• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

The woman who was supposedly trained by Voldemort himself and who has killed Tonks and Sirius, helped torture two aurors into insanity and taken down another (Shacklebolt) is killed by a housewife who was never once hinted at being a capable duelist.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

But she is a mother whose family - especially her children are threatened. She's demonstrated more than a passing ability as a witch. Put the two together , and the result of her killing Bellatrix doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. While yes, there hasn't been even a hint about her being good at dueling,there hasn't been anything that's proven she isn't.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

The whole "mother's love = powerful magic" motif is rather prominent in the series.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

Hound of UIster said:
The woman who was supposedly trained by Voldemort himself and who has killed Tonks and Sirius, helped torture two aurors into insanity and taken down another (Shacklebolt) is killed by a housewife who was never once hinted at being a capable duelist.
Click to expand...

But that's the whole point. Molly is an extremely powerful witch - as has been hinted at - yet she chose to keep her powers hidden or understated. It's the ultimate good vs. evil scenario. Just as Voldemort can be royally messed up for years by a baby (much of his motivation in the books and movies is simply a case of him trying to regain face ... pun only slightly unintended), we see Bellatrix getting so supremely overconfident that she's taken down by someone she'd least expect. It's really the bookend to her effectively having her ass handed to her by Dobby earlier on in the story.

On top of all that, the whole scenario also plays off the "Baby Harry was protected by love" aspect.

Alex
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

I agree with Hound of UIster. While I didn't mind it, it did cause me to role my eyes when I was reading (but much of Deathly Hallows had that effect). I mean, since Book 5, she had been all but spoiling the end of the book saying that Neville would be the one to take care of Bellatrix... kill or otherwise (hoping it would have been otherwise), but then again Rowling didn't seem to understand character arcs much at all.

Damn, upon reflection, these books were friggin' frustrating.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

flemm said:
MNM said:
That dance scene was the best scene in any of the HP movies. By a long way.
Click to expand...

Well, it's possible you may be somewhat biased on this particular point ;)

That said, I didn't mean awkward as in bad, at least not mainly. I just meant it felt odd, as if I were suddenly watching somebody's fan film.

It did almost feel as if the film were tacitly acknowledging that Ron's relationship with Hermione feels contrived. That struck me as surprising in a film like this, though I'm sure Harry/Hermione 'shippers rejoiced thoughout the land.
Click to expand...

FWIW, as somebody who's content with the way the shipping turned out I thought that scene was one of the best in the film too. I think the (good) awkwardness worked in its favor, actually.

SiorX said:
I'm having some quality nostalgia over here. :D

Since my HP ship was never going to be canon and got in nobody else's way, I really enjoyed watching the ship wars from the outside. Some of it got truly brutal though. (And the semicolon debate!)
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious...?

Anyway, I think in regards to the movies it would have helped had they cast a stronger Ginny and given her more to do. Nothing against Bonnie Wright, but she really doesn't seem to fit the character as I saw her and they cut away sooo much of her material. And the difference in chemistry between Radcliffe/Watson and Radcliffe/Wright is tangible.

CaptainCanada said:
The whole "mother's love = powerful magic" motif is rather prominent in the series.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

I suppose a problem for the shippers is also the major changes they made from the books to the screen. Hermione was made into a much stronger more active character while Ron was made into more of the "bumbling sidekick" role. In the books most of her stronger moments really belonged to Ron, who was more clearly portrayed as the better/closer friend of the two to Harry than her and was a braver/more dynamic character too.

A better casted Ginny wouldn't help, mainly because the problems with her and Harry's relationship were inherent to the text: most of her growth as a character happened off-screen where we never saw any of it and most of her time with Harry was also skipped over. At least with Cho there was some focus put on it, though some wouldn't mind him getting with Luna.

Me? I've been going over the "What if?" stories in my head for a while and the top one I get is "What if Ron was sorted in Slytherin?" to see how that would change the dynamics and relationships between everyone.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

A better-cast Ginny can't do anything but help. It wouldn't have solved the problem by itself since the majority of her material would've still been cut, but it would've been an improvement. If Castle's Molly Quinn wasn't American, she'd be fantastic as Ginny.

