Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Discuss and Grade

[Gaith]

Quite - I see it now - Ron dies in the Dept. of Mysteries battle - very tragic - Neville replaces him in Year 6, albeit with an organically awkward transition - it's his feelings for Hermione that cause Harry and her to realize that they're perfect for each other - and Neville winds up with Ginny, having found a secondary family at last.

 

[Orac Zen]

Spoiler: Molly Weasley

I'm actually conflicted about that scene. There are several characters who have history with Bellatrix. Harry (killed his godfather), Neville (tortured his parents), Hermione (tortured her), Ron (tortured his love interest). Each of these characters could have defeated her and it would have been poetic. But, Molly Weasley did it because a curse of hers went near her daughter. It was an epic display from Molly, but I feel like the scene was anti-climactic considering it was Bellatrix. Then again, I feel the same way about Voldemort's death... How I would have done it was have Neville defeat her, but spare her, proving that the good guys are better.

Spoiler: Further Molly Weasley spoiler

Rowling's reasoning was that there's more to Molly than "merely" raising seven kids and being Harry's (and to some extent, Hermione's) surrogate mother. I was initially in the Neville-ought-to-have-killed-Bellatrix camp, but on reflection I preferred Rowling's way.

As I'd suspected it might, a second viewing impressed me more than the first but it's still not on the level of Half-Blood Prince for me. One thing that me struck after both viewings was that Kloves - the near-obsessive OMG-Hermione-rulez!!!!1111- fanboy - cut Hermione's line about wanting to "do good in the world". Pity, that; it was one of my favourite lines in the book. Still, he got Ron pretty much right for the first time - I didn't think he was capable of it, quite frankly - so I suppose we can't have everything. Movie gets an average grading from me.

July still seems a very long way off. Grrrrr.

 

[suarezguy]

Disliked it; too much was crammed in and rushed, especially Mundungus' too-suspicious introduction, Ron growing bitter and there being even less of the locket effecting Harry.

The flight chase was confusingly chaotic and the animated sequence felt too out-of-place.
I imagined the Doe scene appearing lighter, as it was it looked too similar to Azkaban.

The only things I missed from the book were Krum at the wedding (and his commenting on the symbol) and Pettigrew's end. OTOH, the whole Godric's Hollow scene felt pretty unnecessary.

Voldemort felt too common, especially in the first scene, being in a table with so many people, and Harry's visions of him were frequent but confusing; Luna didn't seem like a prisoner.

I think Azkaban was Radcliffe's peak, Goblet of Fire Watson and Grint's.

The best elements were the head snatcher, the chemistry between Harry and Hermione (though the dance felt too romantic and random), and the locket trying to choke Harry in the pond. I also liked that they didn't tone down the amorality of the Three Brothers tale.

-Nice way to work Neville in there with the train being stopped by The Death Eaters.

Him casually calling them losers and seeming to get away with it made them seem a little too lightweight.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I haven't read the other reviews yet.

I saw this with my wife on New Years Eve and loved it. It's amazing how much the tone of these movies have evolved; this feels nothing like the kid movies that Chris Columbus directed. It may have been a studio cash-grab, but I thought splitting the story into two movies really helped; the script was able to flow more naturally, instead of feeling like a plot-point checklist like too many of the previous films in the series.

 

[label]

I just saw this for the first time this last weekend as well. As with the other movies, this was told pretty adequately and I enjoyed some of the bits of humor and dialog that helped lightened the tone a bit in an otherwise morose affair. I missed some of the Dursley stuff that was removed from the beginning of the movie and a few other things were off (like the casting of Xeno Lovegood). It probably comes the closest to telling the story that was actually in the book so far, but it's still no where near as good as the book so while I'll catch the final movie in the theaters - probably a week or so before it leaves the theaters - I really just see the movies as a distant second to reading the books.

 

[Thestral]

Neville is really the quiet hero of the series. I was so impressed when we found out what happened to his parents in Book V and how he really started to stand up for himself. It would have been nice to see him as a part of the big three, but for the last three books his presence would have overshadowed Ron's.

I think this sort of happened, except instead of a Big Three, it became a Big Six - or perhaps more accurately, a Big Three and a Little Three. Harry, Ron, and Hermione with their (distaff?) counterparts Neville, Ginny, and Luna.

 

[Silvercrest]

One last thing one thing that bugs me about this genre is writers seem to have an unlimited supply of Deus ex machina.

