Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2: Discussion

[Clockworthy]

I've yet to see it, but did they keep Dumbledore asking "After all this time?"
& I sort of can't wait to see Bella and Voldemort "pixelate" and die.

[HMN]

I think it just hit me what I think the film was missing - it was the crucial decision for Harry to go after Hallows or Horcruxes. There wasn't even a discussion about it between the trio. Olivander explains it for the audience but there is no debate, no coming to the conclusion that Dumbledore had a task for him and Harry would have to turn his back on the temptation of the Hallows.

I expected Harry to let Ron and Hermione know that he realized the stone was in the Snitch and that they had 2 of the 3 and that Voldie had the last one.

It was supposed to be a quest! Ok, I can get past everything else I've posted, but this idea of a quest and making the right decision - that was key to the book.

[Reid]

Movie was awesome. I got chills when the started putting up the defenses.

Was anybody else really creeped out when Voldy's and Harry's faces merged while they were flying around?

[phoenix88]

Originally Posted by Carne

The more I think about it, the more I'm disappointed by the battle. I liked pretty much everything else, but they should have shown some shots of the students/teachers fighting, not just the trio and some extras. The buildup was so good. The statues coming to life, the huge hordes of Death Eaters etc. It gave the impression that this was going to be big, yet it utterly failed to do that.

Yes, I have been thinking about that more this morning as well. I think it was the previews that spoiled it. They took the best scenes there and made the battle look epic, but there was actually not much footage of it at all. The buildup was fantastic, but the actual battle itself fell short. They really should have showed more of the order and the students dueling it out with the death eaters. In the book there was so much more (i.e. the students using their patronus, trelawney throwing the crystal balls, etc. )

I am not sure why, but it did feel rushed to me. It's hard to judge from just one viewing but I felt the pacing of part 1 was the best. From gringotts on it was all such a blur. Then again, it is a battle and maybe that was the feel they were going for. I guess as a fan I just always want more

[Montse]

I sae it yesterday, I think it was awesome. I can t elaborate cause I am supposed to be working, and I dont have internet at home,but all I will say is I LOVED most of it. I really did.

[HMN]

Originally Posted by phoenix88

I am not sure why, but it did feel rushed to me. It's hard to judge from just one viewing but I felt the pacing of part 1 was the best. From gringotts on it was all such a blur. Then again, it is a battle and maybe that was the feel they were going for. I guess as a fan I just always want more

I think the only thing that showed a time frame was when Aberforth set down food and Ron and Hermione started eating it like they hadn't eaten in days.

[sev_snapegirl]

I saw it last night a.k.a this morning at midnight. I was amazing!! It followed the book so well. I was crying so much as soon as they showed snape and the people next to me were also crying their eyes out as soon as he was killed. When he said "you have your mothers eyes" to Harry, is when it really hit me...

[Horcri7]

Did anyone else think it was amazing that when Harry came into the Room of Requirement that Hedwig's theme started playing? I thought that was brilliant!

[HMN]

Originally Posted by Dobson from the Review thread

-After Voldy is killed, it goes from the empty courtyard with Harry to normal chatter in the Great Hall. It makes you wonder...did Harry tell them what he had just done? I had worried about this months back, and convinced myself it would be fine. But it wasn't.

Thanks for putting that into words. I remember thinking - how are they all going to know he's dead??? Where was the capture/retreating of the Death Eaters? The announcement that Kingsley was new minister. There was no celebration for the death of the most powerful and evil wizard of their time.

[Bombshelter]

I honestly disagree with a lot of the nitpicks by the fans.

King's Cross was fine. The whole look of it was open to interpretation in the books so even though it doesn't look like my mental image, I still liked it, and I thought they did the piece of Voldemorts soul justice, even if it was basically a bloody version of Voldy's fetal form from GOF.

The Harry and Voldemort battle. It was suitably cinematic in a way that the book version of their duel wasn't. I was fine with Voldy dissolving as well. He is so infused with dark magic that it makes sense for his body to disintegrate. Plus, it looked cool.

