Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

JP Liz V1

It has soared into the record books with the highest grossing opening weekend ever in the US.

Mickeroo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

It has soared into the record books with the highest grossing opening weekend ever in the US.

168.6m?!?! Bloody hell. I'm delighted, at least transformers won't be the biggest grossing film of the year now.

They're so going to try and figure out some way to make sequels.

Aldebaran

Mickeroo wrote: »

They're so going to try and figure out some way to make sequels.

Didn't Rowling make some sort of deal whereby they couldn't make any Harry Potter movies that weren't based on her books?

Mickeroo

Aldebaran wrote: »

Didn't Rowling make some sort of deal whereby they couldn't make any Harry Potter movies that weren't based on her books?

Not too sure now. Surely even that much money will test her resolve a bit anyway.

Mindkiller

Such a shame. There is a wealth of great fanfictions that would be great for movie adaptations

http://myimmortalrehost.webs.com/chapters122.htm

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2554200/1/HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Aldebaran

Mickeroo wrote: »

Not too sure now. Surely even that much money will test her resolve a bit anyway.

I doubt she's too concerned with making money anymore!

BostonB

Aldebaran wrote: »

I doubt she's too concerned with making money anymore!

Too true. I'm amazed at the popularity of it.

PseudoFamous

Mindkiller wrote: »

Such a shame. There is a wealth of great fanfictions that would be great for movie adaptations

http://myimmortalrehost.webs.com/chapters122.htm

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2554200/1/HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You arse! I was expecting something decent when I opened those! Sarcasm does not work on the internet, so you should always use the rolleyes smilie when being sarcastic. Ruined my day.

Penn

Saw it on Saturday. Very good, though not the best. However, the

Snape - Pensieve

scene f*cking killed me. Beautiful scene.

Robotnic

Have to say i was satisfied with it a conclusion to the films, well as much as i was satisfied with the way the book tied everything up. But there were some things i'd like to hear other views on, i went to see it with a couple of peops who hadnt read the books and they asked afterwards

"was snape harrys father?" because he had lilys doe type patronus

This never even occured to me as the books never hinted at that imo, did anyone have a similar experience? I don't think its a gr8 angle if it was intended

libra02

Aldebaran wrote: »

Didn't Rowling make some sort of deal whereby they couldn't make any Harry Potter movies that weren't based on her books?

Yep as far as I am aware when she made the deal with David Heyman and the WB a clause was included that once the 7 books had been made into films that was it.

They could not use Harry Potter or any other character etc to make a new film.

You cannot blame her though it is her creation and she does not want to see them ruined or changed just to make more cash.

Anyway even if WB wanted to make another Harry Potter movie it would be without the main 3 leads as non of them want to resprise the charcters. Especially Daniel Radcliffe, he has spoken about how he made JK Rowling swear not to write another book. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have not been as vocal but they have indicated that though it is sad to move on they are ready to try new things.

Who could blame him after 10 years of playing one charcter you would to move on and play other people.

libra02

Robotnic wrote: »

Have to say i was satisfied with it a conclusion to the films, well as much as i was satisfied with the way the book tied everything up. But there were some things i'd like to hear other views on, i went to see it with a couple of peops who hadnt read the books and they asked afterwards

"was snape harrys father?" because he had lilys doe type patronus

This never even occured to me as the books never hinted at that imo, did anyone have a similar experience? I don't think its a gr8 angle if it was intended

I do not know how that whole

Snape is Harrys father idea

came about. There was nothing like that in any of the films not even the last one. I think where the problem might be is in the books it is stated that a person

patronus can change due to very stong emotions, thus Snapes changed to a doe due to his love of Lilly

whereas in the films this is never explained thus leading the the bizzare theroy that someone has put out on net.

Sad Professor

Just back from seeing this. I enjoyed it but thought Part 1 was much better. This felt disjointed and (like most of the series) suffered from an overabundance of plot. Part 1 was more linear and benefited from the greater focus on the characters.

They really screwed up the Harry-Voldemort face-off at the end. There was too much CGI-silliness and they left out some pretty important dialogue. The

off-screen deaths didn't bother me. At least we saw the bodies, unlike Part 1. "Wait, where's Mad-Eye?" "Mad-Eye? Oh yeah, he died."

