Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
It's not great, but it's still very good. My biggest complaint is that a lot of great talent and characters fall by the wayside in the third act, and it's odd that Remus's son is never explained. Just sloppy screenwriting.
I finally saw it yesterday and it was a good movie but it was really dark. Like, certain shots were hard to see. And I don't think it was my tv. There were some points where the camera was sweeping all over and there was nothing to see. I'm sure whatever was there was impressive, though.
It's not great, but it's still very good. My biggest complaint is that a lot of great talent and characters fall by the wayside in the third act, and it's odd that Remus's son is never explained. Just sloppy screenwriting.
considering he mirrored Harry exactly, being orphaned as a baby and Voldermort being the cause essentially. If memory serves me correctly, Harry and Ginny basically raised him, mirroring the Dursleys as well. Would have been nice to have that in the film.
Also, why the hell wasn't Peter Petigrew killed by his robotic hand? No mention, no nothing...
I wish there would have been some throw away line... maybe because the spell came from Tom, that is the reason the Horcrux was broken inside him.
There is, isn't there? Dumbledore says that Harry must die and that Voldemort himself must do it. That's why.
I finally saw it yesterday and it was a good movie but it was really dark. Like, certain shots were hard to see. And I don't think it was my tv. There were some points where the camera was sweeping all over and there was nothing to see. I'm sure whatever was there was impressive, though.
Picked this up on dvd the other day, but have yet to revisit it. I noticed the darkness in the theater, but at the time I chalked it up to the projectionist being lazy and leaving the 3d filter on the projector. Will be disappointed if that's just the way the film is.
Finally saw it and... I literally have almost no complaints. Sure, you could make the argument that for a newbie, this doesn't stand alone, but you know what? I'm not a newbie; I've been following this series in both forms since the beginning, so that's how I approach it. Laundry list!:
-The early section of the film is definitely weaker, but the Gringotts break-in-and-out is still rather cool.
-Rickman acts the shit out of those flashbacks. That is all.
-Radcliffe has grown into such a good little actor, hasn't he? I'll wait to see him in other non-Potter things before I'm ready to declare him the next DiCaprio, but he easily owns this film apart from Rickman and Fiennes (who again makes Voldemort a real force to be reckoned with). I especially love his badassery near the end when he's taunting Voldemort, and his haunted looking around a rubble-strewn Hogwarts after the Pensieve flashbacks.
-Kudos also to Matthew Lewis as Neville; he easily nails the culmination of this character's heroic arc.
-I continue to love that they got insanely talented cameos to the end like Kelly Macdonald as the Gray Lady, and Ciaran Hinds as Aberforth.
-I liked the epilogue; the aging makeup was more subtle and much less silly than it could have been, and Radcliffe is overflowing with love and pride for his fictional son. Getting played off by the theme music as the train leaves and Harry smiles makes for a great "The End"-type final shot as well.
-The war movie at Hogwarts stuff is insane in terms of scale, and the final throwdown between Harry and Voldemort is much improved.
A terrific finale to a series that started off OK and only got stronger and stronger as it went on. I'll miss you, Harry.
-Kudos also to Matthew Lewis as Neville; he easily nails the culmination of this character's heroic arc.
Hell, look at his chubby little ass in Sorceror's and Chamber's and compare it to now. BIG change there.
Actually, Lewis wore a small fat suit to pad him out in the earlier films, along with false teeth. In the subsequent films, they trimmed him down somewhat, but he still had prosthetic extensions on his ears and alterations made to his teeth in order to give a different impression.
Although, yes, he has rounded out over the years and is quite handsome.
Quote:
There is, isn't there? Dumbledore says that Harry must die and that Voldemort himself must do it. That's why.
Also because Harry was the true master of the Elder wand by that point. Have we spelled that out yet? (sorry, late to the party) Someone told me that helped his survival.
Film only person here, but does all that stuff mean that Dumbledore knew Harry would survive partly because of that? Or he had no choice whatever the outcome?
It's interesting that Dumbledore gradually became more creepy and unsympathetic as the films went on, even after he was dead. Sure he was making hard choices in a war for everything, but If I was Harry, I would've had a few clarifications I'd like to get in the afterlife bit.
