Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Questions? Comments? Snide remarks? Anything?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Ok, I'm going to give you some snide remaks. READ THE DAMN BOOKS! Of course the movies has plot holes, its a movie based on a book! They all suck! I read most of your review but it was making me cringe, and from what I read all of your questions can be easily answered in the book. Thats what I hate about people watching the movie first, because the story is just too vast to fit in such a small amount of screen time. All the moments in the movie that seem awkward and confusing wouldn't be if you were familiar with the actual story. Its like reading the summary on the back cover of a book and complaining that it doesn't make sense. I have a lot of respect for J.K. Rowling's work, the series is vast, intricate, and phenomenal. It kills me to see people associating her story with something so incredibly half-assed.
So now that I've ranted angrily, yes, I agree with you. The movie, while a nice try, was pretty aweful. It was missing many, many key poinst in the plot that would have made it confusing and hard to follow. The worst part was that they skimmed over Fred's death like it was unimportant. I agree entirely that they needed to show it. When I read the book for the first time and he died, I literally bawled into my pillow. Lol can't cry about anything in real life but god forbid one of my favorite characters dies in a book...
Oh, and speaking of real, *sigh*, I'm not even going to try to explain Dumbledore's quote to you. Nevermind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Ok, I'm going to give you some snide remaks. READ THE DAMN BOOKS! Of course the movies has plot holes, its a movie based on a book! They all suck! I read most of your review but it was making me cringe, and from what I read all of your questions can be easily answered in the book. Thats what I hate about people watching the movie first, because the story is just too vast to fit in such a small amount of screen time. All the moments in the movie that seem awkward and confusing wouldn't be if you were familiar with the actual story. Its like reading the summary on the back cover of a book and complaining that it doesn't make sense. I have a lot of respect for J.K. Rowling's work, the series is vast, intricate, and phenomenal. It kills me to see people associating her story with something so incredibly half-assed.
So now that I've ranted angrily, yes, I agree with you. The movie, while a nice try, was pretty aweful. It was missing many, many key poinst in the plot that would have made it confusing and hard to follow. The worst part was that they skimmed over Fred's death like it was unimportant. I agree entirely that they needed to show it. When I read the book for the first time and he died, I literally bawled into my pillow. Lol can't cry about anything in real life but god forbid one of my favorite characters dies in a book...
Oh, and speaking of real, *sigh*, I'm not even going to try to explain Dumbledore's quote to you. Nevermind.
If you had read the whole review, I made the point that regardless of what the movie is based on, IT'S A MOVIE! Whether it explains the plot more in the books or not, when you make a movie, the viewer should never have to go to an outside source to understand it. I should be able to see all the Harry Potter movies without ever having known there even were books, and understand everything completely. The book of this one might be awesome, but I wasn't writing a book review. I was writing a movie review, and I purposely didn't read the books first because I knew it would influence how I thought about the on-screen story and I might start filling in details in my mind from the books. The other movies were good. They didn't require me to read any outside materials to understand them. Both parts of this one were awful.

It really peeves me to no end when fan boys and girls of a book get all pissed off when a movie or TV show doesn't follow the book to the letter. TV and Movies are different from books. And you know what? If a writer in that medium wants to take the story in his or her own direction or delete or change how something happens, that's fine...as long as it's good.

On Dumbledore's quote, I thought it was a silly attempt to sound profound. But since the statement had nothing to do with the theme of the rest of the film, it just came off as out of place.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
I liked the movie, but it could have been a lot better. David Yates, and the guy who writes the script are both hacks in my opinion. The action kind of seemed stilted, but it was decent. The dialogue was kind of stilted as well, but again, it was decent. They kind of did the Remus/Tonks story a little dirty. And where was poor Colin Creevey? And where the hell was Luna during all of the fighting? Again this movie could have been A HELL of a lot better.

I agree @Darkling, the books are so much better! Chamber of Secrets is my favorite book. Hopefully when this movie is redone in 15 years (and it will be) someone will do it more justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
Great review! I agree completely. I'll tell you this, though: The movies don't do the book justice. And the books are EXTREMELY well written.

