Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Open Discussion

[PotterGurl08]

Originally Posted by NumberEight

I think it's a nice touch because magic seems to make life too easy.

I'm late on this, but I agree with you.

The HP world is so magical that it almost always seems that there is an easier way to do things. I think that is one of the problems JKR created for herself by making the wizarding world so fascinating. At times, it seems like she has to purposely make sure things aren't too convenient for the characters.

I'm reading POA again now. And one thought that came to me is how it's funny that the time-turner is only used in POA. The time-turner was used to prevent Buckbeak from being executed...Could it have not been used to prevent/change other things from happening?
I haven't finished rereading it yet, so some things are fuzzy...But is there a point where Hermione actually warns that some wizards who meddled with time too much actually went crazy or got themselves in trouble? I guess this had to be the justification for them not using the time-turner to fix everything.

I just sometimes find it funny that Hermione was allowed to have a time-turner just so she could overload on classes (and then tipped off to save Buckbeak), but under the extreme circumstances in DH, the trio wasn't given one to use for emergency purposes, or Dumbledore didn't state in his will that they were to have one...

Again, I think it is an attempt to not let magic make everything too easy!

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by PotterGurl08

I'm late on this, but I agree with you.

The HP world is so magical that it almost always seems that there is an easier way to do things. I think that is one of the problems JKR created for herself by making the wizarding world so fascinating. At times, it seems like she has to purposely make sure things aren't too convenient for the characters.

I'm reading POA again now. And one thought that came to me is how it's funny that the time-turner is only used in POA. The time-turner was used to prevent Buckbeak from being executed...Could it have not been used to prevent/change other things from happening?
I haven't finished rereading it yet, so some things are fuzzy...But is there a point where Hermione actually warns that some wizards who meddled with time too much actually went crazy or got themselves in trouble? I guess this had to be the justification for them not using the time-turner to fix everything.

I just sometimes find it funny that Hermione was allowed to have a time-turner just so she could overload on classes (and then tipped off to save Buckbeak), but under the extreme circumstances in DH, the trio wasn't given one to use for emergency purposes, or Dumbledore didn't state in his will that they were to have one...

Again, I think it is an attempt to not let magic make everything too easy!

Magic in JK Rowling's universe has it's laws, it's limitations, it's rules and it's methods and procedures. She never presented magic as being as simple as waving around a wand and doing whatever you want effortlessly. That's what's great about HP. The films have kinda lost this so I agree with NumberEight when it comes to the film verse. It's too complex for general audiences to care.

The time turner cannot be used to change anything. The only reason they were able to prevent Buckbeak's execution was because Dumbledore planned all along for them to do it so it was already set in stone. Dumbledore was headmaster and knew exactly when and where Buckbeak would be executed so was able to plan accordingly.

Besides, all the time turners were destroyed when Dumbledore's Army went to the Ministry in OOTP.

[PotterGurl08]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Magic in JK Rowling's universe has it's laws, it's limitations, it's rules and it's methods and procedures. She never presented magic as being as simple as waving around a wand and doing whatever you want effortlessly. That's what's great about HP. The films have kinda lost this so I agree with NumberEight when it comes to the film verse. It's too complex for general audiences to care.

The time turner cannot be used to change anything. The only reason they were able to prevent Buckbeak's execution was because Dumbledore planned all along for them to do it so it was already set in stone. Dumbledore was headmaster and knew exactly when and where Buckbeak would be executed so was able to plan accordingly.

Besides, all the time turners were destroyed when Dumbledore's Army went to the Ministry in OOTP.

Ahh. Details I completely forgot. Thanks for this!

Yes, I know magic has its limits. I think this was a way to purposely not make things to easy and convenient all the time.

[Fury]

Saw Part 1 again!!!!

Just as good the second time. Saw some stuff I missed, like Ron's quote "One of them was probably part-troll, the smell of him" when referring to a Snatcher.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by Fury

Saw Part 1 again!!!!

Just as good the second time. Saw some stuff I missed, like Ron's quote "One of them was probably part-troll, the smell of him" when referring to a Snatcher.

Oh, I thought he was saying, "one was definitely parched by the smell of him" as in drunk.

[OhNo]

No one replied to me before!!

Forest of Dean??? How did Snape know how to find them?? What are the current theories??

[SteveStarkill]

Originally Posted by OhNo

No one replied to me before!!

Forest of Dean??? How did Snape know how to find them?? What are the current theories??

I think we'll find out that Harry's mirror is in 3 pieces and that Snape has the 3rd piece.

[BurrowGhoul]

Originally Posted by SteveStarkill

I think we'll find out that Harry's mirror is in 3 pieces and that Snape has the 3rd piece.

And I think Dumbledore's picture on the book is tied to his portrait in the Headmaster's study.

[decarus]

Originally Posted by OhNo

No one replied to me before!!

Forest of Dean??? How did Snape know how to find them?? What are the current theories??

