Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2: Discussion

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by Noldus

There was no resolution on the hallows and what it meant to be "master of death", which renders the set-up in part 1 useless. A more suitable title would be "Harry Potter and the Elder Wand: Part 2".

However, I’d preferred a less convenient and confusing twist than Harry gaining the allegiance of the Elder Wand by taking Draco’s wand. My suggestion is to have Harry and Voldemort crawl towards the Elder Wand after their "skydiving" around Hogwarts and have Harry reach it first. That would show that he gained its allegiance without reverting to any unnecessary dialogue afterwards. What Kloves did was merely to downplay the importance of the twist by revealing it after the fact, making it unnecessary instead because what we saw was that the destruction of the horcruxes weakened Voldemort and led to Harry overpowering him. That's an option that would have been better too. Another one is that Harry became the true master of death by sacrificing himself and thus gained the allegiance of the wand.

harry potter and the elder wand was actually the first working title of the seventh book, and i think your twist with harry getting to the wand first would be less confusing yes, but are you suggesting he never took dracos wand at all and gains control of the elder wand by picking it up and then what he fires a killing curse at voldermort to kill him or voldermort picks up the wand harry was using (which i presume wouldnt be dracos as you said he gained allegiance to the elder wand by crawling to it first not by taking dracos) and as it was they both fire the spells harry overpowers him

[Apheka]

I've just been to my 3rd viewing of DH2 and it just gets better. It's been downgraded to a smaller theatre at the multiplex and I found it easier to watch and listen to. After reading a lot of the comments here, I looked for things I had missed before and found all.

As for Voldemorte flaking off into nothing, it isn't stupid really because of the way he came back to life, Harry's blood, Wormtail's flesh, his dead father's bone so he wasn't really fully human. He was glued together in a human fashion.

And Bellatrix, it looked to me like Molly had turned her to stone with a curse then blasted her to pieces.

Harry's wand not being fixed has bothered everyone but would he really like the wand that had shared a history with Voldemorte's wand?

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by Apheka

As for Voldemorte flaking off into nothing, it isn't stupid really because of the way he came back to life, Harry's blood, Wormtail's flesh, his dead father's bone so he wasn't really fully human. He was glued together in a human fashion.

That's a very good way to look at it.

And Bellatrix, it looked to me like Molly had turned her to stone with a curse then blasted her to pieces.

That's what I thought!

Harry's wand not being fixed has bothered everyone but would he really like the wand that had shared a history with Voldemorte's wand?

It didn't bother me. And I would bet good money that the audience would have forgotten his wand was broken in DH1 anyway. To me that's a book detail that wasn't needed in the film narrative. The audience have just seen Film Harry finally defeat his nemesis, in a fairly satisfying manner, and now they see Film Harry reject the power of the Elder Wand forever. It's a very powerful moment, very well done. It would have disturbed the cinematic flow to show Harry mending his own wand just before he consigned the Elder Wand into the abyss.

I'm confident Film Harry can now procure for himself a nice new wand. He's just saved the world, after all!

[silver ink pot]

I actually like it that Harry breaks the Elder Wand with his bare hands.

I think in the book JKR didn't want it destroyed because she wanted the Hallows to go on into the future, and there's a certain amount of fondness for famous magical objects. Also, I think she wanted The Tale of the Three Brothers to be played out in generation after generation to keep Beedle the Bard relevant.

But it becomes clear in the movie that Harry is trying to destroy all these things associated with Dark Magic, and since the Elder Wand has nothing to do with love and happiness, but only power, it seems more logical to me that he would destroy it.

He could have buried it again with Dumbledore, but WB didn't want a scene like that, or he could have passed it down to his children, but that wouldn't be a good thing after watching Voldemort kill people with it in cold blood.

In the book, it's important for Harry's Phoenix Wand to be repaired. In the movie, Ollivander says at the beginning that Draco's hawthorn wand has changed loyalty to Harry. So that's the way they went with it, and it makes sense in the movie plot. Draco and his father are both disarmed and have to start all over with new wands.

In the book, JKR wanted that scene with Dumbledore's portrait looking down on Harry in the Headmaster's Office. But without the interaction between Snape and Dumbledore's portrait, there's no reason to go there, plus it would take away from the Pensieve scene which is so powerful (and the audience would wonder why they didn't see Dumbledore's portrait in that scene - one more thing to explain).

And finally, if Harry went back to the Headmaster's Office, WB would have to decide whether to show Snape's portrait or not, and I think that's a debate they didn't want to have with JKR. The audience might expect the portrait to be there (just as many of us expected it when reading the book for the first time), but the author might not want it there. Keeping Harry out of the Headmaster's Office avoided that plotline altogether and Albus Severus becomes the way that Snape is remembered.