The problem with the last few films were that the directors/producers/etc. couldn't decide if they wanted to stay loyal to the book or create their own storyline. This, of course, pissed off loyal fans of the book and confused those who only watched the films.

For example: The entire Deathly Hallows storyline was massacred. The producers should have either written the storyline as it was in the book or left it out completely. Voldemort didn't necessarily have to be killed due to the Elder Wand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Voldemort didn't necessarily have to be killed due to the Elder Wand.
Yeah, I feel like all of the HP movies suffer from this issue to varying degrees. The scriptwriters, producers, directors, whatever weren't so great at discerning what was essential and what wasn't. I felt like most of the films suffered from a "checklist" quality, to varying degrees. That's why I'm not a huge fan of the film franchise as a whole -- the whole thing ended up feeling sort of directionless and lacking any real cohesion. I wish ONE director had directed all of them too (but not Chris Columbus, heaven forbid).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
They kind of did the Remus/Tonks story a little dirty.
YEAH, I KNOW! If you haven't read the books but if you still saw the films, you'd be all "Whut? What happened with those two?" Throughout the movies they made no real effort to make the relationship apparent. And, yes, I know there's a bit in 7 Part 1 when Tonks goes "Hey Harry, Remus and I are---" before she gets interrupted, but thats pretty much it. Plus, Teddy was non-existent in the epilogue scene. (Don't get me started on the final scene. They made an effort to make everyone look older except Hermione, who just got a nice jacket.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Great review! I agree completely. I'll tell you this, though: The movies don't do the book justice. And the books are EXTREMELY well written.
do you know what- i don't think you CAN judge the movie if you've read the book.. as in you shouldn't be allowed. let me explain why-
first of all there's the fact that everyone knows, not everything in the book can be put into the film exactly and certain scenes in the book would be too straightforward to appeal in a movie, secondly people who have read the book will inevitably feel loyal to the book, so instead of judging a movie on it's own merits they're always saying "yeah it's good, but it was better in the book"..
MOST IMPORTANTLY, for the vast majority of films people have seen, they haven't read a book about it first- so you can't even compare it to other movies since they don't have that disadvantage. there have even been other movies considered brilliant, where the few people who have read the books say that the books are better, and yet most people only know the movie- 'The Godfather' being a good example. imagine if everyone had read the books and therefore gone "oh yeah, but the films are average since they don't match up to the book"..

harry potter 7.2 is a VERY well crafted film.. i always have respect for movies which are made well despite being based on text- The Dark Knight comes to mind- although noone seems bothered about that being completely different from comic batman.
as someone who hadn't read the books i would have been HUGELY impressed that the film carried emotional content, the humour was done well and snape's tarantino moment was simply brilliantly shocking- and most importantly the storyline isn't carried by the visuals (of course the readers take this for granted since the storyline is solidly the book's property in their eyes).
it's not just the movie itself but the whole series that really adds to it too, the series culminates and climaxes very nicely..

basically what i would be looking for from this movie was that it wasn't carried by the visuals, it delivered emotional content correctly, it had a few moments of artistic/emotional beauty and that the characters come off as real.. all of which are incredibly difficult things to pull off considering. after that the storyline is already so good that the movie is a very very good finished product.
if harry potter had happened to be one of those movies where people had been unaware of the books- this movie would be considered absolutely BRILLIANT- as it is i still think it's a masterfully crafted and target surpassing achievement.

put even more simply- books are just better storytelling tools than movies.. that's it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
224 Posts
i watched the movie before i read the books i didnt understand it much the books are MUCH MUCH more better than the movies as they do miss a lot of good stuff out i haven't watched hp7 part 1 or part 2 but what the hell i know what happens anyway its hard to understand whats going on without reading the books i think the best movies out of the whole series is goblet of fire and chamber of secrets both are my favourite books also
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
do you know what- i don't think you CAN judge the movie if you've read the book.. as in you shouldn't be allowed. let me explain why-
first of all there's the fact that everyone knows, not everything in the book can be put into the film exactly and certain scenes in the book would be too straightforward to appeal in a movie, secondly people who have read the book will inevitably feel loyal to the book, so instead of judging a movie on it's own merits they're always saying "yeah it's good, but it was better in the book"..
I disagree. I separated the books from the movies, and I never had expectations before going to see the film. And I am well aware of the fact that everything in the books cannot be included in the movie. I admit that I enjoyed each film in the series, but I do believe there were flaws in the movies---in regards to character development and storyline. Had I not read the books, I would have been very confused. I think one of the main problems with the film franchise is the fact that the directors were changed. In my opinion, Chris Columbus did the best job of capturing the magic of Hogwarts, and Alfoso Cuaron did the best job of creating that real cinematic experience.
 