Anyway, I liked Yates' stewardship generally. Sure Azkaban is the best (looks the best by miles too). But I think the latter ones rode that line between kids film and fantasy film quite nicely. The down to earth and unfussy style worked well I thought. Sometimes it could seem like he didn't hit things hard enough, but I think they were thinking of the series as a whole when doing that; picturing kids marathon-ing the whole lot in ten years time.
Anyway I was expecting to see Hermione getting on that train as a professor at the end though, or something like that. Seemed like the way things would have gone.
Quote:
One of my biggest complaints here. the abandonment of old characters and introducing too much new stuff instead in the last film (dumb).
I don't think the splitting works, as both have terrible structure. On some level they didn't really convert it into a movie, which means you get new characters that are crucial to the plot in the midst of this one, and they don't really explain certain things all that well. The ending mostly just sorta happens because there's little sense of build, and the release part is very muted. Since Voldemort is a Hitler figure, this is really unfortunate. But they filmed the book, for better or worse. And on that level, I found it to be fairly effective and powerful.
As someone who hasn't read the books prior, this is a huge issue for me. They don't stand alone very well and are extremely convoluted. I just read through SORCEROR'S STONE (at my wife's behest, since I asked her way too many questions during and after seeing DH 1 & 2) and hopefully all will be more clear. Shouldn't have to do that for an adaptation though. It fails hard in that aspect.
This. Part 1 drug and Part 2 felt like it was in fast-forward. Seems way too late in the game to start introducing such a multi-part quest. Could have been better spread out, better explained, or not so complicated.
I don't think it was quite that bad, but I will admit a lot of the big "cheer" moments for my audience (this, Neville killing the snake, etc.) did very little for me. I found Mrs. Weasley's increased presence at the battle somewhat odd, especially since Arthur was pretty much nowhere to be found. Hagrid's sudden presence in the clearing also stuck out to me, and almost garnered a chuckle. "Hey, remember Hagrid? He's in this movie too, and a prisoner for some reason!"
Dropping Hagrid from the proceedings was unforgivable IMO. He played such a big role in the youngsters lives at Hogwarts and then to be sidelined for more scenes of flashbacks and name drops of unimportant people,... ugh.
It's not a book comparison. It's an execution comparison.
Yeah, I've never read the books and feel like much of the execution was bungled. Mostly due to pacing/screenwriting though. Not performance.
Considering the sheer amount of stuff that isn't explained in the movies, they probably just think it's fan-service for those who have read the book. Another minor character who just comes and goes in these movies.
Pretty much.
Or the audience just wasn't paying attention every time characters said ... during the first four or five movies.
Considering how much time there has been between each release, you'd have to marathon them (or have read the books) to remember little throwaway lines like that.
Quote:
The performances were excellent but the film was a mess and, I believe, it was a direct result of the decision to split the story into two films. They filled the additional screen time with parts of the book that weren't set-up (sufficiently or at all) in the previous films and then they didn't bother doing anything with them. Aberforth Dumbledore and the mirror shard should have been dropped completely. The story needed to be streamlined and would have been, out of necessity, if it were a single film.
My thoughts as well.
If someone who read the books doesn't quite know, imagine how confused I was about this point amongst other things.
Too many secrets and twists. Too many names of items/spells/unimportant characters. Not enough focus on the characters we really care about in the last 2 flicks. Why make up another wand maker? Why not simply use Olivander? What point did Dumbledore's brother serve at all? Why should I care about Voldemort torturing Dumbledore's buddy if we never met him before. Or care about the author of some book we don't really know about (why not make that Rita Skeeter?)? Substitute these late-comers for people we've already met. Instead of introducing all these new objects (horcruxes), make objects from previous films the key to all this. Just too much too late.
It's so weird how they decided to cut some story lines out completely (as my wife described to me... elves, Neville, etc), but then decided to keep filler crap that's simply confusing to a casual fan.
EDIT: And some assorted other questions...