Yeah ... it's a bit too easy to write your way out of a corner when all you have to do, literally, is wave a wand, or come up with some new fantastical element that trumps all the others.

That's not as bad as always explaining it after the fact, when it would have been REALLY USEFUL for Harry to know some of these things in advance. "By the way, Harry, the reason you survived against Professor Quirrell is that you're magically protected against Voldemort and you can destroy his host body on contact." DO TELL!!?? You couldn't have mentioned that a little sooner?

Or, "It's a little-known fact that when two wands with the same core duel each other, one will cause the other to regurgitate the spells it has most recently cast, in reverse order..."

And I STILL don't get all this stuff about the Elder Wand and its owner, and I read the book. I think the Elder Wand must have been created by an attorney.

Harry's a smart kid, and he could have made some of this stuff work for him if anyone had bothered to tell him.

Part of the problem appears to be that Hogwarts doesn't teach theory, it teaches results. They don't bother explaining anything behind the magic, they just teach you what words to utter. It doesn't matter whether you understand what you're doing, as long as the spells come out correctly. That's why Harry could get away with using the Half-Blood Prince's textbook and using all these alternative means to create potions... as long as the potions came out all right. (By that logic, Harry wasn't cheating, either.)

You have to wonder, with all these unexplained magical rules and properties, and no real organized education, how much is lost every time someone dies.

Edit: I just saw the movie on New Year's Eve, and I did think it was pretty good. I thought the Harry/Hermione dance conveyed their friendship just right. (Personally, I'd rather see him wind up with Luna!) And watching Hermione's hesitance to perform Obliviate after what she had to do earlier... wow. And Dobby's part was moving. But I missed the Dudley scene too.

 

[cultcross]

And I STILL don't get all this stuff about the Elder Wand and its owner, and I read the book. I think the Elder Wand must have been created by an attorney.

The wand's ownership and 'loyalty' can only be transferred by defeating the wizard who owned it before, either by killing them or otherwise defeating them in combat - simply sneaking up and stealing it isn't enough. Dumbledore hoped to die 'undefeated' so that the wand's path would end with him, but Malfoy disarmed him and gained 'ownership' of the wand thus continuing the chain.

 

[Gaith]

But, as noted many times before, the whole disarming rule is stupid and a massive retcon (what happened to the rule about other people's wands not working as well for you as your own? Wouldn't that have been the first of thousands of good times to mention the disarming rule before Year 7?).

 

[Mr Light]

I thought that DD intentionally threw his "fight" with Draco to pass along the ownership to Harry?

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Part of the problem appears to be that Hogwarts doesn't teach theory, it teaches results. They don't bother explaining anything behind the magic, they just teach you what words to utter. It doesn't matter whether you understand what you're doing, as long as the spells come out correctly. That's why Harry could get away with using the Half-Blood Prince's textbook and using all these alternative means to create potions... as long as the potions came out all right. (By that logic, Harry wasn't cheating, either.)

As much as I admire Rowling's charming world building, she really does fall down on a theory of magic, seriously undercutting any chance the HP universe has to be compelling beyond mild entertainment.

 

[label]

As much as I admire Rowling's charming world building, she really does fall down on a theory of magic, seriously undercutting any chance the HP universe has to be compelling beyond mild entertainment.

Not sure I follow....... are you saying that the lack of a more intricate, self-consistent, logical system of magic greatly affected your ability to the enjoy the books or am I misunderstanding what your getting at?

 

[Silvercrest]

And I STILL don't get all this stuff about the Elder Wand and its owner, and I read the book. I think the Elder Wand must have been created by an attorney.

The wand's ownership and 'loyalty' can only be transferred by defeating the wizard who owned it before, either by killing them or otherwise defeating them in combat - simply sneaking up and stealing it isn't enough. Dumbledore hoped to die 'undefeated' so that the wand's path would end with him, but Malfoy disarmed him and gained 'ownership' of the wand thus continuing the chain.

Yes, and?

Spoiler: DH book conclusion

Malfoy gets the wand and its ownership. Harry disarms him and gets the wand and its ownership. Then it falls into Voldemort's hands, who proceeds to use it on Harry without realizing that Harry is its master. The wand won't kill Harry, so the spell backfires on Voldemort. Right?

First off, if I got anything wrong here, it's only because there are more hidden stipulations or circumstances that I haven't figured out yet.

