Harry Potter Films, Deathly Hallows Preview

[Rowan Sjet]

Grrr, it's been deleted.

Probably not surprising but I'd like to have seen it first. Oh, well. I highly doubt it'll be the only leaked material from the movies.

Well, just in time then. Here is a higher quality version, preceded by interviews with the producer and director, and some new behind the scenes clips.

 

[Admiral_Young]

That was excellent...short as it was...I've been looking forward to Deathly Hallows since I finished reading the book. When I was watching Half Blood Prince in the theater I turned to my friend and said, okay enough of this already I'm ready for the end! I think it's going to be brilliant.

 

[May 20]

Well, the clip did its job. As much as I don't want it to end, I am really looking forward to DH.

 

[mswood]

Well if the film is of the same quality of the book, I want it to be over already. I was thoroughly disappointed with Deathly Hallows. While I wasn't a fan of the first two books (or their films)< I did really enjoy books 3,4,5, and 6 (as well as those films to various degrees). But Deathly Hallows made me feel like I had wasted my time reading Harry's story. I don't think there was a single real area of the book (plot and character wise) that held any real interest to me.

 

[Orac Zen]

Well, just in time then. Here is a higher quality version, preceded by interviews with the producer and director, and some new behind the scenes clips.

Cool. Thanks for the link.

Geez, November 2010 seems a very long way away.

 

[cultcross]

ooohhh... yay


Yeah, I'm about 8 years old.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The first half of the DH was pretty slow, the end of the book was pretty epic.

DH as a whole sucked a**, but the last half was especially pathetic, what with the final "brawl for it all" at Hogwarts being told, not shown.

Book Six "jumped the shark" and Book Seven was the final circling of the drain.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Despite the bad quality...it's looking awesome!

The first part of DH was a trifle boring (camping trip and not a heck of a lot of action) but part two should be epic!

I hope that the filmmakers can find a way to express the frustration and aimlessness that Harry and Hermione have through those camping scenes prior to the incident at Godric's Hollow at Christmas.

Yeah, it was actionless but it really drew me into thinking, "How in the world are they going to figure this out?" I felt somewhat as "clueless" as they did, which I personally thought was quite effective...

I thought it sucked. Pointless interia scene after pointless inertia scene while the writer goes on a Jason Vorhees-esque killing spree of the secondary and tertiary cast. Harry and Hermione were essentially abandoned by Rowling (if she indeed wrote the book herself) until the writer decided to deus ex machina the action with another dribble of information from the outside.

Book Seven killed my respect for Rowling's Potterverse. I've read bad FANFIC better than Rowling's book seven...

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Not that I care either way. My objection to the two books is based on the story presented, not who wrote it.

 

[suarezguy]

DH as a whole sucked a**, but the last half was especially pathetic, what with the final "brawl for it all" at Hogwarts being told, not shown.

I actually thought too much was shown; Rowling should have shown more restraint than having Harry run around all over the place in order to witness various battles.

In my take Rowling's good with plot (aside from book 7, which had too much that came out of nowhere) and characterizations, but with mood and tone she peaked with book 2; as the characters aged, the style, rather than maturing, just became more pretentious and less connected to the characters.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Is it so hard to believe that her writing actually improved over the course of the seven books? I would say her turning point was in The Goblet of Fire with the final three being much better written than the first three.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I actually thought too much was shown; Rowling should have shown more restraint than having Harry run around all over the place in order to witness various battles.

You wanted even LESS of what we all came to see in Book 7: the final showdown between the DEs/Voldie and the forces of the Light? They spend all that time setting it up and then don't pay it off...like too many other things in the books.

In my take Rowling's good with plot (aside from book 7, which had too much that came out of nowhere) and characterizations, but with mood and tone she peaked with book 2; as the characters aged, the style, rather than maturing, just became more pretentious and less connected to the characters.

In some ways I'm the opposite. Generally, she's good with mood and tone and some characterizations, and a very good "world builder", but piss poor in plot and story.