1] Was that the stone in the snitch? Did that have something to do with Harry surviving? He wasn't actually killed was he? Were those dead people actually there? Or were they ghosts? Illusions?
2] Why hadn't Harry (in all those years) tried to visit the resting place of his parents prior to DH1? Why do I feel like he knew so little about them? He always seemed to busy too care, considering how obsessed he was with that mirror and them in the first book.
3] Why call the books/films THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, when they didn't really seem to be the focus at all?
As escapist entertainment, they get more frustrating as you go. The less safe Harry is at Hogwarts, the less "escapist" the stories are. I understand raising the stakes and culminating to a final showdown, but I find myself drawn more to the wondrous, exciting (and mostly harmless ) tales of the first 3 or 4. Partly why I love FOTR (let's go on an adventure with our friends!) so much and fall less in love the more down-trodden the plot becomes. Dire without action (whether that's watching Frodo succumb to the ring's power or watching Harry, Ron, and Hermione hide in a tent) becomes a slog. Just my own hang-ups there. And I know few will agree with me. I like where ROTK and the Harry Potter stories go, but it's an emotional endurance test.
It feels to me like reading the books is borderline mandatory for this series. I couldn't imagine having not.
Harry survived because, when Voldemort tried to kill him as a boy, the rebounding curse had the unintentional effect of creating a Horcrux, or a piece of Voldemort's soul, within Harry. That's why he had certain abilities, such as Parseltongue (the ability to commune with snakes). When Voldemort tried to kill Harry in the forest, that Horcrux was destroyed, not him. It's also the reason why Voldemort was knocked back and temporarily unconscious too. Harry's conversation with Dumbledore is rather brilliantly not an explicit afterlife moment in the book - Dumbledore's line of it all possibly happening inside of his head as he regains consciousness applies.
As for Aberforth, in the book Harry's doubts about Dumbledore are more thoroughly explored, although they feature in the movies to an extent as well. His conversation with Aberforth is the last barrier, where he asserts that, despite every doubt that he's had about going on, he will trust the man he knew. It's a very well acted moment in the movie, but the book gives it more context.
I'm curious to see what Yates does next regardless. A lot of scenes in this film are staggeringly filmed, aided in no small part by Eduardo Serra's exceptional work. Even without any context, that final confrontation with Voldemort, hands down, feels suitably iconic and has some of the best close-up filmmaking I've seen -- miles ahead of the LOTR films, at least in that regard.
It feels to me like reading the books is borderline mandatory for this series. I couldn't imagine having not.
Seriously, I want to find someone, somewhere who hasn't read a word of the books, make them marathon all eight films, and then interrogate them as to what the fuck they think happened.
Which do you think is the worst of these moments in the series? For me, the complete non-explanation of what happened when Harry and Voldy Dragonball'd their energy beams in Goblet of Fire probably takes the cake.
"Priori Incantatem!" exclaims Dumbledore!
"Great!... Wait, what is that?" says the audience.
Interestingly enough, they actually did shoot a scene on the balcony of Dumbledore's office where they discuss the graveyard. There are stills of the scene, just no video - and, obviously, it never made the cut. It's such a simple concept in the books - two wands that share the same core colliding, creating a battle of the wills that literally "leaks" the energy out of each respective wand - but I don't recall it being explained in the film. It's a great cinematic moment when the audience sees it, and would take no less than a few lines of additional dialogue.
If you're not a fan of the books... How did Voldermort die at the end?
I assumed he didn't have any bit of his own soul left after the snake died, so he fell to ashes. I mean, that'll do for me, even though there's surely more to it.
Knowing a few kids who read along with the whole thing and will jump in with the complex stuff when I've gotten the wrong idea, as well as seeing how it was done in LotR, ya kinda know there's going to be a lot of lore rounding going.
Like explaining details with obscure bits o magic that aren't explained thoroughly. Some people really hate this. On the whole it seemed to me that that's what this story is. There's a sense of trying to create that fairytale world of magic and mystery which are always loaded with obscure stuff coming out of nowhere that you don't quite understand. They created that feel rather well, I found. I'm pretty good at letting things slide if they don't really ruin the plotting. From the the first I know that that's how it was going to go: stuff is going to come out of nowhere and seemingly be introduced just for this particular story etc etc. I'm not crazy about it all the time, but it's not a deal breaker.