I think Snape may just somehow have a connection to the mirror and not that it is in three pieces. Though i guess that is possible.

[merry18]

Originally Posted by BurrowGhoul

And I think Dumbledore's picture on the book is tied to his portrait in the Headmaster's study.

Hmmm...that's interesting. Not in any way canon, but with the exclusion of dear Phinellus in the films this seems like the easiest/most viable way to explain how Snape knew where to find them. And hey! It would also answer my question about why Harry sees Dumbledore in his shard of mirror and someone completely different (Aberforth - when Harry looked in the mirror in Malfoy Manor this actor looked nothing like Gambon) another time he looks in his mirror. I actually really like this theory.


This is such a small detail to feel irked about, but when I saw the movie again for the third time I could not get over how it sometimes looked like Harry was wearing glasses frames without any lenses in them.

[GryffinChaser]

Originally Posted by merry18

This is such a small detail to feel irked about, but when I saw the movie again for the third time I could not get over how it sometimes looked like Harry was wearing glasses frames without any lenses in them.

They actually use two pairs of glasses, one with lenses and one without.
Without is so there's not a glare when filming certain shots.

[gabriele87]

Originally Posted by OhNo

No one replied to me before!!

Forest of Dean??? How did Snape know how to find them?? What are the current theories??

It was discussed a few pages prior to your comment.

[merry18]

Originally Posted by GryffinChaser

They actually use two pairs of glasses, one with lenses and one without.
Without is so there's not a glare when filming certain shots.

I figured that might be the case, but it was kind of...annoyingly obvious. It took me out of the movie a little once I noticed it.

[Bucc]

Originally Posted by merry18

I figured that might be the case, but it was kind of...annoyingly obvious. It took me out of the movie a little once I noticed it.

Except they have done that in all 7 movies.

[merry18]

This was the first time it was so obvious that it kind of bothered me. But that could be because I'm so used to being dissatisfied with the movies and finding things to pick on and there were so little complaints I had about DH1 that little details bothered me more than they should.

[darklordspal]

Originally Posted by GingerCat1

All that is saying is that Harry hates Snape more than he loves Ginny. Of course in the movies i think Harry would love herpes more than he loves Ginny.

All right, I shouldn't have laughed at that...but I did.

Having a little experience on stage, I can tell you that I don't think that the actors playing Harry and Ginny are actually kissing. It looks like what I learned as a "cheek kiss" or a "chin kiss", where you line up to look like you are actually kissing someone but really aren't...at least not directly. I just find it interesting that, after paying someone what I expect are millions of dollars, you can't get them to shoot a scene kissing one another.

Oh well, I guess it's true that you can't buy love...

[Erin6]

Originally Posted by darklordspal

All right, I shouldn't have laughed at that...but I did.

Having a little experience on stage, I can tell you that I don't think that the actors playing Dan and Ginny are actually kissing. It looks like what I learned as a "cheek kiss" or a "chin kiss", where you line up to look like you are actually kissing someone but really aren't...at least not directly. I just find it interesting that, after paying someone what I expect are millions of dollars, you can't get them to shoot a scene kissing one another.

Oh well, I guess it's true that you can't buy love...

LOL that's an interesting theory. I'm pretty sure they are kissing though. I mean we've seen them kiss. They did shoot the kitchen kiss from a weird angle though.

[darklordspal]

Originally Posted by Erin6

LOL that's an interesting theory. I'm pretty sure they are kissing though. I mean we've seen them kiss. They did shoot the kitchen kiss from a weird angle though.

That's the point that got me wondering, so I watched a little closer the second time when I went with my daughter. I really think they are not actually kissing, at least as lovers would. Just my humble opinion.

Also, even though it has been whipped to death, stuffed, and stood up in the corner, I want to say that I understand why they put the "dance" in DH1. They were trying to show that nothing happened between Harry and Hermione. When Hermione walks away and then later says "Don't ask me to cut your hair again" it was trying to show the non-reader audience that there was no romance between Harry and Hermione.

I don't particularly like how it was done, especially since I spent so much time defending R\Hr in the shipping wars. But...the fact that they have Hermione walk away allows me to forgive them just as some forgave Ron after he came back.

So...I say that its alright, Kloves, Yates, Dan, Emma. It hurt for awhile. But I'll cope and move on. We shippers aren't anything if not forgiving.

[captain_mills]

It's probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it:

Have they completely removed the "expeliarmus" popularity of Harry's from the story? This could make the ending more dramatic!

Thanks
CM

[GryffinChaser]

Originally Posted by captain_mills

It's probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it:

Have they completely removed the "expeliarmus" popularity of Harry's from the story? This could make the ending more dramatic!

Thanks
CM

From what I can tell I believe so. Since they changed the chase in the beginning with how they found the real Harry from Harry using "Expeliarmus" to Hedwig protecting him there was no need to touch upon his favoritism of the basic spell.