·
Maid of Time
Joined
·
14,749 Posts
If you had read the whole review, I made the point that regardless of what the movie is based on, IT'S A MOVIE! Whether it explains the plot more in the books or not, when you make a movie, the viewer should never have to go to an outside source to understand it. I should be able to see all the Harry Potter movies without ever having known there even were books, and understand everything completely. The book of this one might be awesome, but I wasn't writing a book review. I was writing a movie review, and I purposely didn't read the books first because I knew it would influence how I thought about the on-screen story and I might start filling in details in my mind from the books. The other movies were good. They didn't require me to read any outside materials to understand them. Both parts of this one were awful.
While I'm kind of shocked you would say "both parts of these were awful" -- I consider them to be the best of the bunch along with #3 (and I've only read the first two books), and don't even have the foggiest idea why you would have found any of the other movies better than those -- I do agree that a movie review has to be about the movie, not the book.

IOW, the movie needs to be criticized as its own work of art and has to stand on its own accordingly (unless you were using the movie to criticize Rowling's narrative). While I empathize with the poster who complained that the questions WERE answered in the book, the issue is that the movie is not the book, and so the movie has to make sense on its own. (This is one legitimate reason why a movie might deviate from the source material, btw... to answer/remove questions and thus be logically tighter.)

It really peeves me to no end when fan boys and girls of a book get all pissed off when a movie or TV show doesn't follow the book to the letter. TV and Movies are different from books. And you know what? If a writer in that medium wants to take the story in his or her own direction or delete or change how something happens, that's fine...as long as it's good.
Generally I agree. However, I reserve the right to despise a movie that I simply don't like anymore. This happened for me with Lord of the Rings; Jackson did lots of crazy stuff in movie 2 & 3 that just ruined the narrative for me. Not just because of the love I had for the framework of the book, but because I just found it stupid in its own right. I can accept people appreciate the movie in its own right, even if it did not capture parts of the books I valued; however, I can still critizie the movie for the stuff that was internally stupid, overly dramatic, or schlocky.

I'll look at your review before posting anything else to you.

bigwilly said:
And the books are EXTREMELY well written.
I think Rowling's a good writer (I always thought that, just from the first two I read), but to be honest, I read the last parts of Deathly Hallows (from Harry's last meeting with Snape through the memory sequence through meeting Valdemort and to the end), and I personally found it flat and not nearly as evocative as the movie rendition. If I had read the book first, I would have been surprised by how much more emotion the movie was pulling out of me, because the book felt kind of detached and "cool" to me.

I guess people just have different preferences.

harry potter 7.2 is a VERY well crafted film.. i always have respect for movies which are made well despite being based on text- The Dark Knight comes to mind- although noone seems bothered about that being completely different from comic batman.
Nolan's done a pretty wonderful job with the Batman franchise... especially compared to What Came Before. I'm anxious about what could happen After, since there's a lot of room to go down in flames.

In any case, HP 7.2 is one of the few finale films to a series that I actually consider a fitting capstone for the narrative. Most suck suck SUCK. Even the big franchises (like Star Wars and The Matrix) dropped notably in quality as the narratives drew to a conclusion. We are not the only ones who have credited HP with one of the best endings it could have ever anticipated. The movie has scored something like a 92% on RottenTomatoes... which is amazing because their rankings can be pretty brutal, and reviewers can be notorious for dissing a movie partly because it's popular and partly because they've seen SO many movies that I think they can become jaded.

I can't help but think people criticizing it are those who have read the books, pictured the story one way, and are upset about any alterations made to the narrative or that deviate from how they imagined it. I don't think we can judge movies by that; we have to judge them on their own merits. A lot of the small details that are being complained about can be entertained in the medium of the book but can break pacing and flow and complication transmission of the narrative within the cinematic framework.