There are times when it grates a bit and robs the characters of their volition.
It's like Eowin didn't kill the witch king because she's a she, but because of Merry's dagger which has some ludicrous backstory. I was a little bummed to discover that Dumbledore's defeat of Voldemort was possibly in large part because he had the elder wand and not because he's a badass, for instance.
But you get that comes with territory of the over all whimsy of things.
Quote:
Which do you think is the worst of these moments in the series? For me, the complete non-explanation of what happened when Harry and Voldy Dragonball'd their energy beams in Goblet of Fire probably takes the cake.
"Priori Incantatem!" exclaims Dumbledore!
"Great!... Wait, what is that?" says the audience.
This always would have been difficult without a giant chunk of exposition, but I thought a nice way to do it would be to have included Ollivander's small scene to remind audiences of him, then as the wands connect, play his voice-over from the first film about the wands being twins.
If you're not a fan of the books... How did Voldermort die at the end?
From the green energy from his spell that clearly goes backward through the wand and hits himself? The film isn't exactly subtle about the wand not totally working for him. There are a number of omissions/logic jumps that irk me (lack of a Priori Incantatem explanation being one, 'who exactly sent the Dementors to Privet Drive?' being the other), but that's not one of them.
Deathly Hallows Part 2 is actually my favorite installment out of the entire series, mostly because it only fucks up one thing: the ending. And really, after all the missteps and blunders that have taken place throughout the series, I don't know how I could have expected the climax to be redeeming or anything. I brought the disappointment on myself, honestly.
Now, when I say "fucks up only one thing", what I really mean is that the only part of the movie that really jumps out at me as being undersold or understated is the last few moments of Voldemort's life. There should have been an audience for his death. The final battle between the best of what both sides had to offer should have taken place in the Great Hall. Instead, Harry kills Voldemort, and walks into the hall to find everyone pretty much as normal as they could possibly be under such circumstances. No announcement, no cheering, no party, no McGonagal getting drunk and turning Draco into a ferret. Nothing. WTF?
Other than that, it pretty well delivered. More so than I could have hoped for. Any problems I have with stuff they didn't explain well (if at all), or changed rather unnecessarily, apply to the entire damn franchise, so I don't see much point in me drudging them up here. The one that really takes the cake for this last film, though, is Ollivander's knowledge of the Deathly Hallows. What the fuck was that about? What was that supposed to accomplish? Did Harry learn anything that he didn't know before, thanks to that alteration? No. The only remotely logical explanation I can come up with is that David Yates actually thought the audience needed to be reminded of the existence of the Deathly Hallows. Which I doubt is the case, since it's in the fucking title of the movie.
I also have to say this: I despise Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. His performance in this last one was better than most of the others (except for the first film, which I don't think counts since he was so young), but, as usual, pretty much everyone else outshines him. Especially Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), who I've long felt is among the best portrayers of their character in the series, if not the best.
I've also never liked Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, not because I think he sucks as an actor (in fact I think he's very talented), but because I just never feel like I'm looking at Voldemort when I watch him on screen. I just see Francis Dollarhyde without a nose, trying to scare children. *sighs*
Gotta disagree on Radcliffe there. I've long liked the guy even when he was nakedly showing his lack of prior chops and thought he delivered in this film beautifully. He's always excelled at conveying Harry's inner struggle through subtle, haunted expressions and mannerisms. The look on his face and his labored movements to sit after the sequence with Snape's memories? Outstanding. Equally so is his reaction to Alan Rickman's final line. His eyes just register a multitude of emotion.
As for their final duel being without an audience, I liked it. They started together and ended together, which is something Yates emphasized beforehand with their entire sequence in the castle. I think the sequence, cinematically, would have lost something in translation if there was a big spectating audience in a more confined space. Works in the book, though.
