Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows
- Thread starter JUL3
- Start date
Was it? If anything, I thought it was one of the film's stronger segments. I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'redundant'. The point of the Epilogue in the film is to be full-cricle. To end the series on as innocent a note as when it first began and by placing enough emphasis on the theme of choice.
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
Wow. After the first part of Deathly Hallows I was really not in the HP mood, but this one was incredible. IMAX 3D helped, but it was also an amazing film in and of itself. Makes me want to reread the book, but book 7 was one of the weakest in the series and a bit of a chore to get through for me, so I will likely just wait for the Blu-ray. 
Or see it again in the theater--it was that good!!
Or see it again in the theater--it was that good!!
Y
Yorick
Guest
I'd be more willing to bet that it was put in to get everyone to **** off and leave Rowling alone about "What happens to everyone after the books". The epilogue was insultingly stupid, not innocent.
Why don't you explain what you mean, Yorick? Yes, in the book the epilogue was largely superfluous and perhaps one of the cheesiest things I've ever read (Albus Severus!?), but I don't think you can deny the intention Rowling had for it - and it wasn't merely to make 'everyone **** off'.
Y
Yorick
Guest
That's your opinion. I think you're wrong.
While the Epilogue had a few ideas that I liked (such as Neville becoming a teacher), the majority of it read like a bad fan-fiction. As you pointed out, Albus Severus. Really.
Voldemort never worked for me as a villain because he had no real motivation aside from being pure evil and almost like a 2d representation of Hitler. PURE THE MUDBLOODS, while he himself was a mudblood. Harry beat Voldemort every single year and it was dull.
So you're telling me that in the 19 years since, there's been nothing that happened important enough to so much as warrant a sentence? The bad wizards are disposed of and the world becomes rainbows and butterflies? At least with "Happily Ever After" your imagination can wander on what happens.
What Rowling did with the ending was to ruin it by making it an overbearing, corny, boring and overstated piece of rubbish.
Ennui
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2003
- Messages
- 22,714
- Reaction score
- 119
According to my girlfriend the epilogue was something the publisher insisted upon... Rowling didn't initially include it but the publisher was adamant adding an epilogue so her fans could get their little grown up Harry boner on. Dunno if that is actually true or not.
Funny story: my gf was in England when the first Harry Potter book was published... the first edition was tiny, only 500 books at a few select bookstores. She stumbled across it purely by accident, bought it and read it. First editions of HP like the one she has are worth a TON of money ... $5000+ at least.
Except... she spilled diet coke all over it when she was younger.
Funny story: my gf was in England when the first Harry Potter book was published... the first edition was tiny, only 500 books at a few select bookstores. She stumbled across it purely by accident, bought it and read it. First editions of HP like the one she has are worth a TON of money ... $5000+ at least.
Except... she spilled diet coke all over it when she was younger.
He was Half-Blood, and I'm pretty sure his prejudice was based upon the neglect of his Muggle father who abandoned him and his mother. He isn't an overly complex or even a terribly interesting villain in many ways, but I thought the sixth book did an adequate job of intimately exploring Voldemort's past.
Aside from the third and sixth books. But I get what you mean.
You're right. Given the seriousness of the material of many of the books it's something of a slap in the face to see this world seemingly become a utopia. I didn't like it either, and I haven't suggested that the Epilogue is a particularly good piece of writing as a whole. But I think it conveys some solid ideas that resonate throughout the core of the series. And I think the film does a better job with it than the book by getting right to the heart of it. I don't think it's fair to dismiss all of it.
I don't think that's true. Rowling has said on a few occasions that the epilogue is something she'd had written for several years prior to DH. But then, that's just "according" to Samon, whose word, apparently, is as trustworthy as your girlfriend's. How does that grab you.
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
Fixed that for you. Same can be said for Harry and his pals too. Replacing 'villain' with 'protagonist' or 'hero'.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
True enough, Snape was the only character with any layers. I guess you could argue that Harry could turn evil due to having bits of Voldemort in him, but who seriously ever thought that would happen? But I still think Rowling managed to tell an interesting story without having complex characters, so I didn't bother me a lot.
Didn't she only give Dumbledore depth in the final book, though? According to Snape's wikipedia page she has called him a "give of a character". Fair enough, I won't deny liking Snape. But that's pretty much because he's your only character with dimension.
Y
Yorick
Guest
Even Snape didn't get dimension until later on in the books. At first he's just an enormous tool. (Hence why Samon likes him.)