Even if I got it right, it's already a ridiculous chain of coincidences that invoke another set of magical rules that were introduced after the fact and just happen to allow Harry to survive.

Hey, if we're going to analyze ridiculous coincidences, I'd like to suggest that Luke could have made his shot without using the computer OR the Force. With his eyes closed. It's just as likely, and it's a lot more dramatically compelling.

But, as noted many times before, the whole disarming rule is stupid and a massive retcon (what happened to the rule about other people's wands not working as well for you as your own? Wouldn't that have been the first of thousands of good times to mention the disarming rule before Year 7?).

Hear, hear.

 

[Silvercrest]

Not sure I follow....... are you saying that the lack of a more intricate, self-consistent, logical system of magic greatly affected your ability to the enjoy the books or am I misunderstanding what your getting at?

Can't speak for Lapis, but I'm saying that.

 

[Sindatur]

This is why Volde... Er "He Who Must Not be Named" was kidnapping Wand Makers, to understand this special Wand work. The Elder Wand is Death's Wand afterall, of course it's going to have different properties, just as we've already been shown with the cloak

 

[flemm]

Not sure I follow....... are you saying that the lack of a more intricate, self-consistent, logical system of magic greatly affected your ability to the enjoy the books or am I misunderstanding what your getting at?

Can't speak for Lapis, but I'm saying that.

The lack of a logical system didn't bother me at all in the earlier novels, because the use of magic in the stories was inventive, playful and fun. Then somehow it became necessary to start brain-washing multitudes of Muggles as a plot convenience, while much of the narrative devoted itself to constructing heavy-handed allegories about accepting the inevitability of death. Or something.

 

[label]

Not sure I follow....... are you saying that the lack of a more intricate, self-consistent, logical system of magic greatly affected your ability to the enjoy the books or am I misunderstanding what your getting at?

Can't speak for Lapis, but I'm saying that.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but honestly when I've read through the books in the past I never really gave the logic of some fabricated magic system much thought. Not saying that someone should or shouldn't expect the rules of Rowling's brand of magic to make sense to us, just that I don't remember any glaring examples of where the logic so was messed up as to detract from my overall enjoyment of the books.

 

[CaptainCanada]

But, as noted many times before, the whole disarming rule is stupid and a massive retcon (what happened to the rule about other people's wands not working as well for you as your own? Wouldn't that have been the first of thousands of good times to mention the disarming rule before Year 7?).

It's not a retcon; the disarming thing simply isn't an important factor with most wands. The Elder Wand is unique in that respect. As well as some other effects noted by Dumbledore as being the consequence of the unusual magical bond between Harry and Lord Voldemort.

Note that Harry continues to find the other wand he uses after the first one gets broken to be much less useful than his original.

 

[Silvercrest]

in the past I never really gave the logic of some fabricated magic system much thought. Not saying that someone should or shouldn't expect the rules of Rowling's brand of magic to make sense to us, just that I don't remember any glaring examples of where the logic so was messed up as to detract from my overall enjoyment of the books.

That's okay, I wouldn't expect everyone to look for the same things I do. And really, to me the only part that detracts from my enjoyment is with the repeated retroactive deus ex machina I was citing. The rest of it is just my habitual nitpicking.

 

[label]

in the past I never really gave the logic of some fabricated magic system much thought. Not saying that someone should or shouldn't expect the rules of Rowling's brand of magic to make sense to us, just that I don't remember any glaring examples of where the logic so was messed up as to detract from my overall enjoyment of the books.

That's okay, I wouldn't expect everyone to look for the same things I do. And really, to me the only part that detracts from my enjoyment is with the repeated retroactive deus ex machina I was citing. The rest of it is just my habitual nitpicking.

You know, I like to think of myself a person who pays attention to detail but I find that as I get older, the more forgiving I get about the wand thing you were detailing above as long as the narrative is strong and I enjoy the characters.

For instance, there are quite a few questions I still have about Lost and the ending was only partially successful in my eyes because there appear to be some unresolved issues that were never explained (like Desmond's vision of Claire getting on the chopper), and yet, I find that I still loved the show overall, enjoyed the characters and when they are reunited in the end, I'm right there in tears with the characters.

That being said, I can certainly understand being frustrated by what appears to be a pretty unlikely scenario with the wands. I'm planning on rereading the series before the last movie comes out so I'll have to keep an eye out for the wand problem you guys have been discussing, see if I notice it this time now that I've been made aware of it.