One change that I'll also give them due credit for, against some of their more notable blunders, is how Voldemort "feels" when a Horcrux is ripped from him. Very cinematic and Fiennes plays his implosion well. Yates has always employed strong, recurring visual themes to emphasize their connection, instead of just Harry grimacing and touching his scar.
Fiennes really nailed this one. Some of the small moments like you said where he feels a horcrux dying are sold so beautifully by the look of despair on his face.
Really? Huh.
Seriously, I want to find someone, somewhere who hasn't read a word of the books, make them marathon all eight films, and then interrogate them as to what the fuck they think happened.
...
"Priori Incantatem!" exclaims Dumbledore!
"Great!... Wait, what is that?" says the audience.
Until this past week, I hadn't read anything. Got book 1 under the belt now. Trouble is, a ton of stuff seems unexplained. Probably a number of factors...
A] It's in the book, but not the movie.
B] It's mentioned in one of the movies, but over most of a decade, I haven't watched the films more than 1 time each (besides repeated bits and pieces of the first few on tv) and I simply can't remember.
C] It's too ambiguous a concept and even readers of the books aren't certain.
D] It's ultimately unimportant to the main plotline and my brain doesn't retain it amongst all the other goings-on.
E] I make the false assumption that something is important, because it's new and introduced so late in the game, get frustrated when it's not explored, and then brain-dump it.
F] I just assume the explanation can be summed up with "it's magic".
I got enough to enjoy the series, but really feel like I didn't get the most out of it. I don't really accept blame, because the films should live on their own. My confusion/curiosity makes me want to finally read the books though. I've avoided till now because i didn't want the cinematic experience spoiled, but it still is bit of an obstacle understanding everything without all the background info. I'm guessing Renn's friend either has a photographic memory and was able to piece everything together from unsubstantial bread crumbs, or didn't think too hard about the glossed over stuff (I suffer from analysis paralysis), or notice it at all. It's not really the long-form narrative that's the issue, because I have little trouble following convoluted plots of tv shows like LOST, etc. It's all about emphasis and execution, repetition and balance.
One of the things that got left out that bugged me a lot was the origin of the Marauder's Map, mainly because it ties into a number of things that explain quite a bit about events in Prisoner of Azkahban. The problem with all the things that got left out is that the movies, as a result, don't give the viewer the same sense of understanding and appreciation for the sheer depth and detail of the wizarding world that Rowling created as the novels do. Obviously, it is quite a task to turn a 700+ page book into a movie that isn't 6-7 hours long, but honestly, if studios hadn't insisted on making one film for every one book (except for the last one, obviously), it wouldn't have been as much of a problem. I understand that that only increases the amount of money invested in the franchise, but you can't tell me that Warner Brothers didn't dump at least half as much money into the films as they earned from them, so I don't see the big deal there.
I've long felt that the HP movies should have been animated rather than live-action, it would taken away a lot of the stress of finding the perfect kids to play the main trio, since non one will ever see what they look like, and would've allowed the studios to put in a LOT more stuff. I also feel that the films, live-action or no, could've used a narrator. Big time. And I think we all know who would've been perfect for that:
Just imagine Captain Picard describing any number of events in Harry Potter. Fucking epic.
Seriously, I want to find someone, somewhere who hasn't read a word of the books, make them marathon all eight films, and then interrogate them as to what the fuck they think happened.
Really? Huh.
You want an example of a literary Potter virgin? You're talking to him. I haven't read a single word of the books (yet) and I had no problem understanding anything in any of the films.
You understood the mirror shard in Hallows Part 1?
You understand what happened when Harry and Voldemort's spells collided in the graveyard?
Yes on both counts. Time to show my hand.....
- I'm assuming the shard was from the (now broken?) mirror from back at the start of the series, yes? If not, then I apologize, but that's how I recall taking it at the time. I've only seen DH Pt 1 twice at this point.
- The whole horcrux and wand master issues probably could have been written a little clearer (for the film), but I understood them just fine.
Anyway, I plan to start reading the books sometime this spring or summer, so I'm really looking forward to re-watching the entire saga once I'm finished. Granted I'll probably run through them all again before I read them as well, but I'm looking forward to enriching the experience of the films by reading the entire series over the next year or so.