Anyway, the bigger problem of course is that they cut her material so drastically. I don't agree that all her stuff happened offscreen in the books - Book 5 especially gave Ginny some significant stuff to do, including a whole subplot (along with Ron) where she grows and proves herself with Quidditch. But it's the nature of having to turn those sprawling books into films that the secondary (especially the Secondary Trio of Neville, Ginny and Luna) got short shrift.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

well I just watched deathly hollows and my only real problem with the movie was that all most half of the film was really dark. and you could'nt really see anything going on.
I loved the fact that ron came back as a hero but everything leading into it was frustrating to see what was going on. as for the second trio of kids the grew as characters more than the main cast. Looking forward to part 2 I need to reread deathly hollows. part 2 comes out in what july?
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

Wait a minute...what's wrong with Bonnie Wright? I've no problem with her performance as Ginny (she's my favorite character in the books) and as Kestrel rightfully points out most of Ginny's material in the books has not made it into the films.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

It may be the writing, but she comes off as extremely dull. In the books, she has a rather fire-y spirit, but all of that is lost in the movies. And I don't think you can just chalk that up to having a small part and having a lot of scenes cut. She just simply doesn't have a great screen presence.

That's not entirely her fault. I mean, she was like 9, possibly 8 when she was cast for the role of Ginny (the bit role of Ginny, mind you). Who knows how you're going to develop as an actor at that age.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

It's definitely an understated performance, but I always thought the actress did a fine job with the role. There are bigger issues with the films than the performance of a very minor character.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

Samuel Walters said:
It's definitely an understated performance, but I always thought the actress did a fine job with the role. There are bigger issues with the films than the performance of a very minor character.
Click to expand...

Like the fact that she's a very minor character?

Nah, I hear you. But to tell you the truth, I find that both the films and the books are extremely flawed works. I think J.K. Rowling suffers from similar problems as Damon Lindeloff and Carlton Cuse, Chris Carter, and Tim Kring. They start off with some very good ideas, but then when they go to continue them or finish them, they tend to forget what made the ideas good in the first place. That can sum up my major problem with the last two books.

And on the side of the films, they are generally well acted and well written for the most part, but they suffered a lot from being started before J.K. Rowling started getting into the real meat of the story. They would have benefited greatly from starting the first movie like now so they could see the big picture.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

You're right about the inherent letdowns in a lot of these serial "epics". I'd toss Stephen (Dark Tower) King into that list, too. It's almost a Catch-22: the middle sections of the story need to develop into something bigger and more mysterious to keep readers interested ... but then the writers spend as much time keeping tending to the gargantuan plot developments as they once did focusing on the elements that made people interested to begin with. The end result is often something that many people find disappointing.

I think it'd make for an interesting study to see which long-arc stories had "successful" conclusions as compared to those that didn't (though, admittedly, I'm not sure how one might quantify such success).
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

And it's really frustrating because in many cases they come really close. Lost's finale was half of a strong finale, The X-Files could have been really successful with a season or two being combined. And Harry Potter just had a few problems that could have been solved quickly. Such as having the trio start at Hogwarts rather than not see it for nearly the entire book and then have it be unrecognizable when they get there. And of course get rid of the Deathly Hallows. The bane of every serial storyline ever is to introduce key items in the final act that will ultimately be the thing to save the day. That's just lazy writing.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

C_Miller said:
It may be the writing, but she comes off as extremely dull. In the books, she has a rather fire-y spirit, but all of that is lost in the movies. And I don't think you can just chalk that up to having a small part and having a lot of scenes cut. She just simply doesn't have a great screen presence.

That's not entirely her fault. I mean, she was like 9, possibly 8 when she was cast for the role of Ginny (the bit role of Ginny, mind you). Who knows how you're going to develop as an actor at that age.
Click to expand...

This is sorta how I feel, though I think it's more "understated" as Samuel Walters put it that "dull." Lacking the spark or fire that I expected from Ginny. I don't think anything's wrong with Bonnie Wright herself, I just don't think she was the right choice for Ginny, especially once it had been reduced to a bit role. I said upthread already, but see Castle's Molly Quinn.

But it is a minor point about a very minor character in the films, this is true.
 
Re: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART 2 (July 2011): News, e

Wow. That trailer has one huge freaking spoiler in it. Namely:
Fred Weasley's death.
How the heck did they let that one slip?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top