From: bdesham@gmail.com   
      
   Sky Rider wrote:   
      
   > Benjamin Esham wrote:   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > > This may be a dumb question... in Gringotts, when the goblin   
   > > receptionist asks Hermione-as-Bellatrix for her wand... wasn't it just   
   > > stated that the trio has Bellatrix's wand? What's the problem with   
   > > presenting it for inspection?   
   >   
   > Shouldn't have been a problem. It was covered neatly in the book...  they   
   > just fudged it here (as they did with so many of the themes).   
      
   Grumble grumble...   
      
   > > It seems like the trio got to Hogwarts *really* early on in this movie.   
   > > I guess that makes sense--most of the action in the second half of the   
   > > book takes place there, and it's difficult to compress that material.   
   > > Was there really that little that happened between Gringotts and   
   > > Hogsmeade/Hogwarts in the book?   
   >   
   > Yes! They left the bank on the dragon... dropped into the lake... and once   
   > Harry had realised Voldemort was aware he was hunting Horcruxes he   
   > immediately took the others to Hogsmeade.   
      
   OK. I guess the timing seemed off because this is the second half--if this   
   had been a standalone movie the pacing would have been strange indeed!   
      
   > > For the record, I cried when Snape died and then continued to cry for   
   > > about twenty minutes, until Harry gets killed. Boy, they did do justice   
   > > to the Snape/Lily backstory, and they did it well. *So* tragic.   
   >   
   > Except that in book Nagini killed Snape alone, taking him by surprise when   
   > he thought Voldemort hadn't attacked him. In the film Snape suffered a   
   > serious neck wound from Voldemort even before Nagini attacked!   
      
   It still bothers me that Voldemort didn't just AK Snape outright like he had   
   done with *every single other enemy*--but that isn't the producers' faults   
   -)   
      
   Actually, now that I think of it--did Voldemort intentionally not use the   
   Elder Wand on Snape because he feared that Snape was its master and that the   
   wand wouldn't work against him? That makes his use of Nagini seem logical   
   again. (Not that I would have been able to figure that out had I not read   
   the book!)   
      
   > > Conversely, we got almost nothing in the way of Dumbledore's backstory.   
   > > I guess it wasn't completely essential to the plot after all, but it   
   > > does leave some unanswered questions from the DH Part 1 movie, like why   
   > > Dumbledore signed his name with the DH symbol and why Grindelwald was in   
   > > the picture at all. Aberforth kicked ass in the movie though.   
   >   
   > That part was one of the things that frustrated me the most with the two   
   > films. There were a number of back stories that might seem unimportant as   
   > far as the 'action; was concerned but they were essential in telling the   
   > entire story.   
      
   It's when I start thinking about all of the backstories that I have to   
   remind myself that the books are canon and that the movies are just   
   adaptations--they don't make as compelling a story as the books do, but that   
   doesn't bother me as long as I view the movies as something more like eye   
   candy than a great story told through film. They're fun to watch, and that's   
   fine for me; *I* still know what happened in the books, and that detailed,   
   intricate story isn't affected by the films.   
      
   Though don't get me wrong, I definitely love to complain about all the   
   things they changed and left out ;-)   
      
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > It was also important to make it clear that Dumbledore *wasn't* some sort   
   > of prefect omniscient being but flawed as we all are.   
      
   It bothered me that the movies showed the slander of Dumbledore but not the   
   partially-redeeming apologia we got in the book. The audience saw Rita   
   Skeeter's book and heard Ron's great-aunt (?) babbling on about Dumbledore,   
   but they never got any explanation of whether these statements were true or   
   false! I'd rather they had left all of the DD stuff out of these movies   
   instead of introducing complaints against him but *never resolving them*. As   
   far as I can remember, not even the scene with Aberforth really communicated   
   Albus's dabbling in the dark arts, his love for Grindelwald, or the agony he   
   felt after his sister's death.   
      
   > As with the other films, the story was sacrificed to keep the action   
   > flowing!   
      
   Going into this movie I thought, "wow, they left a ton of backstory out of   
   the last movie, they'll have to put a bunch in this one!" Shows you what I   
   know...   
      
   > > Neville also kicked ass, and I guess Neville/Luna shippers finally got   
   > > what they wanted (?).   
   >   
   > Except we *know* Neville became Professor of Herbology at Hogwarts,   
   > married Susan Bones, and together they took over running of the Leakey   
   > Cauldron! Also that Luna married Newt Scamaders grandson and became famous   
   > in her own right! Gawd... !!   
      
   I guess the producers wanted all of the recognizable characters to pair off   
   at the end. This is understandable--but didn't JKR intentionally *not* pair   
   people up like that because she thought it would be too predictable and   
   implausible?   
      
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > > The final Harry-Voldemort duel--yes, the climax of the entire film   
   > > series--was a bit disappointing. In the book, I recall that Harry and V   
   > > were facing each other with wands, circling around as Harry gave some of   
   > > the Elder Wand backstory, and that there was a crowd assembled to watch.   
   > > (All of the fighting had been halted at that point.) In the movie,   
   > > though, they are alone when this happens, and after Voldemort   
   > > disintegrates (...why?) Harry just walks back inside and everyone just   
   > > kind of looks at him.   
   >   
   > That fight was such a let-down. Even the part where Voldemort vanishes was   
   > just *wrong*. We *needed* his body there to prove he was dead and that it   
   > *was* finally over!   
      
   Yes! As someone pointed out in another thread, it was a significant point   
   that by the time Harry finished him off, Voldemort was just a human being.   
   That was the point of destroying all of those Horcruxes. So why didn't he   
   die like any other human being would have? I think this is one of the places   
   where the desire for special effects and drama has bulldozed any   
   considerations of plot coherence.   
      
   > The fight with Molly and Bellatrix was over way too fast as well and there   
   > was no sign of the skills she's accumulated from years of practicing with   
   > her brothers). It might have been nice to have been given enough   
   > information for people to understand who she was, what she was doing   
   > there, and how such an odd person could have been able to defeat   
   > Voldemort's second in command!   
      
   Yeah. As I recall from the movie, Molly was at Hogwarts right at the   
   beginning of the battle, before anyone else from the Order--was that the   
   case in the book?   
      
   > [snip]   
   >   
   > > What the hell happened to Wormtail? Was he shown at all in this movie?   
   > > He was supposed to be strangled by his own silver hand after a moment of   
   > > indecision at helping the trio. Rather a significant character to leave   
   > > out, I thought.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)