort's mark in some ways. Xenophilus wears the symbol because he belongs to a group of wizards who believe in the myth. Most don't. We learn all about Grindewald and his relationship to Dumbledore in the last book. It remains to be seen how they will handle this in the last movie, but I suspect much will be lost.

IceAlisa
11-21-2010, 02:33 AM
The symbol per se was the mark of Grindewald. The movie left out an important point when at the wedding Viktor Krum was very upset when he saw Xenophilus wearing the symbol. He explains to Harry that it was Grindewald's mark and was at Durmstrang. Grindewald killed his grandparents. It was sort of a prequel to Voldemort's mark in some ways. Xenophilus wears the symbol because he belongs to a group of wizards who believe in the myth. Most don't. We learn all about Grindewald and his relationship to Dumbledore in the last book. It remains to be seen how they will handle this in the last movie, but I suspect much will be lost.

I really hope not. One thing I loved about the last book is that JKR ended up creating a rather flawed mentor for Harry. That makes DD a lot more interesting than your average run of the mill long bearded, white haired Merlin type.

And that obsession with his own and Grindewald's power is mirrored by Harry's obsession with the Deathly Hallows which of course represent the ultimate power. The obsession with power is also of what makes Voldemort what he is as well. So that theme is pretty central to the plot IMO.

manhn
11-21-2010, 05:38 AM
As a viewer who has never read the any of the book but saw all the movies up to 7.1... I think 7.1 is easiest my least favorite...



As someone who has read the books, I would generally agree. I liked it like I like all the HP movies, but it doesn't compare to films #3-6. Things like having the wedding involve a character we never saw in the films and another barely featured character was a bad choice. Just have one of the Weasley twins marry Fleur Delacour and how would it mess anything up besides upset HP purists who make Janeites look normal?

I don't quite get the criticism regarding the films trying to push the Harry/Hermione relationship. If anything, the movies have done a better job of ensuring that Harry/annoyingweasleygirl and Hermione/Ron actually belong together. In the books, I HATE HATE HATE these couples.

I thought Emma probably did her best work in the film, the action sequences were great, and the story of the Deathy Hallows was wonderfully creative.

Of all the books that could've been made into two films (Goblet of Fire!), this was not the book.

ebayj
11-21-2010, 06:40 AM
Well, adapting very popular literature (current or in the past) is always a fairly dicey proposition - I found the movie very engaging - but it was more like a rapid tour through the action high points of the book, which I found to be utterly brilliant in both its language use and story exposition. I made a point of rereading HP7 before I saw the film this past Friday, and I am glad I did.

IceAlisa
11-21-2010, 07:00 AM
Just have one of the Weasley twins marry Fleur Delacour and how would it mess anything up besides upset HP purists who make Janeites look normal? NO! You blasphemy against the sacred canon! :mad: :drama: :lynch: :argue: :EVILLE:



I don't quite get the criticism regarding the films trying to push the Harry/Hermione relationship. If anything, the movies have done a better job of ensuring that Harry/annoyingweasleygirl and Hermione/Ron actually belong together. In the books, I HATE HATE HATE these couples. I am not big on Ginny in the book but especially in the movies. I think she is the only one who was hopelessly miscast (which is amazing considering how well everyone else was cast).

nerdycool
11-21-2010, 07:41 AM
Just got back and I'm immensely satisfied. Now if July weren't so far away...

There was a lot that I really liked and not much I could say that they could have safely left out. I was kinda nervous about the camping part, because if any part could have been overdone, that was it. But it was a good length and due to the character development during this time, it didn't feel boring to me. Speaking of which, I'm amazed at how much the trio's acting skills have improved. In the previous films, there are awkward moments when it felt fake and over-acted. But they're really coming into their own! And I'm SO happy that Ron gets some serious lines, instead of the doofy things they've giving him in the past.

Also loved when Harry was trying to cheer Hermione up by dancing... though the writers were pushing it closer to romantical than I thought was necessary. It almost made it seemed that Harry was seriously considering Hermione that way. My friends didn't think so, but that's what I got out of it.

Liked how the golden snitch was always escaping, but Harry was always catching it. Truly being a "seeker," in more ways than one.

Things I wish they would have included/done better:
Harry/Ginny's relationship. I know that it's not super important in the whole scheme of things, but since they almost have to include it, why not spend a few minutes developing it instead of showing them kissing and making small talk? Just felt awkward.

