I know there's already a thread for the book but seeing as this is being broken into 2 parts I thought it would be better to have it's own thread.
I'm probably going to see it opening day or at least that weekend. As disappointed as I was with the stuff they didn't put in Half Blood Prince (the epic fight scene for one) I still have to see the last 2 movies.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE"]YouTube - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer Official HD[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv_Aym8gW2Q"]YouTube - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer 2 [HD][/ame]
Last edited by Bert; September 23rd, 2010 at 2:14 PM.
I've never seen a Harry Potter film in the theater, but I think I'll go see this one. The books hold so much detail that its nearly impossible for the films to reflect them properly, but I suppose that's the price of cinema.
I am still quite curious as to how they plan on answering certain plot points given the groundwork they didn't lay in the other films.
I think it would be hilarious if they threw people a swerve and completely changed the ending
Me too, but I'd also think it justified (sort of). As OMG pointed out, there are things they haven't really set up that are going to be crucial in these two films, and rather than cramming them in without a sufficient foundation, I'd not mind if they went a different way. If the new direction is created by Rowling, then why not? Think of it as her offering an alternative universe for her story.
Plus I didn't hugely like the ending anyway, or much of the last book. I think they could trim a lot and get away with it, and I'm not really pleased to see this split into two films. Of all the larger books requiring more time and space, this was the least in my opinion. Of course, I'll still see it as soon as possible, because it's Harry Potter.
Well, I saw Part One when it came out and Part Two a couple of days ago. I can't recall enough of Part One at the moment to really evaluate it as a single piece but I do recall it being a little slow and just sort of fizzling out, which was my concern. Part Two, though, was absolutely packed and didn't stop for an instant. I'm not enough of a Potter buff to say for certain how well they handled cramming in all the exposition in terms of not buggering continuity, but as a slightly more than casual fan it really seemed to work well. I really think it was a fitting end to the series, though I could have done without the epilogue stuff.
The final scene of Harry, Ron and Hermione just holding hands, exhausted but alive, would have been the perfect ending to the films. The epilogue added nothing but a little cheese. Though I maintain my insistence that Harry should have died and stayed dead, considering the whole point of the last three films was basically that Voldemort is such an evil bastard because he fears death and refuses to embrace it. Harry embracing death shows him as the true counterpoint to Voldemort, but getting to come back to life for no real reason kind of makes that sacrifice hollow.
Emma Watson dressed as Bella-Trix. And she got drenched. And it was so blatant that they did that shot of them all dropping to the floor and stopping a foot or so off the ground where you could CLEARLY see down her top.
Not complaining though. That shot was awesome.
The epilogue was in the book to be fair, and does sort of put a full stop on there ever being any sequels.
I was anticipating it to be the most awful thing ever, like it sounds in the book, but it actually wasn't as terrible as I was assuming it would be.
Obviously it was in the book. My point was I thought ending the film on the shot of the trio would have been a lot more poignant since the epilogue adds nothing.
Originally Posted by kdestiny
If Harry had died and stayed dead, then there would've been a huge uproar for sure. There is no way that should've happened.
The epilogue was a great way to end it, because I feel it really puts the kabosh on the end of the series.
Obviously I didn't expect the film to go ahead and just kill Harry Potter. I meant he should have died in the book in the first place (EDIT: Just noticed I mentioned the 'last three films' instead of 'books' in my last post, silly me). And I don't see how the epilogue puts the kibosh on the series, it introduces an entirely new generation of muppet babies that could now easily be followed in new adventures.
Originally Posted by MACE
The best part for me was
Emma Watson dressed as Bella-Trix. And she got drenched. And it was so blatant that they did that shot of them all dropping to the floor and stopping a foot or so off the ground where you could CLEARLY see down her top.
Not complaining though. That shot was awesome.
I do recall that shot. It was... startling in 3D. Talk about pandering. Hermione as Bella-Trix was pretty damn cool though. She actually suits the gothic look.
