From: bleablah@mume.invalid   
      
   VD explained :   
   > On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:03:25 -0400, Chan Welbourne wrote:   
      
   >> VD brought next idea :   
   >>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:49:32 -0400, Chan Welbourne wrote:   
   >>>> VD pretended :   
   >>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:35:52 -0400, Sirius Black wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:29:39 -0400, VD wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:06:22 -0700 (PDT), Benjamin Esham wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> * I felt much more nostalgic for the SS/PS days at the end of this   
   >>>>>>>> movie   than I did at the end of the book. I think it's because the   
   >>>>>>>> epilogue  in   the book is given from Harry's perspective, and so we   
   >>>>>>>> mostly see  how  he's   changed, while the movie still shows pretty   
   >>>>>>>> much the same  scene we  had in   the very first movie. It's easy to   
   >>>>>>>> mentally replace  that  long-haired kid   with 11-year-old Daniel   
   >>>>>>>> Radcliffe--and not least  because  of the music!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Did you notice how Harry put Albus and Rose on the train to Hogwarts   
   >>>>>>> beginning again the sequence of the Albus "white" Rose (Rosicrucian)   
   >>>>>>> initiation...the seekers journey?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Food for thought ;)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There you go all Christian and religio on us. lol Bannister will have   
   >>>>>> an atheistic hissy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I am positive Mr. Bannister will be fine. ;>)   
   >>>>> Following the alchemical structure isn't a Christian effort. It's a   
   >>>>> liturgical one, the alchemical story can be allegorically ensnared in   
   >>>>> any belief set as long as that set follows the seeker's   
   >>>>> transfiguration of his soul.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It's not my fault Ms. Rowling is an ascribed Christian. ;)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You can't miss the alchemical approach and yopu can't miss the film's   
   >>>> use of sequences from the earlier films either. Nice cohesiveness, I   
   >>>> enjoyed this.   
   >>   
   >>> Ring Composition:   
   >>   
   >>> 1) the Potter series and each novel have beginnings and ends that meet   
   >>> up.   
   >>   
   >>> 2) the books are centered; i.e. they return to the question raised in   
   >>> the beginning and answer that question in the end.   
   >>> 3) each book  has its mirrored image or “reverse   
   >>> echo” in the book or chapter on the opposite side of the story divide.   
   >>> ABC|D|CBA   
   >>   
   >>> Ms. Rowling follows very closely the lead of other alchemical writers;   
   >>> ring composition is yet another proof of Ms. Rowling's alchemical   
   >>> approach.   
   >>   
   >> HP is a much different animal that "Lord" but you probably don’t want a   
   >> course in alchemical literature and ring composition, so I’ll leave it   
   >> at that, since this is a post about the movie, not the books. :D   
      
   > If you imply that Yates et al were not concerned with the alchemical   
   > translations of the book to the movie. I simply don't know. I do not   
   > see any overt signs that the movie desires to stick closely to the   
   > literary alchemy, the movie is an adaptation after all.   
      
   > Yet, in the end all, DH2 does in many ways keep still to the   
   > alchemical (and Christian) underpinnings which isn't hard to explain.   
   > The book was the original draft of the screen write. ;)   
      
   I got no sense that DH Two or any of the movies much cared about the   
   alchemical symbology but I do think that Warner or someone understood   
   enough of the ring composition of the series to slap in those parallels   
   to prior movies.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)