The aftermath at Hogwarts. It doesn't make sense for people to be all jubilant when they've just seen friends and loved ones die. I mean think about it. Would you really be cheering and partying? That would just be totally unrealistic. I thought the scene of Harry walking through the great hall, just seeing everyone at peace was a great way of saying goodbye to the supporting cast. And I don't get why Harry breaking the elder wand is such a big deal, it actually makes more sense then him just returning it to Dumbledore's tomb intact, and yeah it would have been nice if he had repaired his wand, but it's not a big deal.

[ronjalina]

Originally Posted by HMN

Thanks for putting that into words. I remember thinking - how are they all going to know he's dead??? Where was the capture/retreating of the Death Eaters? The announcement that Kingsley was new minister. There was no celebration for the death of the most powerful and evil wizard of their time.

I think the DEs pretty much all fled when they realized that Harry wasn't dead. They saw that their powerful master failed at killing Harry for the second time and knew the cause was lost. At least that's how I interpreted the scene.

I actually don't mind that we didn't see them celebrating Voldemort's demise. While understandable, I always found this scene a bit cheesy in the book. They are all exhausted. Some of them are injured, others mourn dead family and friends. I feel a loud celebration might have been inappropriate? I don't know. I think Yates deciding to show a calmer scene in the Great Hall just works fine. And in that context it's not even important if they already knew Voldemort was dead or when and how they learnt it. JMO.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Horcri7

Did anyone else think it was amazing that when Harry came into the Room of Requirement that Hedwig's theme started playing? I thought that was brilliant!

I enjoyed this connection between Harry's return to Hogwarts and his first journey to Hogwarts in SS/PS. It was very nostalgic and fitting, though the music was perhaps a little too blaring to be truly incorporated into that scene. I felt that the concentration of that scene was the score, not the film.

Originally Posted by HMN

I remember thinking - how are they all going to know he's dead??? Where was the capture/retreating of the Death Eaters? The announcement that Kingsley was new minister. There was no celebration for the death of the most powerful and evil wizard of their time.

I agree. In a way, I enjoyed the one-on-one battle between Harry and Voldemort; the two wizards that were connected to each other by the most extreme bounds of magic, facing off without any distractions. However, I prefer the book version with a crowd surrounding. It adds much more to the scope of the battle. As Ron says in Part 1, the entire war is a lot bigger than just Harry, it affects many more than just Harry and Voldemort. And showing Harry and Voldemort surrounded by the characters of good and evil (and, perhaps, actually showing all the evil being routed by the good!) would have made their duel much more poignant, in my opinion. Also, I think it would have provided much more closure for Voldemort's death and the sufferings of the Hogwartians. Instead, Voldemort's death is unwitnessed and (to me, irritatingly) uncelebrated.

The book itself was quite abrupt with the news after Voldemort's defeat: we learn a couple of bits of information (i.e. Kingsley's election as temporary Minister, the roundup of the fleeing Death Eaters, etc.) followed by Harry's discussion with Dumbledore's portrait (and I did not mind substituting this with a moment reserved just for Harry, Ron, and Hermione). Given the information JKR released post-book release, I expected the film to expound upon the celebration and enlightenment caused by Voldemort's defeat.

[LumosSempra]

For all of you who are complaining that the movie felt "rushed"? What should the filmmakers have done? Extended it to be 4 hours long?

[Pyrophoric]

Originally Posted by LumosSempra

For all of you who are complaining that the movie felt "rushed"? What should the filmmakers have done? Extended it to be 4 hours long?

Technically, it was over 4 hours long. It did not feel rushed to me but they did lack key moments over both films that would have only added minimal length overall.

[phoenix88]

[quote=danno;5773916WHERE WAS WORMTAIL!?!?!?!?!?!?