I wish they wouldn't have left out Harry's reassuring Ron about he and Hermione after the locket was destroyed. It's the part in the book that finally puts Ron's doubts to rest, and puts their friendship back in place. But coming after the dancing scene (see above for my thoughts), maybe they're saving it for later?

And I'm not sure how they could have worked it in the way they wrote the movie, but I really wish Harry's cloak was involved somehow. I know it'll show up in part 2, but since they relied on it very heavily in the book, you'd think they'd at least mention that it was in Hermione's bag of tricks.

IceJunkie
11-21-2010, 08:50 AM
I don't quite get the criticism regarding the films trying to push the Harry/Hermione relationship. If anything, the movies have done a better job of ensuring that Harry/annoyingweasleygirl and Hermione/Ron actually belong together. In the books, I HATE HATE HATE these couples.

Hermione/Harry always seemed more of a fit, even before the obvious chemistry between Dan and Emma in the movies. I get why JK did it, Ron would have been the odd man out, and this way they all end up family in the end. Still, she never really developed Ginny and Harry's relationship very well, especially since they end up married in the end.

vesperholly
11-21-2010, 09:20 AM
Personally I don't think either the deathly hallows or the symbol are all that important save for the elder wand. In the book, it's explained that the deathly hallows were a delaying tactic to give the Order of the Phoenix cohort enough time to launch a successful challenge.

The elder wand becomes significant, but that could have stood on its own rather than as part of the deathly hallows imo.

Eh? Isn't Voldemort obsessed with obtaining the deathly hallows because it would mean he can conquer death? He was after the sorcerer's stone in book 1, then again as far as he knows, it's been destroyed. I don't remember him going after an invisibility cloak, though ... plot hole ftw.

The lack of the cloak in the movie bugged me. Did they use up all their FX budget on Dobby and Kreacher?

The scene where Hermione explains the deathly hallows was stunning, though.


I don't quite get the criticism regarding the films trying to push the Harry/Hermione relationship.
Did that (not in the book) slow dance didn't hold any tension for you at all? I thought it was a nice bit of Harry to be cheering up Hermione, but I could have done without the gazing lovingly into each other's eyes bit. Ditch that scene and show Pettigrew strangling himself, or the cloak, or Hermione reading Skeeter's book, or Voldy showing up at Godric's Hollow.

I wanted to see Luna's bedroom, but I agree with a video review I watched that it was almost better not to see it, because it was so vividly described in the book and it would almost have to fail in comparison.

I also thought the slow motion "oooOOOOHHH!!!!" of Bellatrix's knife falling toward Dobby was OTT. And HBC was really overacting in this one. I kept thinking, "but where's Dean?!"

FigureSpins
11-21-2010, 03:06 PM
OTOH, I couldn't watch or read LOTR movies or books, try as I may, finding both extremely boring.Loved the books, even wrote some LOTR fanfiction back in the 1970s, but I have never wanted to see the movies.

I know the Deathly Hollow are important, I'm asking about the symbol... Hope it will be explained in 7.2 because right now it seemed like the 'symbol' was a plot device to move the story along and didn't explain why Luna's dad is wearing the symbol. The book explained Xeno Lovegood's wearing of the symbol, which is different from others' perspectives. Some wizards/witches dismiss the Deathly Hallows as myths, others (like Krum) feel it represents an evil cult, but Xeno's group uses it as a symbol of faith. The truth is something in between, revealing backstory of Dumbledore's youth.

JK Rowling brought some religious undercurrents into play, and trust me, they're obvious. I'm not a person to really analyze what the author meant between the lines.


My only major eyerolling was at all the wizards wearing muggle clothing, including those at Malfoy Manor and the Ministry of Magic. GIMMEABREAK. ITA. The business-formal look at the Malfoy Mansion was confusing - why would they dress like the much-hated Muggles? Especially at the Ministry, where they have the sculpture showing Muggles' rightful place? Doesn't make sense. At least they didn't make Snape wash his hair!



Another missing element was Harry's disillusionment with Dumbledore after reading Rita Skeeter's book. There was no anger at his mentor.
Which makes me wonder about the waiting room scene that we SHOULD see in 7.2 with those two characters. I hope it doesn't get cut - it's classic Dumbledore - a bit dotty, but sharp as a tack and giving Harry just enough info to make a plan.



I've never been fond of Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix. While Bella is crazy as a loon, Carter plays the part way over the top.