(And talking about minor characters, I'm also not sure about how McGonnigal came off in the book, but she was spectacular and fierce; Maggie Smith really brought up some hidden nuances of her character.)

as someone who hadn't read the books i would have been HUGELY impressed that the film carried emotional content, the humour was done well and snape's tarantino moment was simply brilliantly shocking- and most importantly the storyline isn't carried by the visuals (of course the readers take this for granted since the storyline is solidly the book's property in their eyes).
After I saw HP7.2, I immediately went out and tried to find hardbacks of the books I was missing, so I could read them. The whole memory sequence was brilliant. I do cry in movies, but the director has to earn from it... and I basically had to bite my lip from the start of Snape's memory sequence until after Harry met his Dead in the woods. That whole bit does hit a very vulnerable spot in me -- a pervasive haunting sense of loneliness, something which infiltrated both Snape's memories and Harry's final journey toward V -- but it was well-executed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nymma

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts


In any case, HP 7.2 is one of the few finale films to a series that I actually consider a fitting capstone for the narrative. Most suck suck SUCK. Even the big franchises (like Star Wars and The Matrix) dropped notably in quality as the narratives drew to a conclusion. We are not the only ones who have credited HP with one of the best endings it could have ever anticipated. The movie has scored something like a 92% on RottenTomatoes... which is amazing because their rankings can be pretty brutal, and reviewers can be notorious for dissing a movie partly because it's popular and partly because they've seen SO many movies that I think they can become jaded.

I can't help but think people criticizing it are those who have read the books, pictured the story one way, and are upset about any alterations made to the narrative or that deviate from how they imagined it. I don't think we can judge movies by that; we have to judge them on their own merits. A lot of the small details that are being complained about can be entertained in the medium of the book but can break pacing and flow and complication transmission of the narrative within the cinematic framework.


My biggest issue with the final film was the final fight scene--the one between Harry and Voldemort--and the aftermath. And this is probably, in part, due to the fact that I read the book, but so be it. This was the pinnacle of the story. Harry was finally going to defeat Voldemort and save the entire world from the wrath of the Dark Lord (He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named).

1) There was no dialogue in the fight scene; Rowling included dialogue, and important dialogue at that. The scene lacked the feeling of urgency and dread.

2) No one witnessed Harry kill Voldemort. Why not? Was this not the BIGGEST battle in the history of the wizarding world?

3) When Harry DID defeat Voldemort, it was very anti-climatic. His wand flew backwards and he turned into ash. Why did they not have him shout "Avada Kedavra" while Harry shouted "Expelliarmus"? Again, dialogue is such an important part of a film.

4) When Harry returned to the Great Hall having defeated the Dark Lord, why was he not congratulated? Why was there no cheering? Why was everyone more concerned about the holes in their robes and drinking tea than with the fact that Harry just defeated the greatest dark wizard known to man?... the dark wizard who everyone feared. the dark wizard whose name must not be spoken. the dark wizard who would have taken over the wizarding word had he not be defeated by Mr. Potter. THE Dark Lord.

And I'll also add: Throughout the series viewers were told that Voldemort was so powerful, and we were actually shown how powerful he was. (OOTP: Does the battle b/tw him and Dumbledore ring a bell?) However, in the final film, he appeared so weak. He didn't appear to be a threat whatsoever (at least, not imo). And why were fight scenes so short in the final film. The fight b/tw Bellatrix, Ginny/Molly Weasley could have been drawn out an extra minute. That would have made it epic. Plus, that scene didn't make much sense. That battle would have had to been much longer b/c Bellatrix was FAR from a weak witch. She killed Sirius black for heaven's sake.

The entire film just seemed to lack emotion and dialogue. Yates appeared to rush the film and just include all the important aspects of the book. The movie just jumps from scene to scene.
 

·
Maid of Time
Joined
·
14,749 Posts
My biggest issue with the final film was the final fight scene--the one between Harry and Voldemort--and the aftermath. And this is probably, in part, due to the fact that I read the book, but so be it. This was the pinnacle of the story. Harry was finally going to defeat Voldemort and save the entire world from the wrath of the Dark Lord (He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named).