- Easily, that was what I disliked most about this movie. They didn't even have to kill him off, just show him in the background of a scene! Because now it implies that Wormtail did in fact die at Malfoy's Manor, which is a load of poopoo as it is leaving it as Dobby kills him. But no I refuse to accept this as it implies that Dobby basically murdered him with a shot to the back, and not 2 minutes later contradicts that when he says something along the lines "never kill! Maim, hurt, but Dobby never kills!" So as far as I'm concerned movie Wormtail was never killed. I know this probably sounds silly but this really is my least favorite part of the movie.
QUOTE]

Wow, I completely forgot about that. You are right. There was no wormtail at all.

[LumosSempra]

Originally Posted by Pyrophoric

Technically, it was over 4 hours long. It did not feel rushed to me but they did lack key moments over both films that would have only added minimal length overall.

I was talking about Part 2, not both parts put together. I remember when the first part came out, people were complaining that the pacing was "soooo slow, all they did was go camping!" Jeez, it seems that the filmmakers can never get it right!

[HMN]

Originally Posted by ronjalina

I think the DEs pretty much all fled when they realized that Harry wasn't dead. They saw that their powerful master failed at killing Harry for the second time and knew the cause was lost. At least that's how I interpreted the scene.

Good point, I must have forgotten about that - the vast majority did flee, there were a few still fighting inside though.

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

I agree. In a way, I enjoyed the one-on-one battle between Harry and Voldemort; the two wizards that were connected to each other by the most extreme bounds of magic, facing off without any distractions. However, I prefer the book version with a crowd surrounding. It adds much more to the scope of the battle. As Ron says in Part 1, the entire war is a lot bigger than just Harry, it affects many more than just Harry and Voldemort.

I did like the one on one scene, and I do like the scene back in Hogwarts when Harry is walking through the survivors. I'm thinking I would have expected a few people to have wandered out of the castle, perhaps with some captured DE's to have witnessed the final death. I mean the whole wizarding world was living in fear of this man's presence, I think there would be some intrest in seeing it finish for yourself.

[phoenix88]

Originally Posted by LumosSempra

For all of you who are complaining that the movie felt "rushed"? What should the filmmakers have done? Extended it to be 4 hours long?

I think it is because I saw part 1 and 2 back to back. Part 1 had such great character development and really spent time on the story. With part 2, the battle sequences were so fast and at time it was choppy. It started out fine with shell cottage, but after that it was just a blur. Still, I think I have to see it again to really make an assessment about pacing. I just left there wanting more, but that's always how it was for me with all the films except for part 1.
That was just my first impression. I was happy to get the prince's tale and the grey lady. Those scenes definitely did not feel rushed and did the story justice.

Originally Posted by LumosSempra

I was talking about Part 2, not both parts put together. I remember when the first part came out, people were complaining that the pacing was "soooo slow, all they did was go camping!" Jeez, it seems that the filmmakers can never get it right!

The funny thing is that I thought part 1 was perfect, but it is probably because I am such a fan of the book. I do remember my friends who had not read the books complaining that it was slow but I loved it and still do.

[mille272]

Originally Posted by LumosSempra

For all of you who are complaining that the movie felt "rushed"? What should the filmmakers have done? Extended it to be 4 hours long?

Yes. I would be stoked for a 5-6 hour movie as long as it was done the right way.

[LumosSempra]

Originally Posted by phoenix88

I think it is because I saw part 1 and 2 back to back. Part 1 had such great character development and really spent time on the story. With part 2, the battle sequences were so fast and at time it was choppy. It started out fine with shell cottage, but after that it was just a blur. Still, I think I have to see it again to really make an assessment about pacing. I just left there wanting more, but that's always how it was for me with all the films except for part 1.
That was just my first impression. I was happy to get the prince's tale and the grey lady. Those scenes definitely did not feel rushed and did the story justice.

I saw part 1 and 2 back to back as well and I didn't feel like it was rushed at all. I do agree that it felt choppy with the endless battle scenes, but that was the point. It was supposed to be a strictly action-packed film, in contrast to the quietness of part 1. I think they contrasted each other quite nicely.

Originally Posted by mille272

Yes. I would be stoked for a 5-6 hour movie as long as it was done the right way.

I don't think the movies would have made quite as much money if that had been the case. It's just not realistic to make a 6 hour movie. {staff edit - rude}