I heard too that Dumbledore's history was basically cut/removed from the movie, which is yet another disappointment.
I heard too that Dumbledore's history was basically cut/removed from the movie, which is yet another disappointment.
Right, but in retrospect it's hinted at and touched upon numerous times throughout the books. A Chekov's gun, I guess.
Yes, it was. On both counts.
It's interesting because the first part decided it wanted to show Grindlewald in the single montage of loosely connected images that was Harry's invasion into Voldemort's mind. Then he never appears or is spoken of again.
Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
I just don't get it. Really. This movie is 130 minutes long. Easily fifteen minutes of that is total made up bullshit that is neither entertaining, logical, nor true to the books. On the other hand, the actual battle for Hogwarts goes virtually unshown. Seriously. You get about a minute, total. Mostly in the background of Harry and the gang pursuing their next objective. That minute of course includes randomly cutting to the three dead bodies of important characters, one after the other. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, yes, you're going to make millions upon millions of dollars no matter what you do. But couldn't you atleast try not to **** everything up? I honestly think it would be easier. I guess they kind of forced this upon themselves when in movies five and six when they turned duelling into basically gunfights with wands and started making everyone fly around as smoke. Spectacular perhaps, but it doesn't actually provide much of a battle to watch, just sweeping camera pans of large areas where crazy incomprehensible bullshit is happening. So I guess this movie was ruined three movies ago. But all the same. What the ****.
Oh, and as for the epilogue, I actually hated it in the book and somewhat enjoyed it in the movie. I mean, it's stupid just due to the dialogue between Harry and his son and how stupid and unbelievable the actors look trying to be old, but it's atleast simple and sweet and sort of washed the taste of the actual ending out of my mouth. Frankly, the music just got to me. The "everything goes full circle, adventure never dies, etc. etc." message actually works here, though it didn't in the books.
Oh, and as for the epilogue, I actually hated it in the book and somewhat enjoyed it in the movie. I mean, it's stupid just due to the dialogue between Harry and his son and how stupid and unbelievable the actors look trying to be old, but it's atleast simple and sweet and sort of washed the taste of the actual ending out of my mouth. Frankly, the music just got to me. The "everything goes full circle, adventure never dies, etc. etc." message actually works here, though it didn't in the books.
To be fair, the book didn't show much of the battle itself either. It would have been much easier for Yates and crew to spend an entire 30 minutes on the battle - ala Transformers. Except they didn't. It's really focused on what's happening to individual characters, especially the trio. The battle is shown just enough to stress it's importance in the background.
Except it's not, at all. There's no weight to this final confrontation between good and evil, with the freedom of the wizarding (and muggle, I guess) world hanging in the balance. It's fizzled through without a sense of pace, just as the events of the last four movies have been since Newell and Yates took to the helm, two directors lacking in vision or imagination beyond a propensity for spectacle. Events seem to just unfold at the script's whim, making them lifeless and, ultimately, empty. It's like they felt the existence of the books and the previous movies proved enough of a platform to accelerate toward the end at top speed, the result of which is you getting to the end of the film and hearing the director let out a sigh of relief as he steps away from the camera: "Phew, that's a wrap."
Y
Yorick
Guest
If anything, that should be even more reason for the movie to have solid pacing.
Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
Funnily enough, I think hyping people up and building suspense for a climactic battle which is then followed by about a minute of disappointing, incomprehensible, clusterfruck action filled with meaningless character death is what makes this movie like the Transformers, rather than the opposite. To be fair, I only really care and complain about things not being like the book when that also happens to be shitty. I thought the horcrux bits were perfectly tolerable, but when they're running about between the Chamber of Secrets to and from the Room of Requirement and suddenly its all, "Oh no, a slideshow of dead people!" and then the battle's just over. Well, okay. That ****ing sucks. But then they decide to make up a bunch of totally stupid shit with Neville giving speeches (seriously, how many times does it need to be emphasized that people live on in our ****ing hearts? Lily just said almost the exact same thing no less than five minutes ago, and its not as if we have it heard it a dozen times in the first six movies), Ron and Hermoine fighting snakes, and Harry and Voldemort wrestling and having a laser battle? My god. That's ten solid minutes right there. Thoroughly made up. When they instead could've just had the battle. You know, that battle that actually happened, to determine the fate of the world? Ugh.
