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

rjblue
11-21-2010, 04:48 PM
No- from the movie's perspective- the Hallows are important because of the Elder Wand. We've seen scenes with Gregorovitch and Grindelwald, and Voldemort trying to find a wand that will work against Harry.

They set up enough of the story, that I think they must be going to show some of Dumbledore's past in the final movie. I think to go into enough detail to make Dumbledore's youthful mistakes and trials understandable would take much more time than Harry and Hermione's dance.

I actually think that scene was a really clever way to show that the emotions between Harry and Hermione are very strong, but also completely platonic. It was a nice movie moment, I thought.

FigureSpins
11-21-2010, 05:14 PM
No- from the movie's perspective- the Hallows are important because of the Elder Wand. We've seen scenes with Gregorovitch and Grindelwald, and Voldemort trying to find a wand that will work against Harry.

They set up enough of the story, that I think they must be going to show some of Dumbledore's past in the final movie.


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.
Yes, this movie focuses on the Elder Wand because Voldy wants it in order to kill Harry. Desecrating DD's grave is icing on the cake for the villain.

However, the Resurrection Stone doesn't only bring back those we love, as we've read in the book. The invisibility cloak is also unique, even though there are other ways/cloaks for invisibility. With Harry out of the way, the elder wand in hand, there would have been no way to eliminate Voldemort if he possessed all three of the Deathly Hallows.

I also think they'll reveal Dumbledore's backstory in the next movie. They foreshadowed the wand's most recent ownership, but we still haven't seen Harry realize its importance, mainly because the Cottage by the Sea scenes were abbreviated. Also missing from that scene was the maturity and take-charge attitude that Harry assumed in the book. We saw some of it there with the burial scene, but I remember feeling that he was all grown up in the book, giving orders and firmly requesting information/overriding others. Very much The Leader, unlike the wandering that took place in the forests.

I didn't think the dancing scene was particularly effective in showing a platonic relationship between the two. I kept thinking that the HH shippers were going to feel deceived or insulted.

Perhaps that was the intent: to stir up controversy. When the books were released, there were strong feelings aired about whether or not Harry & Hermione would end up together and all sorts of "clues" from the books were presented as evidence. Perhaps this is the director's way of trying to recreate those battles, involving the movie-goers who never read the books or visited mugglenet.com and the-leaky-cauldron.org?


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. Excellent point, since Voldy was, like Harry & Hermione, raised in the muggle world. No Babbity Rabbit for them!

rfisher
11-21-2010, 05:19 PM
To be honest, I only watch the movies for Alan Rickman. He absolutely nails Snape, more than any of the other actors cast in any role (I've always thought Emma Watson was way too pretty to be Hermione), even Maggie Smith. I never really like the movies because I'm a book purist, but I forget that whenever Snape is in the scene. Rickman is who I see when I read Snapes dialog.

FigureSpins
11-21-2010, 05:30 PM
Rowling did a Q&A session once where a young girl said she loved Snape. Rowling made a point of saying that Snape was intended to be disliked, but it was okay to love Alan Rickman, who truly brought the character to life.

I do think the original movie Dumbledore, the late Sir Richard Harris, also stayed true to the character and did a fine job of bringing DD to life. So sad that he passed after the second movie was completed. I hope they put in a few cameos of him in the last movie, just to complete the circle. (I dislike Michael Gambon's Dumbledore as much as some people dislike the movie-Ginny. She doesn't bother me as much as Gambon, who has said he didn't read the books so he could bring a fresh perspective. Duh)

attyfan
11-21-2010, 05:34 PM
...

However, the Resurrection Stone doesn't only bring back those we love, as we've read in the book. The invisibility cloak is also unique, even though there are other ways/cloaks for invisibility. With Harry out of the way, the elder wand in hand, there would have been no way to eliminate Voldemort if he possessed all three of the Deathly Hallows.
...


How (any) of the Hallows actually work is not the same as how people might think a specific Hallows would work. For example, DD tried to use the stone to speak with his sister, but (apparently) she did not appear for him the way James, Lily, etc., all appeared for Harry when he used the stone.

Theatregirl1122
11-21-2010, 06:44 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.

The book is pretty clear about the fact that Voldemort doesn't know or care about the rest of the Deathly Hallows. If he'd known/cared, he wouldn't have made the resurrection stone into a horcrux. The Sorcerer's Stone is something else again. It's not a Hallow. He was after that to bring himself back to full life after his body was destroyed when he tried to kill Harry. But he accomplished that in book 4.