I never thought of Bellatrix being crazy in the books, I just thought she was evil. I don't like Carter's portrayal either. If I were Voldy, why would I trust a nutjob like that, obsession/worship aside? She's a weak link for him - often letting personal vendettas or glory-seeking cloud her judgement.



Also loved when Harry was trying to cheer Hermione up by dancing... though the writers were pushing it closer to romantical than I thought was necessary. It almost made it seemed that Harry was seriously considering Hermione that way. My friends didn't think so, but that's what I got out of it.Me too. Maybe it was the music choices that made it seem a bit seductive, but the lack of dialogue helped.



Harry/Ginny's relationship. I know that it's not super important in the whole scheme of things, but since they almost have to include it, why not spend a few minutes developing it instead of showing them kissing and making small talk? Just felt awkward.
The HBP movie cut out their developing relationship scenes, so the two together as sweethearts does seem hasty. I know that there's an age gap between them, but she looked older than Radcliffe in this one. I think it's the other way around in real life. Hope it was makeup.


And I'm not sure how they could have worked it in the way they wrote the movie, but I really wish Harry's cloak was involved somehow. I know it'll show up in part 2, but since they relied on it very heavily in the book, you'd think they'd at least mention that it was in Hermione's bag of tricks.
Very true. All three of the Hallows are important in "cheating death," one of Voldy's pet projects. Voldemort sought the wand because he thinks he can use it to kill Harry. He's due to realize that, if the wand exists, so do the other two Deathly Hallows. An immortal Voldy is a scary thought.

I don't think Voldy knew that he had already possessed one of the Hallows before he resorted to grave-robbing. (It's his no longer, but I liked the fact that he was ignorant and thought it a family heirloom.)

I loved the animated story scene and the graveyard, but didn't the Potter's house in Godric's Hollow change appearance in the books? I didn't see that in the movie - maybe I missed it?

Without the Potter family tree, the Peverell grave doesn't mean anything. Maybe Hermione has a "Who's Who" in her beaded purse for the next movie.

attyfan
11-21-2010, 03:17 PM
Eh? Isn't Voldemort obsessed with obtaining the deathly hallows because it would mean he can conquer death? He was after the sorcerer's stone in book 1, then again as far as he knows, it's been destroyed. I don't remember him going after an invisibility cloak, though ... plot hole ftw.
...


IIRC, that is explained in the book. The stone sought in book 1 is not one of the three Hallows. Voldy wouldn't care about the resurrection stone because he doesn't love anyone; didn't think he needed the cloak because of the horcruxes. Also, Voldy only thought of the wand when his own proved to be the "brother" of Harry's wand. It seems to be a sign of Voldy's evil that he chose to seek immortality by means of horcruxes, rather than by means of the Hallows.

rfisher
11-21-2010, 03:38 PM
Voldemort would have dismissed the Hallow's myth, and like Harry, he would never have heard of a children's tale in Beadle the Bard. He was only interested in the wand. I too always liked the fact he had one of the Hallows and never knew what it really was in terms of immortality.

My complaint about the movies all along is that they left out key plot points that could have easily been included and included things either not in the books at all or of little importance.

The entire issue of Dumbledore's relationship with the most evil wizard of his day was a major point in the book. Grindlewald was the foreshadow of Voldemort and DD had a big crush on him. In fact, it was this relationship and DD's development of the Greater Good concept that lead ultimately to Ariana's death and DD's subsequent position as headmaster at Hogwarts. Of course, that can still be explained when they meet up with Ableforth at Hogsmeade, but the movie completely glossed over Harry's anger and confusion with Dumbledore. Harry remains Dumbledore's man to the end which is what lands him in the train station for the last bit of advice.

rjblue
11-21-2010, 04:00 PM
I think if they had included more of the Grindelwald/DD storyline, they would have had to do a lot more flashbacks and infodumps in this movie, and it would have overloaded the non-book-readers.

They set up the hallows really well in this movie, and kept enough of the story for it all to make sense.

rfisher
11-21-2010, 04:24 PM
Except the Hallows are only important in light of Dumbledore. Otherwise, they don't mean anything because Harry decides not to pursue them. It's an important choice he has to make. Of course, it's the same choice the Counsel of Elrond had to make in LOTR...go with the weapon that can defeat your enemy or try to eliminate the enemy's defenses. Without that explanation, it makes them meaningless in the movie. This would have taken one scene of Harry reading Rita Skeeter and showing his mounting anger with Dumbledore's lies of omission. That could have replaced the dance that had no real purpose other than to let Radcliffe and Watson dance together.