1) There was no dialogue in the fight scene; Rowling included dialogue, and important dialogue at that. The scene lacked the feeling of urgency and dread.

2) No one witnessed Harry kill Voldemort. Why not? Was this not the BIGGEST battle in the history of the wizarding world?

3) When Harry DID defeat Voldemort, it was very anti-climatic. His wand flew backwards and he turned into ash. Why did they not have him shout "Avada Kedavra" while Harry shouted "Expelliarmus"? Again, dialogue is such an important part of a film.

4) When Harry returned to the Great Hall having defeated the Dark Lord, why was he not congratulated? Why was there no cheering? Why was everyone more concerned about the holes in their robes and drinking tea than with the fact that Harry just defeated the greatest dark wizard known to man?... the dark wizard who everyone feared. the dark wizard whose name must not be spoken. the dark wizard who would have taken over the wizarding word had he not be defeated by Mr. Potter. THE Dark Lord.

And I'll also add: Throughout the series viewers were told that Voldemort was so powerful, and we were actually shown how powerful he was. (OOTP: Does the battle b/tw him and Dumbledore ring a bell?) However, in the final film, he appeared so weak. He didn't appear to be a threat whatsoever (at least, not imo). And why were fight scenes so short in the final film. The fight b/tw Bellatrix, Ginny/Molly Weasley could have been drawn out an extra minute. That would have made it epic. Plus, that scene didn't make much sense. That battle would have had to been much longer b/c Bellatrix was FAR from a weak witch. She killed Sirius black for heaven's sake.

The entire film just seemed to lack emotion and dialogue. Yates appeared to rush the film and just include all the important aspects of the book. The movie just jumps from scene to scene.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, that helps me see where you're coming from.

If I had to quibble about anything at the end, having NOT read the book ahead of time and thus taking the movie in its own right, I found Valdemort's death a little unexpected at that moment in time. It was clear to me that the last horcrux had been destroyed, but I was expecting some definitive clash between Harry and Valdemort to occur first. The moment happened 30 seconds ahead of when I expected it. It came off almost more that the horcrux had been destroyed and so V died with it. So, from a non-book-reader's POV, I can acknowledge there was some sort of weakness there, for whatever reason.

Why did they not have him shout "Avada Kedavra" while Harry shouted "Expelliarmus"? Again, dialogue is such an important part of a film.
I could almost swear that exchange happened a minute earlier in the film (amid all the cut scenes)... that I heard them say that... and then the moment of actual victory was postponed amid all the cut scenes. I might be mistaken; I'm not sure.

And I'll also add: Throughout the series viewers were told that Voldemort was so powerful, and we were actually shown how powerful he was. (OOTP: Does the battle b/tw him and Dumbledore ring a bell?) However, in the final film, he appeared so weak. He didn't appear to be a threat whatsoever (at least, not imo). And why were fight scenes so short in the final film. The fight b/tw Bellatrix, Ginny/Molly Weasley could have been drawn out an extra minute. That would have made it epic. Plus, that scene didn't make much sense. That battle would have had to been much longer b/c Bellatrix was FAR from a weak witch. She killed Sirius black for heaven's sake.
Probably preference stuff... I see many of these points as minor. I didn't give a darn about the Molly scene, and Bellatrix DID die sooner than expected. There was a lot happening.

The assumption of Valdemort's weakness was because the horcruxes were being destroyed. The narrative DID say he was not necessarily become weaker, just more dangerous (Harry said that), but the way it was portrayed, V was getting more and more shaken by losing all his failsafes... as well as confused by the way things kept turning against him. So it didn't bother me as much.

And yes, he was portrayed as some "dark lord" ... but then even in the books we find out he's just some guy named Tom Riddle who was a student at Hogwart's only 50 years before or so, if that... so by Deathly Hallows in my head he had ceased to be a celestrial dark lord on the level of "Sauron" (for example) and just some really evil wizard who just knows how to do some awful stuff. I don't know if Rowling's ever considered what she was doing by making V only 50 years old instead of some dark lord that had been around for centuries, but it definitely lessened the sense of overall dread, he's no longer some supernatural demonic figure. If he's that human, then Harry can possibly beat him, human to human.

