From: wilforddumont@gmail.net   
      
   On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:22:11 -0400, Chan Welbourne wrote:   
      
   > 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 donÿt want a   
   >>> course in alchemical literature and ring composition, so Iÿll 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.   
      
   Or they wanted to tie to the sympathies of the loyal following.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)