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

I actually like it that Harry breaks the Elder Wand with his bare hands.

I think in the book JKR didn't want it destroyed because she wanted the Hallows to go on into the future, and there's a certain amount of fondness for famous magical objects. Also, I think she wanted The Tale of the Three Brothers to be played out in generation after generation to keep Beedle the Bard relevant.

But it becomes clear in the movie that Harry is trying to destroy all these things associated with Dark Magic, and since the Elder Wand has nothing to do with love and happiness, but only power, it seems more logical to me that he would destroy it.

He could have buried it again with Dumbledore, but WB didn't want a scene like that, or he could have passed it down to his children, but that wouldn't be a good thing after watching Voldemort kill people with it in cold blood.

In the book, it's important for Harry's Phoenix Wand to be repaired. In the movie, Ollivander says at the beginning that Draco's hawthorn wand has changed loyalty to Harry. So that's the way they went with it, and it makes sense in the movie plot. Draco and his father are both disarmed and have to start all over with new wands.

In the book, JKR wanted that scene with Dumbledore's portrait looking down on Harry in the Headmaster's Office. But without the interaction between Snape and Dumbledore's portrait, there's no reason to go there, plus it would take away from the Pensieve scene which is so powerful (and the audience would wonder why they didn't see Dumbledore's portrait in that scene - one more thing to explain).

And finally, if Harry went back to the Headmaster's Office, WB would have to decide whether to show Snape's portrait or not, and I think that's a debate they didn't want to have with JKR. The audience might expect the portrait to be there (just as many of us expected it when reading the book for the first time), but the author might not want it there. Keeping Harry out of the Headmaster's Office avoided that plotline altogether and Albus Severus becomes the way that Snape is remembered.

yes i agree harry destroying the elder wand is very relivant in the film and i quite preferred this, but was wondering when you say the pensieve scene do you mean the princes tale when snape is with dumbledore in his office?

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by rogue_bludger

yes i agree harry destroying the elder wand is very relivant in the film and i quite preferred this, but was wondering when you say the pensieve scene do you mean the princes tale when snape is with dumbledore in his office?

No, I mean after Snape's death when Harry goes into the Headmaster's Office and uses the Pensieve to watch Snape's memories.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but the fact is that if WB left out one thing, they had to leave out several other things.

When Snape is Headmaster at the beginning, we don't see him interact with Dumbledore's painting, even though in the book they talk together (which we see in Prince's Tale). Then when Harry goes into the office to look in the Pensieve, we don't see any of the Headmaster paintings. In the book it is explained that the occupants of the painting have run away to see all the action of the battle, but that's not explained in the movie - they just wanted to concentrate on Snape's memories in that scene, which works really well.

Therefore, it would have been awkward when Harry returned at the end to suddenly have Dumbledore's painting there all of a sudden, and having left it out earlier, they just didn't bother to include that scene.

[Potter_fan]

Originally Posted by Noldus

That's the consequence of keeping Bill and Fleur, which you supported

not necessarily...they could of added a few more scenes with Lupin and Tonks.. I.E. as stated before them showing up at Shell Cottage and asking Harry to be godfather

[magnolia7]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

I actually like it that Harry breaks the Elder Wand with his bare hands.

I think in the book JKR didn't want it destroyed because she wanted the Hallows to go on into the future, and there's a certain amount of fondness for famous magical objects. Also, I think she wanted The Tale of the Three Brothers to be played out in generation after generation to keep Beedle the Bard relevant.

But it becomes clear in the movie that Harry is trying to destroy all these things associated with Dark Magic, and since the Elder Wand has nothing to do with love and happiness, but only power, it seems more logical to me that he would destroy it.

He could have buried it again with Dumbledore, but WB didn't want a scene like that, or he could have passed it down to his children, but that wouldn't be a good thing after watching Voldemort kill people with it in cold blood.

In the book, it's important for Harry's Phoenix Wand to be repaired. In the movie, Ollivander says at the beginning that Draco's hawthorn wand has changed loyalty to Harry. So that's the way they went with it, and it makes sense in the movie plot. Draco and his father are both disarmed and have to start all over with new wands.

In the book, JKR wanted that scene with Dumbledore's portrait looking down on Harry in the Headmaster's Office. But without the interaction between Snape and Dumbledore's portrait, there's no reason to go there, plus it would take away from the Pensieve scene which is so powerful (and the audience would wonder why they didn't see Dumbledore's portrait in that scene - one more thing to explain).