So I think I do agree with your criticisms, I just don't prioritize them as much as you have for various reasons of my own. And I tend to be more "psychologically" oriented rather than action, and to me the biggest part of the story (against which the fight between Harry and V was just a backdrop) was (1) the revelation of Snape's actual loyalties and character and (2) Harry's decision to sacrifice himself to destroy V, + (3) the revelation of Dumbledore's intentions. Might sound weird, but in those scenes, Harry and Snape and Dumbledore had "already won" regardless of the actual outcome of the plot; I just didn't care as much about the final battle, and pretty much the ending was a given anyway.

... I have also seen some really disappointing conclusions to trilogies (Matrix, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc). Compared to my low expectations, this was definitely one of the best I've seen. Maybe that makes me go easier on the small stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
Thank you for the detailed explanation, that helps me see where you're coming from.

If I had to quibble about anything at the end, having NOT read the book ahead of time and thus taking the movie in its own right, I found Valdemort's death a little unexpected at that moment in time. It was clear to me that the last horcrux had been destroyed, but I was expecting some definitive clash between Harry and Valdemort to occur first. The moment happened 30 seconds ahead of when I expected it. It came off almost more that the horcrux had been destroyed and so V died with it. So, from a non-book-reader's POV, I can acknowledge there was some sort of weakness there, for whatever reason.



I could almost swear that exchange happened a minute earlier in the film (amid all the cut scenes)... that I heard them say that... and then the moment of actual victory was postponed amid all the cut scenes. I might be mistaken; I'm not sure.



Probably preference stuff... I see many of these points as minor. I didn't give a darn about the Molly scene, and Bellatrix DID die sooner than expected. There was a lot happening.

The assumption of Valdemort's weakness was because the horcruxes were being destroyed. The narrative DID say he was not necessarily become weaker, just more dangerous (Harry said that), but the way it was portrayed, V was getting more and more shaken by losing all his failsafes... as well as confused by the way things kept turning against him. So it didn't bother me as much.

And yes, he was portrayed as some "dark lord" ... but then even in the books we find out he's just some guy named Tom Riddle who was a student at Hogwart's only 50 years before or so, if that... so by Deathly Hallows in my head he had ceased to be a celestrial dark lord on the level of "Sauron" (for example) and just some really evil wizard who just knows how to do some awful stuff. I don't know if Rowling's ever considered what she was doing by making V only 50 years old instead of some dark lord that had been around for centuries, but it definitely lessened the sense of overall dread, he's no longer some supernatural demonic figure. If he's that human, then Harry can possibly beat him, human to human.

So I think I do agree with your criticisms, I just don't prioritize them as much as you have for various reasons of my own. And I tend to be more "psychologically" oriented rather than action, and to me the biggest part of the story (against which the fight between Harry and V was just a backdrop) was (1) the revelation of Snape's actual loyalties and character and (2) Harry's decision to sacrifice himself to destroy V, + (3) the revelation of Dumbledore's intentions. Might sound weird, but in those scenes, Harry and Snape and Dumbledore had "already won" regardless of the actual outcome of the plot; I just didn't care as much about the final battle, and pretty much the ending was a given anyway.

... I have also seen some really disappointing conclusions to trilogies (Matrix, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc). Compared to my low expectations, this was definitely one of the best I've seen. Maybe that makes me go easier on the small stuff.
Jenny, you know what's funny... had there been some sort of cheer at the end, like a celebration or congratulatory thing for Harry after he defeated Voldemort, I would have LOVED the movie. lol. And, in fact, i REALLY enjoyed it. That one issue just caused me to nitpick other things about the film. I honestly did not expect perfection. I just like celebrations. haha. And since Harry nor anyone else seemed excited that Voldy had been defeated, it was hard for me to feel anything. I was just like "oh, I guess he's dead then." Gosh, I just wished they could remake the final scene with some "YAY!"s, "Congrats!"s, "You did it Harry! You defeated the Dark Lord!"s. All we got was Hagrid giving Harry a hug. :(
 