- I'm assuming the shard was from the (now broken?) mirror from back at the start of the series, yes? If not, then I apologize, but that's how I recall taking it at the time. I've only seen DH Pt 1 twice at this point.
I'm actually talking about the climax of Goblet of Fire. You know, when the wand clash somehow causes a bunch of ghost-things to show up and help Harry escape? Harry asks Dumbledore what happened and he just says "Priori Incantatem" without explaining what that is?
I suppose that expects you to have the most cursory knowledge of romance languages ever.
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
E] I make the false assumption that something is important, because it's new and introduced so late in the game, get frustrated when it's not explored, and then brain-dump it.
I'm going to re-iterate this. Why show a snippet of a character in a flashback and then never make mention of them again. Cinematic screentime is so precious (so precious that you have to leave out whole subplots), that you should just eliminate elements you can't give any due, let alone the due they're deserved (Grindelwald, Gregorovitch, Bagshot, etc). Course, this issue can be traced all the way back to the first book. Mentioning Nicolas Flammel (who's invention is so important to the story, it's in the title), but never actually meeting him. Just weird writing choices by Rowling and weird adaptation choices by Kloves. It doesn't help that many of the names are mouthfuls to begin with. Making them cursory mentions doesn't help.
Grindelwald, Gregorovitch, and Bagshot (I had to look them up from what I remembered in the film) in DH1 should have been previous characters already seen in the films, set up earlier or replaced completely with the likes of Mundungus, Olivander, and Skeeter respectively (for example). Why should I care that Voldemort is torturing these backstory-less strangers? I'm sure Rowling would think that insulting to her masterwork and fans to have swapped out characters for others, but not making those story-economical decisions when transforming the book into a 2-3 hour film tends to hurt adaptations for newcomers.
Too much to remember. And if it's not worth remembering due to its ultimate unimportance, leave it out. It's not "world-building" at that point. It's superfluous fan-service at best and muddling/distracting at worst.
And shouldn't the title of the last book be "HP and the Hunt for the Horcruxes"? The Deathly Hallows (albeit the story is one of my favorite parts in the film) seems like background info.
And shouldn't the title of the last book be "HP and the Hunt for the Horcruxes"? The Deathly Hallows (albeit the story is one of my favorite parts in the film) seems like background info.
She almost called it Harry Potter and The Elder Wand, which is infinitely better.
The mirror shard was kind of a trick question... It has no introduction nor explanation in the films whatsoever. It's literally only going to make sense to people who read the book.
"Priori Incantatum..."
The End.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Goblet of Fire should've ended like The Devil Inside did. Put a little tag after the 'waving goodbye to good friends' ending telling the audience to check out the books if they want to continue the adventures.
My cousin had only a few instances in the films where I had to explain something (surprisingly, Priori was not one of them; he remembered how Voldemort and Harry met the first time and just assumed that Voldemort was having the same issue), but he generally could understand what was transpiring. Even when his guesses as to what was happening were off, he basically understood what was being communicated visually. I think what helps, at least to an extent, is that the films are generally very good (sometimes even quite great), involving fantasy pics even when they don't explain certain things as they should.
The mirror shard was kind of a trick question... It has no introduction nor explanation in the films whatsoever. It's literally only going to make sense to people who read the book.
Harry says it belonged to Sirius in Hallows Pt. 2, but that's about it.
This is a cut I don't understand. Yes, you cut the mirror from Order of the Phoenix, but it hardly would've taken a ton of time to set up. When they're staying at Grimmauld Place in Hallows Pt. 1, why not have Harry find the shard in Sirius' room?
On the other end of things, though, book readers seem to think the plot is quite a bit harder to follow than it actually is. My parents haven't read the books and they never had a problem following the films. Mom figured out the Marauders in Azkaban, too, thanks to Lupin's last scene with Harry.
Non-readers who have no problems with the film series' delivery of info are just as ingenious as the trio in Book 1. Leaps of logic!
"Hagrid took something from Gringott's? Well it MUST be the Philosopher's Stone. And that very same item MUST be what Fluffy is guarding! And Snape MUST be trying to steal it for Voldemort!"