And I think what's worse, truly worse, is that they ruined Harry and Voldemort's final confrontation in the Great Hall. By, uh, not doing it. I was reading an interview with Yates yesterday (I can't remember where, I'm afraid) where he spoke of sitting in his garden, sipping tea (how quaintly English! Git), thinking - and I paraphrase - "How do I make the face-off more visual?" and that right there is the problem: you don't. I actually enjoyed the war of words between the two adversaries in the book because it was the perfect culmination to their conflict. It wasn't about who the better wizard was or holding him off long enough for the snake to be destroyed; no, it was about who was right, and about who was wrong. You didn't need any of the film's added tension by involving Ron and Hermione in the battle because it wasn't about them! It wasn't about Harry and Voldemort throwing spells at each other or flying through the air and chipping off the castle tiles. It was about them standing face-to-face, one last time, before the end. Voldemort couldn't believe he was wrong and cast his spell anyway, at which point it rebounded and killed him. I checked the book in HMV, and the words used to describe his demise were "Tom Riddle hit the ground with a mundane finality." He didn't turn into the contents of an ash tray thrown into the wind. He just died because he was mortal and there was nothing fantastical about it. It's so simple in relation to the character and the rest of the story that I don't understand how they ****ed it up.
Let me ask, did anyone realise what was happening when Voldemort was hit by the flashy green beam? I found it so unclear as to whether or not it had actually hit him. And then he perishes without anyone being there to witness it other than Harry. Scene changes to the hall. Harry's walking through it; the battle, apparently, is over, but we didn't see it end, and neither did they. Robbie Coltrane gives him a quick hug and walks away. Scene change to the trio on the bridge. What conclusion is there to this storyline? It just ends when the script runs to the end of the page. I suppose it's fitting, in a way, when the movie series has always suffered from this lack of gravity, but I just don't see how people could be satisfied by it, let alone exuberant about the film's supposed "quality".
Let me ask, did anyone realise what was happening when Voldemort was hit by the flashy green beam? I found it so unclear as to whether or not it had actually hit him. And then he perishes without anyone being there to witness it other than Harry. Scene changes to the hall. Harry's walking through it; the battle, apparently, is over, but we didn't see it end, and neither did they. Robbie Coltrane gives him a quick hug and walks away. Scene change to the trio on the bridge. What conclusion is there to this storyline? It just ends when the script runs to the end of the page. I suppose it's fitting, in a way, when the movie series has always suffered from this lack of gravity, but I just don't see how people could be satisfied by it, let alone exuberant about the film's supposed "quality".
A good point, I think. Going further, I don't understand why the decision was made to have Harry speak to Hermione - and for her to understand, above all else - when he was walking off to his death. In the book, he didn't need anybody to fall back on and speak to for comfort, and no one could have understood.
Yes, I think it did. The idea was that Harry's 'red beam' was overpowering Voldemort's 'green' one.
kineaesth
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 310
The 'dissolve to ash' death was terrible. That quote you've pulled is a surprisingly good one. There is something far more meaningful in having Voldemort as a corpse, a physical object that is clearly dead. Voldemort, for the first four books, existed as a non-physical entity, a presence - from the back of Quirrell's head to the diary to the simple suggestion that he is still alive, still a menacing force. In book four Rowling made this sinister force physical, and suddenly what had been suggested and feared was made manifest - Voldemort was alive, he was trying to kill Harry, and suddenly it was possible that he could.