The epilogue was painful and seemed even more pointless than it was in the book, which is quite an achievement. They should have ended it on the bridge.

blogga

Saw it in 3d on Saturday. Never read any of the books as I am old. Very Very Old. It was brilliant. And the epilogue of Albus Severus Potter was entirely appropriate to the heroics which undid the baddies.

tomissex

Robotnic wrote: »

Have to say i was satisfied with it a conclusion to the films, well as much as i was satisfied with the way the book tied everything up. But there were some things i'd like to hear other views on, i went to see it with a couple of peops who hadnt read the books and they asked afterwards

"was snape harrys father?" because he had lilys doe type patronus

This never even occured to me as the books never hinted at that imo, did anyone have a similar experience? I don't think its a gr8 angle if it was intended

My brother who has never read HP and just got a summary from me beforehand thought they were implying Snape was Harry's dad too! I saw it again last night and can see how people could think that! They focus a lot on how much Snape actually cared about Harry and loved his mother and then they talk about how Harry "looks like his father" and not that he looks like James. It is rather confusing!

One thing I noticed second time around is that when Neville comes through to Aberforth's, he says "We've got a few more coming through"....but nobody comes! In the book, everyone comes to meet them there but they didn't in the film so why put that line in! Very strange.

Otacon

tomissex wrote: »

One thing I noticed second time around is that when Neville comes through to Aberforth's, he says "We've got a few more coming through"....but nobody comes! In the book, everyone comes to meet them there but they didn't in the film so why put that line in! Very strange.

The Weasleys and the other Order members come through. You don't see them but when they show up in the Great Hall, with Harry talking about defenses not being adequate, I think it's implied.

tomissex

Otacon wrote: »

The Weasleys and the other Order members come through. You don't see them but when they show up in the Great Hall, with Harry talking about defenses not being adequate, I think it's implied.

I know that but I just felt it was pointless to include that line when the

Order don't show up til ages later

It's also never explained that that's how they all get to Hogwarts so the line just seems silly and like a big mistake.

PseudoFamous

I just realised when Hermione

was Bellatrix Lestrange and in Gringotts, and the goblin asked her for Bellatrix Lestrange's wand, why didn't she have it and give it to him? They found out from Ollivander that it was hers, so that was either an incredibly dense mistake or a gaping plothole.

Surely not even the characters would miss an important part of a disguise like that, having experienced them being used as identification previously.

tomissex

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I just realised when Hermione

was Bellatrix Lestrange and in Gringotts, and the goblin asked her for Bellatrix Lestrange's wand, why didn't she have it and give it to him? They found out from Ollivander that it was hers, so that was either an incredibly dense mistake or a gaping plothole.

Surely not even the characters would miss an important part of a disguise like that, having experienced them being used as identification previously.

Yeah even my brother turned and whispered to me "don't they have the wand?" and he hasn't read or seen any of them! That was a really gaping hole!
Also, when they get out of the lake, Hermione puts dittany on their hands but they neither say what it is or why she's doing it...why put it in at all?

Liam O

Otacon wrote: »

The Weasleys and the other Order members come through. You don't see them but when they show up in the Great Hall, with Harry talking about defenses not being adequate, I think it's implied.

Well if Neville only found out Harry was there minutes beforehand I doubt he would call the Order without at least consulting Harry first. Another one on the gaping plot holes list imo

constitutionus

libra02 wrote: »

I do not know how that whole

Snape is Harrys father idea

came about. There was nothing like that in any of the films not even the last one. I think where the problem might be is in the books it is stated that a person

patronus can change due to very stong emotions, thus Snapes changed to a doe due to his love of Lilly

whereas in the films this is never explained thus leading the the bizzare theroy that someone has put out on net.

as someone who hasnt read the books i thought they were implying

that snape could be his da too.

yes theres the pertonis thing.

but theres also the fact both his parents are gingers and harrys got black hair.

me and the bro were defintely left with the feel that lilly and serverus were playing away.

leemurta

I was wondering if he was his dad when Harry sees the doe patronus in the 3rd film I think it is he knows its his fathers and we see that it had been snapes?. Just to address the fact they had the wand they weren't very prepared going into Gringotts and maybe Hermione didn't have it maybe Harry had it and obviously couldn't reveal himself? just a thought

Overall I was a little bit disappointed in the film I taught it was pretty good but some bits could have been a bit better.