Certain things are right, while others are wrong, but it doesn't really matter. You still get to the end ok anyway. Good VS Evil! Go, good guys!
Isn't that just it though? A lot of it doesn't matter. You get the broad strokes no problem, and if you need everything explained, the books exist, and you've probably already read them. Millions of children across the world are the target audience for these, and they understand all the finer points, just as I knew the names of all the aliens of Jabba's sail barge. And then there's the casual fans, who don't know what the mirror shard is all about, but do they really care? The goal is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible with these, not make The Godfather. And fuck it, they're way better than Transformers movies.
Yeah, if you've got a serious problem with whimsical convenience and deus ex machina these really aren't the stories for you full stop. There's quite a lot that's legitimately there in the first place. A few extra instances made in the adaptation don't necessarily make that a problem all of a sudden.
I don't get how people keep making that assumption. Is it because the Mirror of Erised is the only major mirror seen up to that point? The Mirror is never broken. Harry never takes a piece of it. He just has it at the start of DH.
I'm actually talking about the climax of Goblet of Fire. You know, when the wand clash somehow causes a bunch of ghost-things to show up and help Harry escape? Harry asks Dumbledore what happened and he just says "Priori Incantatem" without explaining what that is?
In terms of the mirror, that's pretty much the assumption I made. Honestly, I've never thought much about it because not much was made about it in the film.
As for the wand clash at the end of GoF, it comes off as the two of them being equally powerful.............causing a rare rift in the fabric of reality, which allows Harry to see his parents (as well as Cedric). That might be (and probably is) completely wrong and/or an over-simplification, but that's how it seems when watching it without having read the novels. I'll probably feel a little dumb once I do read through them and my perception on certain events changes, but that comes with the territory.
Isn't that just it though? A lot of it doesn't matter. You get the broad strokes no problem, and if you need everything explained, the books exist, and you've probably already read them. Millions of children across the world are the target audience for these, and they understand all the finer points, just as I knew the names of all the aliens of Jabba's sail barge. And then there's the casual fans, who don't know what the mirror shard is all about, but do they really care? The goal is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible with these, not make The Godfather. And fuck it, they're way better than Transformers movies.
Pretty much. I've loved the films enough to seek out the novels soon to expand my knowledge and enjoyment of the franchise. I might not "get" everything I've seen as it is written in the books, but on the whole I've not had a problem understanding most of what is going on. My interpretations on certain things might not be correct, but nothing I've seen has really confused me at all.
The goal is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible with these, not make The Godfather. And fuck it, they're way better than Transformers movies.
Really? This argument? Really?
It doesn't completely wreck the films or anything, but it's lazy storytelling and lazy adaptation, and it does drag them down just a bit.
Is there seriously no critic out there who said "the fuck is up with this mirror?" Are they all so passive as viewers?
Is there seriously no critic out there who said "the fuck is up with this mirror?" Are they all so passive as viewers?
I'm not surprised that most audiences just let the unexplained stuff sail past them. It is a magical world after all.
The reason it bugs me is that the Potter books were really good about making sure that a lot of those big magical moments didn't just brush off those significant moments with, "IIIIIIT'S MAGIIIIC!" It wasn't just lightsabers being pulled out for the sake of showing off lightsabers. Priori Incantatum and everything else mentioned recently were important in developing the themes behind the main conflict through the series. It made magic richer. To just pay lip service to these things with a mere muttering of names felt like a missed opportunity to mine good drama from the source material.
As it was mentioned by DARKMITE8, a less lazy adaptation would've found a way to get the drama and whittle down the amount of silly names while getting the spirit of the story across.
Ugh... especially with Deathly Hallows Part 1. As much as I still like the last several films in the series, they were barely adaptations. They were just visual Cliff Notes of the books, which isn't the same thing. Someone mentioned how bad the exposition was in The Prisoner of Azkaban and I agreed. But I still hold that film was the best in the series because it allowed Cuaron to really let loose with Rowling's world while still giving a damn about adapting the source material.
Really? This argument? Really?