Her entire over arc centers around what I call "passive Harry". Harry is never allowed to take a pro-active position in the fight against Voldemort. The one time he tries (OOTP), it turns into a disaster.



Remember, Dumb-as-a-door KNOWS that Harry is the key to defeating Voldemort once and for all. How does he prepare him for that fate?

Harry is, for all intents and purposes, kept a prisoner, weak and submissive to his circumstance. His education is crippled by pathetically poor teachers in multiple classes. Not only is he left to rot in Durskaban for 10 years initially, abused and neglected, but he is continuously shipped back for his summers to experience MORE abuse and neglect. He's deliberately kept OUT of Order business, even when it pertains to him by the smothering Molly Weasley.

Dumble-doofus tacitly ADMITS to it in the "train station" scene: he knew damn well that Harry was not well served by his (DD's)actions, but he kept on doing it anyways.

And don't get me started about the 'ships...Rowling shoves Harry/Ginny down the readers' throats for reasons known only to her. Creepy little stalker girl is a cypher for 5 books and BAM, all of a sudden she's his one and only? Anyone remember how Molly "helped" Arthur along? And a smart girl like Hermione falling for an ill-mannered, obsessively jealous, lazy igoramus like MoRon Weasley? Hello?

No...as a writer in terms of story and plot logic, Rowling earns at best a D-, and that is if I'm feeling charitable. She came up with an interesting world, then ultimately failed to make proper use of it.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Is it so hard to believe that her writing actually improved over the course of the seven books? I would say her turning point was in The Goblet of Fire with the final three being much better written than the first three.

For the record, may I ask what the frak you're smoking?

 

[mswood]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Is it so hard to believe that her writing actually improved over the course of the seven books? I would say her turning point was in The Goblet of Fire with the final three being much better written than the first three.

Not at all if I actually thought the there was improvement. Again my distaste for the last book (especially) has already been stated. I do think a s books, 4 & 5 were the best.

 

[Broccoli]

wait, did i completely black out and miss HBP?

Just watch an episode of Dawson's Creek or Gilmore Girls or 90210 and you'll pretty much get caught up.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I'm interested in Deathly Hallows: Part I because director David Yates describes it as the most different of all the proceeding six films.

Since it takes place almost entirely out of Hogwarts, Yates says he's giving the film a verite, gritty, almost road movie type of feel, which I think will be very interesting to see.

Part II is supose to be very operatic and grandoise which fits more in line with the series, but I'm very anxiously curious to se how Part I turns out.

 

[Admiral_Young]

The first half of the novel does indeed take place outside of Hogwarts...as our favorite trio search for the final horcruxes. Part II is all out mayhem basically! The part of Deathly Hallows I'm most looking forward to seeing how they pull off is the epilogue...it's pretty much my favourite sequence in the entire book as weird as that sounds.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ You may have "read bad FANFIC better that Rowling's book seven" (and I, myself, have plenty of criticisms for Book 7), but a statement like "if she indeed wrote the book herself" is totally out of line.

C'mon ... you can't expect anyone to take such an opinion seriously, can you? Maybe you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole (I know I have on occasion), but still ... claiming that DH wasn't written by Rowling? Mayhap you're taking your criticism just a wee bit too far?

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Speculation? By whom? You alone? On what grounds? By someone else? Sources please.

Not that I care either way. My objection to the two books is based on the story presented, not who wrote it.

You contradict yourself. Either you do not care who wrote it or you care enough to post unsubstantiated rumor. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Neroon]

It's not so much a criticism as a statement of theory. There has been speculation that Rowling used a ghost writer for part or all of Books Six and Seven, which would account for some or all of the differences in style and tone between them and the first five books.

Not that I care either way. My objection to the two books is based on the story presented, not who wrote it.

I am sincerely interested in examples of what you're stating here. That's mostly because it's been so long since I read the books, I'm not sure I could identify these differences in style you suggest.