And finally, if Harry went back to the Headmaster's Office, WB would have to decide whether to show Snape's portrait or not, and I think that's a debate they didn't want to have with JKR. The audience might expect the portrait to be there (just as many of us expected it when reading the book for the first time), but the author might not want it there. Keeping Harry out of the Headmaster's Office avoided that plotline altogether and Albus Severus becomes the way that Snape is remembered.

I thought it was a nice detail, but I just wish that Harry would have fix his own wand before breaking the elder wand.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Potter_fan

not necessarily...they could of added a few more scenes with Lupin and Tonks.. I.E. as stated before them showing up at Shell Cottage and asking Harry to be godfather

There is no point in introducing two extraneous characters when you can replace them with familiar faces. That time would be better spent on re-introducing Lupin and Fleur and developing them.

[decarus]

Originally Posted by jan74

Well, it´s all up to your own interpretation and interpretations of a film will always differ if the film doesn´t deliberately spoonfeed the audience or the film in itself is very simple. I don´t agree that a film always should be crystal clear, it´s a good thing when people need to use their brains or when people can discuss how they understood a particular scene.

The King´s cross scene would always be very difficult, because from a film point of view it will disrupt the pacing almost no matter what you do. It showed briefly and in a simplified way why Harry could come back, instead of turning it into a lengthy and convoluted explanation. (The book explanation would have been nothing short of disastrous in a film). When people believe that Snape was Harry´s father I think it only shows that either 1) they aren´t paying attention at all (Harry´s father was in a scene just before and Snape called Harry´s father a swine in the Prince´s tale etc) or 2) haven´t grasped what a patronus is, even if it has been shown and explained in several films quite extensively or 3) they´ve just made their own interpretation based on some kind of guesswork.

It´s true that they didn´t inject the feeling that Harry can do it and this was quite deliberate I believe. They wanted to keep some of the tension about the outcome.

It isn't that i think everything needs to be verbally stated in the film though there are things that need to be verbal. They can state things visually or emotionally. It is just that the things they did state verbally were done poorly in my opinion and so they needed to do that better. I actually don't think the explanation as to why Harry could come back in the book was all that complicated, but i do think that they could have done it simply in the film by stating that Harry could go back because the horcrux was the thing that was killed instead of him which they needed to say better.

And for me it seems to be no less of a leap to think Snape is Harry's father then to think that Harry could come back from the dead.

I think the biggest loss in the King's Cross scene was that Harry seemed like he didn't know what to do instead of saying that going back was the right thing to do. The pacing of the scene was off also, but i don't think that had to do with it being a moment of calm in the action, the non existent action, i don't think they conveyed in that scene what they meant to. For me there is no suspense after Harry comes back. After Harry comes back Voldemort is going down. That just is what it is. No one things Harry is going to lose at this point. To me the suspense is the resolve. That is what the scene needed to convey. That Harry was going to go back because he knew he could take down Voldemort and i don't think they conveyed that. This is a story telling problem for me not an adaption problem.

Originally Posted by jan74

As for the Grey Lady scene I find it´s quite obvious what they were trying to do. She was angry and bitter (and perhaps ashamed) because of what Tom Riddle had done to the diadem and the fact that she had let herself be fooled. Because she had been fooled before, she didn´t trust Harry and she had also kept the secret of the diadem for a long time. Intercutting between the start of the attack on the castle and her reluctance to help Harry increased the urgency and the emotion of the scene IMO. I´m afraid I´m unable to make sense of what you´re saying about the scene, except that you didn´t like her angry outburst and wanted the scene to be shorter.

I don't think that they should have been talking about the Grey Lady being bitter and angry. Who cares. The thing that was important was that she wouldn't give the information to Harry at first. If that was an issue why didn't Luna stay with him. There was nothing suspenseful about the scene. It was just boring. They didn't even say anything interesting about Voldemort. It was like they said that the Grey Lady was angry and bitter without really explaining why in such a way for the audience to care. The scene didn't make sense and was too long when in the end we knew Harry would get what he wanted.

I don't think the Grey Lady should have had an outburst. I think they should have made her more thoughtful and mysterious rather then just make her seem a little nuts. Maybe make her more Luna like.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

If it had been Remus and Tonks with their new baby, then the audience would have seen what they were risking by turning up for the fight, and what they lost by dying. They would have had a beginning at Shell Cottage, a middle with their return, and and end when Harry sees their bodies.

Though i don't think they should have focused on the adults in the final battle i did like the idea of having Tonks and Lupin at Shell Cottage. I always wonder if the film people ever considered it. Though i liked seeing Fleur again as well. Bringing back old characters was nice.