Killing Voldemort's body was the best possible option. While there's a concept of Voldemort as somewhat transient, the entire seventh book focused on the destruction of these transient elements of his being, and we were relatively reassured that the only Voldemort left was Voldemort himself. But Voldemort's death being a return to ephemerality and non-physicality is so absurd, so confusing, and so horribly poor. With Voldemort once again non-physical we have no way of knowing for certain that he is dead and that he is never coming back, no evidence to rely on. The film would have been so much more satisfying, even perhaps shockingly simple if we were left with a corpse - expressive and apparent and without any confusion, a clear signifier of his death, and a juxtaposition with the film's usual reliance on fantastical deaths (Death Eaters turning to smoke, etc). A lump of unmoving cloth and flesh and bone on the ground is much more the death that was required - as you've quoted, mundane but clear and final
Shem
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,011
- Reaction score
- 192
I just want to know how long the script was. Even at the most crucial moments, there was barely any dialogue between Harry and his two friends, and even when there was, it was bland. When Potter tells his best friends what he has to do and is about to face Voldemort in the forest, he just simply hugs Hermione and doesn't even mutter a word to Ron, his pal that he knew from almost the very beginning. Potter is about to die at the hands of Voldemort and not even a good-bye is spoken? Not only that, but the deaths were shown so quickly that there was barely enough time to feel any remorse or grief at the fallen. Here, quick shot at Lupin and Tonks. Okay, put the camera on Ron for a moment as he cries for his older brother. All right, next scene. Then, after Voldemort's demise: have Neville and Luna sit by each other in silence. Okay, let's have Harry walk through the hallway and hug Hagrid along the way with barely a word muttered throughout. Next scene, Harry snaps the Elder Wand in half, throws it into the abyss, and stands next to his two best friends as they stare off into the distance at something off-camera (which is unusual because it would've made more sense to have stared at the Hogwarts Castle, the place they did so many things together at, the place they really got to know each other at, and the place they grew up at. No, of course not, let's have them stare the opposite direction). Couldn't they have at least spoken to each other a bit in the epilogue? Not a full conversation but simply a reflection on the events of the past or a prediction of the future of their children. It all felt rushed and I didn't want the credits to roll until they had at least said something.
Of course, some of these things aren't that important, but seriously, I want to know how long the script was. I want to know how many words Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the other characters spoke throughout the movie. I think Malfoy only has one line, and Hagrid says maybe a word or two. Perhaps it was this way in the book? I haven't read the series in such a long time, so I'm not sure. Can anyone clarify? I don't want to reiterate anymore on the criticisms that have already been discussed or wrongfully chastise the movie if it's because of the book.
Of course, some of these things aren't that important, but seriously, I want to know how long the script was. I want to know how many words Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the other characters spoke throughout the movie. I think Malfoy only has one line, and Hagrid says maybe a word or two. Perhaps it was this way in the book? I haven't read the series in such a long time, so I'm not sure. Can anyone clarify? I don't want to reiterate anymore on the criticisms that have already been discussed or wrongfully chastise the movie if it's because of the book.
morgs
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,202
- Reaction score
- 302
Don't forget that Harry had only just found out he was going to die in order for them to have a chance, he would've been reeling.
Shem
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,011
- Reaction score
- 192
That's true, but I was reading some of the later chapters of the book and found out that the three friends were never supposed to have encountered each other in the first place, as brad pointed out earlier. It says here: "There would be no good-byes and no explanations, he was determined of that. This was a journey they could not take together, and the attempts they would make to stop him would waste valuable time." In fact, the only person Harry talks to along the way to the forest is Neville, which I would've been happier to see than the clichéd speech Neville gives in the courtyard.
But see, this is how the movie messed up. Harry encounters his two best friends, implies what he has to do, and goes off to do it. In the courtyard, Neville gives that whole speech of his and exchanges a few words with Voldemort before Harry springs into action. Then, after Harry defeats Voldemort, which is supposed to be in the Great Hall and watched by all of the students, as pointed out earlier, everything just fails. Ron and Hermione are supposed to hug Harry immediately after the fight, followed by Neville, Ginny, Luna, and everyone else. But they don't. You just see Harry walking through the hall and staring awkwardly at all of his friends and teachers, hugging only Hagrid, and then SCENE CHANGE. Of course, in the movie, Harry never tells anyone that he defeated Voldemort because they were all supposed to WATCH IT AND GO UP TO HUG HIM AND PRAISE HIM AND CELEBRATE THEIR VICTORY. But they don't. Because of this, the movie trips on its own shoelaces.
I mean, really, does Harry even tell anyone about Voldemort's demise in the movie? I guess Harry's presence in the Great Hall after the battle implies it, but still, the manner and presentation of the fight would've been better had they stuck to the book.
What's worse, it's the shortest film in the series. I've no doubt it could have been extended for another twenty odd minutes. From what I understand, Yates had 250 million dollars to spend on both films. Judging from the manner in which Part 2 ends it almost seems like he ran out of money.
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
agreeing with samon?!?!? actually, i probably do that fairly often, i just dont like to admit it.
this movie was certainly entertaining, though, just like all of the other ones. ive never felt any of the books or movies ever deserved more than that comment.
EvolvedPie
Community Writer / The Fake Pie
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 2
Yeah because it was unnecessarily split into two film for the sole purpose to make money.
EvolvedPie
Community Writer / The Fake Pie
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 2
Similar threads