It doesn't completely wreck the films or anything, but it's lazy storytelling and lazy adaptation, and it does drag them down just a bit.
Yeah, this argument. And I don't think there's been one of these movies that could really be called a great movie, unless of course you're just a big Harry Potter fan, of which there are many. There's a reason no one was seriously expecting Deathly Hallows to be nominated for Best Picture or whatever, and it's that these are not terrific movies. Could they have been? Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies suggest that yes, they could have, but they didn't pan out that way. They're merely pretty good, and even Cuaron didn't totally crack the adaptation nut (people are still upset about the full backstory on the Marauders Map not getting full play).
You can mourn the slightly better version that might have been, but that seems like a misplacement of energy. For such an enormous studio franchise juggernaut, they turned out just fine, and if anything, they erred on the side of pleasing the fans, which is not the worst thing you can do. A visual accompaniment to the books, sure, but they did truly nail down the tone and the characters, which are probably the most important part. And considering the bugfuck things they were planning originally (setting it in America, combining the first three books), I'd say they got things about 85% right. Personally, I'm pretty much ready to put Potter aside for a long time. But I'll surely pull it out when I get some kids.
As much as I enjoyed the books, part of the problem is that the seven volumes really have about three or four books' worth of story in them. But there was no way WB was ever not going to adapt every single book.
Isn't that just it though? A lot of it doesn't matter. You get the broad strokes no problem, and if you need everything explained, the books exist, and you've probably already read them. Millions of children across the world are the target audience for these, and they understand all the finer points, just as I knew the names of all the aliens of Jabba's sail barge. And then there's the casual fans, who don't know what the mirror shard is all about, but do they really care?
I totally see your point about the SW creatures. I was that kid. But I knew the names from the action figure cardboard and comics, etc. They don't namedrop any of them in the Cantina, when the bounty hunters meet, or at Jabba's palace. Walrus man gets his arm chopped off and they never mention "Pondo Baba". All you know is his gender and that he doesn't like Luke. Compare that to DH1 where they make mention of someone, show them in a flashback (which is for me often a recognizable actor), and then never make mention of them again. I only wonder what info was left out. When Vader calls someone by name and chokes them, I know their disposable. My brain doesn't wonder about how Officer What's-his-face fits into the grand scheme of things. Difference between adapting a large book and writing a screenplay from "scratch".
I'm actually a casual fan (only seen the movies) that cares more than most, I suppose. And it's not that I care about a random character. I (as a film-fan) care about the storytelling. Which can be sloppy.
Sure it's an admirable feat. The books are long and have a ton of background info that lip-service is the best you can do in the format allowed (one movie per book up till the 2 part ending). But I say sometimes lip service in a movie so dense with new ideas, characters, and artifacts can do more damage than good by mentioning them all. Too much too late. I realize I stand alone mostly in this opinion and will concede that most people read the books, so...
I'm not surprised that most audiences just let the unexplained stuff sail past them. It is a magical world after all.
I'm thinking most people don't wanna look stupid, OR don't remember they just saw something inexplicable because the movie has moved on and you need to stay with it because ultimately if it's not directly effecting the plot, they brain-dump it. Or like SDP said, they make a guess (wrong or right) and keep rolling. Much like the kid characters do in the films.
I might not need to know the background of a spell. It's cast and there are the results before me to figure it out. Butsome mysterious person from some mysterious story at some mysterious point in a main character's history forces my brain to want to put the pieces together. DEATHLY HALLOWS parts 1 and 2 are a little like MATRIX RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS. They present a ton of new info, drop those bread crumbs and easter eggs, coaxing me try to put it all together and then reveal that in the end, it's just Harry VS Voldemort (or people VS robots) anyway FUGEDDABOUDIT. Atleast HP has a source material for me to fill in the blanks and most of the new stuff is BG noise. I'm still mad at the MATRIX for never explaining the clues (Why name him "Merovingian"? Bloodline of Christ cult? Was he a previous Neo?) and then dumping us with new MAIN CHARACTERS (Who the heck are all these Zion people and why do I care?) so late in the game.