Originally Posted by Potter_fan

2. Shell Cottage had to be Bill and Flur's because it was in the Weasley family....how else would Ron of known to go there from Malfoy Manor?

I don't think that it is necessary to explain why Ron knew about Shell Cottage whether it is Bill and Fleur's or Lupin and Tonk's. Ron could just as easily know where Lupin and Tonk's live and decide to go there.

Originally Posted by Noldus

What purpose did it serve in the films other than confuse the majority of viewers?

I agree with you on this. The hair changing color seemed unnecessary though i really think the biggest issue is that Tonks dressed a lot younger the first time we saw her with pink hair and then in HBP she has brown mosey hair and is dressed like a fifty year old. I wasn't sure it was the same person the first time i watched the film. I think that once they picked a look and an attitude for the character they needed to keep the look and attitude.

Originally Posted by Noldus

However, I’d preferred a less convenient and confusing twist than Harry gaining the allegiance of the Elder Wand by taking Draco’s wand. My suggestion is to have Harry and Voldemort crawl towards the Elder Wand after their "skydiving" around Hogwarts and have Harry reach it first. That would show that he gained its allegiance without reverting to any unnecessary dialogue afterwards. What Kloves did was merely to downplay the importance of the twist by revealing it after the fact, making it unnecessary instead because what we saw was that the destruction of the horcruxes weakened Voldemort and led to Harry overpowering him. That's an option that would have been better too. Another one is that Harry became the true master of death by sacrificing himself and thus gained the allegiance of the wand.

I do think that it would have been better if they had explained that Harry was the master of the elder wand before Harry shot the final spell at Voldemort. I really did think it was a powerful moment in the book when Harry was circling Voldemort talking and we learn, wow, Harry has the upper hand here. Harry's going to win. I didn't mind more engagement in the final duel in the film, except when their two heads went together and they screamed, but i would have liked more dialogue there rather then after Voldemort died. They really messed up on the pacing and story telling beets in this film in my opinion.

Originally Posted by rogue_bludger

oh ok i understand you now sorry lol but what i was gonna say was in the princes tale when snape casts his patronus with dumbledore in his office forgive me if im wrong but at this point harry is in hiding(DH 1) and dumbledore is dead but yet we see him in person standing next to snape, would this be due to the fact that as you say they hadnt included the headmasters portraits previously in the film, so they didnt have him interact with dumbledores portrait as he did at this point in the book

In the Prince's Tale when Snape casts his patronus that is when Dumbledore is still alive i think they same night that Dumbledore hurts his hand trying on the ring horcrux. It is not the same night that he shoots the spell in the forest that Harry follows. They were just trying to show that Snape's patronus was a doe and then they showed the clip of the doe in the forest so that the audience would know that it was Snape that did that. I think that they should have shown Snape actually standing in the forest watching Harry. I was surprised that they didn't.

[rogue_bludger]

ah yes sorry just read what i put and i was wrong it sounds stupid now when i read what i posted lol i misunderstood what silver ink pot was saying and got confused i was getting mixed up with the scene in the book were dumbledore is asking bout draco and he also tells snape that harry must die and snape casts the doe when dumbledore asks if hes grown to care for the boy and the scene were dumbledores portrait gives snape the sword, silly me!

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by decarus

I think the biggest loss in the King's Cross scene was that Harry seemed like he didn't know what to do instead of saying that going back was the right thing to do. The pacing of the scene was off also, but i don't think that had to do with it being a moment of calm in the action, the non existent action, i don't think they conveyed in that scene what they meant to. For me there is no suspense after Harry comes back. After Harry comes back Voldemort is going down. That just is what it is. No one things Harry is going to lose at this point. To me the suspense is the resolve. That is what the scene needed to convey. That Harry was going to go back because he knew he could take down Voldemort and i don't think they conveyed that. This is a story telling problem for me not an adaption problem.

I think you've got a point there ...

And now in defence of the Grey Lady (whom I liked very much in the film):

I don't think that they should have been talking about the Grey Lady being bitter and angry. Who cares. The thing that was important was that she wouldn't give the information to Harry at first. If that was an issue why didn't Luna stay with him. There was nothing suspenseful about the scene. It was just boring.

Really? I found the Grey Lady beautifully spooky! She was eerie and intriguing ... which is what a ghost should be.

They didn't even say anything interesting about Voldemort. It was like they said that the Grey Lady was angry and bitter without really explaining why in such a way for the audience to care. The scene didn't make sense and was too long when in the end we knew Harry would get what he wanted.