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


That really annoyed me. They should have had it in the ministry and in Godric's Hollow. At least mentioning it once would have been really helpful. And I'm not even sure it takes much FX budget to have someone... not be there.


The invisibility cloak is also unique, even though there are other ways/cloaks for invisibility.

It's always amusing to me that in the 7th book, Harry's cloak is a cloak of perfect invisibility that nothing can see through, not even death but in the 4th book Mad Eye Moody can see through it. I was annoyed that they didn't have Harry grab the Eye out of the door.



They foreshadowed the wand's most recent ownership, but we still haven't seen Harry realize its importance, mainly because the Cottage by the Sea scenes were abbreviated.

They've barely started the Shell Cottage stuff. I'm sure that we'll get more of that in book 7. Although the fact that Voldemort already has the wand is going to mess up Harry's choice to go after the Horcruxes rather than the Hallows which I think is a rather important moment for the character. They also skipped any discussion by the trio of the Deathly Hallows because they were caught as soon as they left the Lovegoods'.


Rowling did a Q&A session once where a young girl said she loved Snape. Rowling made a point of saying that Snape was intended to be disliked, but it was okay to love Alan Rickman, who truly brought the character to life.

Perhaps Rowling thought a lot more of us would fall for the "Snape is really evil" thing than did.


(I dislike Michael Gambon's Dumbledore as much as some people dislike the movie-Ginny. She doesn't bother me as much as Gambon, who has said he didn't read the books so he could bring a fresh perspective. Duh)

Dear god, I loathe his portrayal of Dumbledore. I don't think he gets the character on any level.


To be honest, I only watch the movies for Alan Rickman. He absolutely nails Snape, more than any of the other actors cast in any role (I've always thought Emma Watson was way too pretty to be Hermione), even Maggie Smith. I never really like the movies because I'm a book purist, but I forget that whenever Snape is in the scene. Rickman is who I see when I read Snapes dialog.

It's funny. Because I ADORE Rickman as Snape. He's amazing. But he's about 30 years too old. Which if we all thought about it too hard, would make it a little bit hard to believe that Harry's father, who would be about 38 at the time of the 7th book, had teased the 64 year old Snape when they were both in school at the same time.



Like I said, I'm happy with this movie. I think that there were parts that were kind of annoying to have skipped, but many of them would have required a lot of time investment. Having the relationship with Kreacher develop would have meant a lot more sitting around Grimauld Place for not very much payoff, for example. It's hard to know what exactly has been cut from the story entirely and what is just coming in movie 2 (like perhaps Dumbledore's backstory), but right now I feel like they've done better than they ever have done.

They've never managed to have Remus and Tonks actually tell Harry that they're expecting. So the announcement of her giving birth is going to be a little weird. They could have at least had Ron mention it when he comes back or something.

And as far as having a Weasley twin marry Fleur, sorry if this makes me a book purist but that would make no sense. The Weasley twins have been in every movie of the last 6, they've never shown any interested in Fleur despite having met her, and no mention of either of them being in a serious relationship has ever been made. Besides, which one is she supposed to marry? The one who had his ear blown off the day before or the one who dies at the end?. It's better to have her marry random Weasley than artificially force her into marrying a character who we all know and love and who has other things to do in this movie. Of course the movies could have solved all of this if they'd bothered to introduce Bill EVER. Like, say, during the 6th movie when there was supposed to be a battle (I will never get over this).

VIETgrlTerifa
11-21-2010, 06:49 PM
Perhaps Rowling thought a lot more of us would fall for the "Snape is really evil" thing than did.


Spoilers tags for people who never read the book below.

I think too many Snape fans forget what a horrible bully Snape really is and that he takes too much pleasure in making his students falter and fear him to please some sort of psychological hang-up he had from his childhood and balancing his own hatred of muggles (stemming from his father) with being in love with Lily Potter.

I mean if you re-read the books, you realize what a horrible, bitter, and nasty person he is to the students even if he is brilliant at potions. But then people fell in love with Alan Rickman and all of a sudden he became this imagined torn, damaged man that any girl who was understanding enough could change and all of the students who were bullied under him should just get thicker skin.

In real life, if people had someone like Snape who was in a position of authority over them, I really doubt you'd get such obsessive love-lorn that Snape gets. I think a lot of it has to do with Rickman's portrayal and some readers feeling like they belong in Slytherin and hate Harry and co.