Just a question when Harry gets the resurrection stone form the snitch why does he drop it instead of using it on some of his fallen friends?, is it something to do with the fact he knows he is going to die and will resurrect himself?

Mindkiller

James Potter's patronus is a stag. And the ressurection stone doesn't truly bring people to life. They explained it pretty well in the little cartoon in Part 1

BostonB

I think theres a bit of George Lucas Revisionisim going with the latter books. She came up with stuff she didn't think she'd have to explain, so when the books became popular and she had to start pulling these strands together, that she'd not resolved properly. Its not entirely convincing, and less so in the movies. Again its because the first books were for kids and the latter ones aren't. The first ones had a much less demanding audience who weren't going to pick holes in the plot.

I haven't seen it yet, is the 3D worth it over the 2D?

Liam O

constitutionus wrote: »

as someone who hasnt read the books i thought they were implying

that snape could be his da too.

yes theres the pertonis thing.

but theres also the fact both his parents are gingers and harrys got black hair.

me and the bro were defintely left with the feel that lilly and serverus were playing away.

Harry's dad has black hair, just like his. The fact that from the first book/movie everyone says he looks exactly like his dad but with his mother's eyes should put to bed any doubts about his parentage.

Mickeroo

constitutionus wrote: »

as someone who hasnt read the books i thought they were implying

that snape could be his da too.

yes theres the pertonis thing.

but theres also the fact both his parents are gingers and harrys got black hair.

me and the bro were defintely left with the feel that lilly and serverus were playing away.

Harry's dad looks pretty much exactly like Harry though.

Mickeroo

I'm just back from it. I thought it was great, really great, particularly the

Snape

stuff. It was extremely moving in places. I think Yates really came into his own in these last two films, I think I will rewatch part 1 and go see this again so I can view the mas one movie. Yates gave these films a great sense of foreboding and dread, but there was also an elegance here and there was some quite rousing moments in it. It's still not quite as great as Prisoner of Azkhaban but not far off and for me the deathly hallows part 1& 2 taken as a whole are probably the next best film in the series.

However a lot of the criticisms in previous posts are fairly warranted, the shoddy handling of the

character deaths

was a shame and I feel they really warranted being seen on screen, also it was a shame we didn't see more of the battle as the few glimpses we got were quite compelling. It also seemed like

voldemort went down too easily aswell

I actually think the film would have benefited with maybe an extra 20 minutes of runtime to flesh out a few bits some more, they could have given the epilogue a miss too actually. The problems were far out weighed by the good points for me though, having read the book is an advantage though.

I look forward to rewatching the whole series again.

Zhane

Re: Bellatrix Wand.

The Goblins were tipped off (as said by griphook) that they know the wand has been stolen. If the wand was presented it woulda been obvious it was an impostor.

delbertgrady

tomissex wrote: »

Also, when they get out of the lake, Hermione puts dittany on their hands but they neither say what it is or why she's doing it...why put it in at all?

Yeah, that really struck me as being unnecessary too. If you didn't know about it, you'd think it was just a conventional hand sanitiser, and you'd wonder why they were bothering to stop to clean their hands. They should have just left it out altogether.

libra02

delbertgrady wrote: »

Yeah, that really struck me as being unnecessary too. If you didn't know about it, you'd think it was just a conventional hand sanitiser, and you'd wonder why they were bothering to stop to clean their hands. They should have just left it out altogether.

Basically it comes down to editing. Yates has always filmed everything and if I remember correctly the Deatly Hallows was filmed in total as about 10 hours. So I say they took the stance that most pople would know what is was and so we not need an explination that it is essence of dittiny and that in DH Part 1 we saw Hermoine used it when Ron got splinched so even if they did not read the books they would know what it is for.