Emma Watson dressed as Bella-Trix. And she got drenched. And it was so blatant that they did that shot of them all dropping to the floor and stopping a foot or so off the ground where you could CLEARLY see down her top.
Not complaining though. That shot was awesome.
Yes sir, that was lovely indeed. I'm a fan of that and her indeed.
Emma Watson dressed as Bella-Trix. And she got drenched. And it was so blatant that they did that shot of them all dropping to the floor and stopping a foot or so off the ground where you could CLEARLY see down her top.
Not complaining though. That shot was awesome.
I quite enjoyed this when I saw it last week. I've read all the books, but haven't seen all the movies.
The only thing I thought was pretty lame was the epilogue. Even though it was in the book, it felt tacked on and fairly pointless in the movie. I don't feel like it added anything, and actually took away from it. Most of the theater I was in burst out laughing when
"adult" Harry, Ron and Hermione showed up. The girls didn't look liked they'd aged at all, let alone two decades, and Harry and, particularly, Ron looked ridiculous. Ron looked like an alcoholic history teacher.
I would have been good with the movie ending with the 3 of them peering over the cliff.
I know you UK-ers hate redheads for some reason, but the girl who plays Ginny grew up into a stone cold fox.
I didn't see Part 1 in the theater (rented it) but I saw Part 2 last week. Though the books are better, I still enjoyed seeing a movie almost entirely devoted to one big battle.
I thought the film was a pretty good effort, and aside from a few omissions from the book I don't think I would change a lot. I am keen to watch the two films back to back, and maybe to watch the whole series again.
I thought
Negini killing Snape
was absolutely beautifully brutal.
Last edited by Nordberg; July 25th, 2011 at 4:13 AM.
I can't find the Potter books thread so I thought I'd mention in here that J K Rowling told Emma Watson that Hermione really should have ended up with Harry.
Her basic point seems to be that the characters grew into a place where Harry and Hermione were much better suited than Ron and Hermione and she only put those two together because it had been her plan at the beginning and she felt attached to the idea. In the films I thought they were actually starting to go in this direction, Harry and Hermione just seemed to have much better chemistry and a few pseudo-intimate scenes together, but that has to be a kick in the nuts for Ron. His character was always the also-ran who struggled to achieve anything, so if he didn't even get the girl in the end we'd end up with an even more Harry-is-perfect ending at the expense of everyone else. Including Hermione, who would look like a hero-worshipping fangirl rather than a smart and capable young woman going after the person she really wants.
Yes I'm a big girl's blouse for caring about the love triangle in Harry Potter, har har har. But I think it's interesting to consider why Rowling thought this way, and whether we'll end up with a revised/special edition of the books some day. I've been on a bit of a nostalgic revision kick lately, watching and reading a lot of stuff about how to fix the Star Wars prequels, and this article wound up catching my eye as well. And I still maintain Harry should have stayed dead. Being the antithesis to Voldemort doesn't work if he's just better at cheating death then the Dark Lord because he's got better magical MacGuffins.
I think that the problem was less about Ron and Hermione ending up together and more that Harry and Ginny ending up together seemed like a bit of an afterthought. Ginny was not a tremendously developed character in the books and even moreso in the films. Their romance there seemed to come out of nowhere. It made sense that Hermione would end up with Ron to me.
Ron and Hermione were Han and Leia. The problem was she should have continued stealing from Star Wars and left Harry alone at the end.
Agreed. Well, I wouldn't call it stealing, the triumverate was hardly created by George Lucas, but Ron and Hermione were a bit of an odd couple that complimented one another well in the same mould as Han and Leia. Harry's the hero, he doesn't need a wife tacked on to the end of his journey.
Originally Posted by DWyndorf
These films any good? Saw part 4 I think but had no clue what was happening and don't even remember it.
If you haven't read the books you'd really need to see the films in order to get all the goings on, but the first two are very much children's films and may put you off. After that, things start to develop a bit more maturity. Obviously the whole series is 'meant for children' but there's a big shift in tone and acting once the cast start to grow a bit.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Fanny