·
Maid of Time
Joined
·
14,749 Posts
Jenny, you know what's funny... had there been some sort of cheer at the end, like a celebration or congratulatory thing for Harry after he defeated Voldemort, I would have LOVED the movie. lol. And, in fact, i REALLY enjoyed it. That one issue just caused me to nitpick other things about the film. I honestly did not expect perfection. I just like celebrations. haha. And since Harry nor anyone else seemed excited that Voldy had been defeated, it was hard for me to feel anything. I was just like "oh, I guess he's dead then." Gosh, I just wished they could remake the final scene with some "YAY!"s, "Congrats!"s, "You did it Harry! You defeated the Dark Lord!"s. All we got was Hagrid giving Harry a hug. :(
I think a celebration would have been good... as long as there were no Ewoks running around playing the bongos.

(As an aside, I kinda like how the Malfoys just left, with their son, realizing that they no longer wanted to be involved in the entire mess...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
@bigwilly
i think first of all your quibbles are minor..
secondly i don't agree with them- if there had been cheering at the end of the 8th movie, the one that was the darkest and most adult in the series, i would have been very pissed. everyone was simply exhausted from fighting all night- it was played perfectly imo and captured a very realistic atmosphere which was something i really liked from the film- it gave a sense of "what now?...", and also if there had been cheering it would have been like the rest of the castle had been having dinner while harry was fighting- everyone made an equal effort this time.
i didn't think the ending had to be especially climatic, although it did a suitable job, since the whole movie was a culmination anyway.. the music at the end was great too.
voldemort was weak against harry because the elder wand owed it's allegiance to HIM, so in effect he was using a wand against it's owner which made him weaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
@bigwilly
i think first of all your quibbles are minor..
secondly i don't agree with them- if there had been cheering at the end of the 8th movie, the one that was the darkest and most adult in the series, i would have been very pissed. everyone was simply exhausted from fighting all night- it was played perfectly imo and captured a very realistic atmosphere which was something i really liked from the film- it gave a sense of "what now?...", and also if there had been cheering it would have been like the rest of the castle had been having dinner while harry was fighting- everyone made an equal effort this time.
i didn't think the ending had to be especially climatic, although it did a suitable job, since the whole movie was a culmination anyway.. the music at the end was great too.
voldemort was weak against harry because the elder wand owed it's allegiance to HIM, so in effect he was using a wand against it's owner which made him weaker.
Again, this is in part due to the fact that I read the books, but Voldemort should not have appeared to be physically weak. It doesn't fit the story line. Voldemort, being the cocky son-of-a-gun that he was, would have never doubted his ability to defeat Harry. As for the elder wand... Voldemort wouldn't have known that the wand was not truly in his possession unless Harry told him. It doesn't fit the storyline for the wand to make him physically weaker. Voldy should have died like the arrogant prick he was.. not a weakling.

As for the celebration... are you kidding me? Of course they'd celebrate. It wouldn't make sense for them not to. That's human nature. That's why Rowling had the battle occur in front of everyone, and that's why they celebrated afterward. More realistic would be to tell someone "good job" after pretty much saving your life or something along those lines. I'm not talking about balloons and a fanfare. I'm talking about some acknowledgement and/or a "hooray".

Sipping tea and worrying about one's robe after the Dark Lord has been defeated... now THAT seems unrealistic and illogical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
@bigwilly
what do you think.. after trafalgar everyone broke open stolen french caskets of wine and had a rave? no- everyone would have crashed. have you ever tried to have a party when you're that physically exhausted?
plus it would have been disrespectful for the dead to have started cheering and whooping. maybe like, a day later they had a party where they'd drink a toast to the dead blah blah blah. i don't know what cheer happy, stamina stretching world you live in but i definitely want to live there..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
@bigwilly
what do you think.. after trafalgar everyone broke open stolen french caskets of wine and had a rave? no- everyone would have crashed. have you ever tried to have a party when you're that physically exhausted?
plus it would have been disrespectful for the dead to have started cheering and whooping. maybe like, a day later they had a party where they'd drink a toast to the dead blah blah blah. i don't know what cheer happy, stamina stretching world you live in but i definitely want to live there..
lol. I have food and drinks!
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top