That is not to say he didn't have a sympathetic side that was incredibly sad. He did make a good point near the end of DH where he was shocked to hear what Dumbledore's plans for Harry were (which shows the bad side of the Gryffindor "The ends justify the means" mentality) and of course he sacrificed his life to serve the greater good in the end. I just think people gloss over Snape's shortcomings but then my post here might be a response to too many forum posts (on HP sites) and fan fictions I've read over the years that painted Snape as some victim that needed the right lover. Gag.

manleywoman
11-21-2010, 07:12 PM
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.
I was sad these weren't included either, but I'm not surprised they weren't. I thought Dudley being excluded made more sense than Kreacher's story being left out though.


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.
This I think was an oversight too. They really don't explain the DH at all.

Having said that, I LOVED the movie. I thought it was very accurate to the books, to the point where how I imagnined it in my head was almost exactly how it was presented on-screen.

But I agree I don't particularly find that Ginny has been treated well throughout any of the films, either in the casting of Bonnie Wright or by all the directors. She's almost always an after-thought in each film, and so all the filmmakers have done that character a disservice by not properly building up that storyline over the years. So it just comes across as weird that all of a sudden she's kissing Harry, and then for two more hours Harry doesn't even mention or think of her.

manleywoman
11-21-2010, 07:20 PM
It's funny. Because I ADORE Rickman as Snape. He's amazing. But he's about 30 years too old. Which if we all thought about it too hard, would make it a little bit hard to believe that Harry's father, who would be about 38 at the time of the 7th book, had teased the 64 year old Snape when they were both in school at the same time.

I like to justify this by thinking that Snape has aged due to being very unloved and tormented for most of his life. And it shows physically.

VIETgrlTerifa
11-21-2010, 07:31 PM
I think we just have to ignore the ages for most the adult cast members (much like Ethel Merman playing Annie Oakley well into her fifties where it was more like Granny Get Your Gun). Harry's mom and dad both looked too old for their parts too. I think that whole generation was supposed to be in their mid-20s when Voldemort came to the Potter's secret house.

rfisher
11-21-2010, 07:37 PM
I like to justify this by thinking that Snape has aged due to being very unloved and tormented for most of his life. And it shows physically.

I justify it because he is one hell of an actor. :lol: It's clear from the books that JKR loved writing this character. Up until the reveal about DD's past, Snape is the most complex character in the entire series. There's no doubt about his character being an evil bullying git, but he did do one good thing. I think she spent more time on writing Snape than she did any other character and it shows.

nerdycool
11-21-2010, 07:42 PM
Oh... speaking of the Potter's house...

Is that where Bathilda Bagshot took Harry & Hermione? In the book, she takes them to her house. But in the movie, when Harry is trying to get away from Nagini, they go through a wall, and they end up in a brightly lit nursery. I couldn't figure out why Bathilda, as an old woman, would have a nursery in her house, and it made me think that they actually went inside the Potter's house. But then again, they clearly showed Harry & Hermione following Bathilda through the village after H & H were looking at the ruins. So I have no idea.

Amy L
11-21-2010, 08:20 PM
They did go to Bathilda's house, remember Hermione finding Rita's book and the Grindlewald photos?? But as they were fighting Nagini, they got pushed through the wall fell into and the neighboring house's nursery. I'm not sure if that was meant to be the Potters' house next door, it wasn't exactly clear about how far they walked when they were following Bathilda, just that Harry saw the house at that time.

vesperholly
11-21-2010, 09:09 PM
I didn't think the dancing scene was particularly effective in showing a platonic relationship between the two. I kept thinking that the HH shippers were going to feel deceived or insulted.

Steve Kloves must be an HH shipper. The only movie that got the characters right and the trio's relationships right was the one he didn't write (5: OotP). Turning Hermione into GirlPower!Hermione and Ron into comic relief really pissed me off.

Gil-Galad
11-21-2010, 09:14 PM
Entire Snape-post Yay! Exactly my opinion. Love the guy, but all this glossing over the bad things really bugs me in fandom.

Ginny in the movies was just badly handled. They already missed key-moments in the fifth movie, mostly when Ginny says to Harry that she knows how it is to be possessed by Voldemort. I think that was really important to Harry - and they completely blew it. They also never really emphasised her mischievous side, her similarities with the twins...