The scene did make sense, IMO. The Grey Lady was angry and anguished that Voldemort had defiled the Ravenclaw Tiara with dark magic.

I don't think the Grey Lady should have had an outburst. I think they should have made her more thoughtful and mysterious rather then just make her seem a little nuts. Maybe make her more Luna like.

An angry, spooky, unpredictable Grey Lady is more interesting than yet another Luna-type character. It adds dramatic colour to what's going on. IMO.

Though i don't think they should have focused on the adults in the final battle i did like the idea of having Tonks and Lupin at Shell Cottage. I always wonder if the film people ever considered it. Though i liked seeing Fleur again as well. Bringing back old characters was nice.

Bringing back Fleur and Bill as cameo characters seems more pointless to me than the Grey Lady's film characterisation (which at least was relevant to the film narrative).

I agree completely with those who think Remus and Tonks should have replaced Bill and Fleur and been given more attention. Remus and Tonks may be minor characters in the movieverse but at least they do have a backstory in the movieverse! And they were both very nicely played by David and Natalia. Fleur's film role was over after GoF and she and Bill should have been non-speaking cameos (as a nice nod to book fans). IMO.

[decarus]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

The scene did make sense, IMO. The Grey Lady was angry and anguished that Voldemort had defiled the Ravenclaw Tiara with dark magic.

An angry, spooky, unpredictable Grey Lady is more interesting than yet another Luna-type character. It adds dramatic colour to what's going on. IMO.

They did talk about the diadem being defiled by dark magic, but if they wanted us to care about that then what they did wasn't enough. Did they explain that she was Ravenclaw's daughter? I can't remember. I am not exactly sure if that would have helped, i just thought what they did wasn't very interesting. I found the scene boring.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Bringing back Fleur and Bill as cameo characters seems more pointless to me than the Grey Lady's film characterisation (which at least was relevant to the film narrative).

I agree completely with those who think Remus and Tonks should have replaced Bill and Fleur and been given more attention. Remus and Tonks may be minor characters in the movieverse but at least they do have a backstory in the movieverse! And they were both very nicely played by David and Natalia. Fleur's film role was over after GoF and she and Bill should have been non-speaking cameos (as a nice nod to book fans). IMO.

I do like the idea of having the cottage be Lupin and Tonks. I just like the idea of having Fleur not because it is important but because i liked them bringing people back. They could have had it be Bill and Fleur's wedding, but have the trio go to Lupin and Tonks' house at Shell Cottage instead. I think that would have worked fine. It wasn't as if they really made much of Bill or Fleur in the film anyways.

[rogue_bludger]

i think there all very valid points involving lupin and tonks i agree adding their story to the plot the film could have only benefited it would have added emotion and shown what they had to fight for and what they had to lose and what most wizarding families were going through, and i agree bill and fleur had very much cameo roles but i dont think excluding them from the story and replacing them with lupin and tonks is the answer, lupin and tonks could have easily have been added and bill and fleur still have kept their cameo roles, ways to do this have already been stated lupin visiting them all at shell cottage and i think in dh 1 if they would have announced tonks was pregnant, but i do think if more of their story was added and bill and fleur kept in, would everyone still be saying bill and fleur should have been left out, ultimately i dont think bill and fleurs inclusion was the result of lupin and tonks exclusion

[decarus]

I actually think having Lupin visit the trio at shell cottage is too complicated for the film. I think it was right to have Shell Cottage be a sort of information dump about the hallows and about the gringotts heist, which it was, but not about something like Lupin or the baby which i am sure was why it was cut. That is why if they live at shell cottage and the baby is there then they don't have to explain it. They could talk around it.

That is why i like the idea of having it be Bill and Fleur's wedding, but have Shell Cottage belong to Lupin and Tonks. I think it might have helped them slow down a little at shell cottage too. I liked the two scenes at shell cottage with Griphook and Ollivander, but as throughout the film they had transition problems and needed to slow down a bit. As well as an opening continuity error with Harry wearing the wrong clothes by Dobby's grave.

[ILuvDarkMarks]

I think a lot of the problem of Lupin and Tonks could have been solved if Moody didn't cut Tonks off in DH1 when she was trying to announce the news that she's pregnant. They could have even added a line to Harry about being godfather for the sake of time. I agree, decarus, that a visit from Lupin at Shell Cottage would have disrupted the flow of information for the film.

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by decarus

I actually think having Lupin visit the trio at shell cottage is too complicated for the film. I think it was right to have Shell Cottage be a sort of information dump about the hallows and about the gringotts heist, which it was, but not about something like Lupin or the baby which i am sure was why it was cut. That is why if they live at shell cottage and the baby is there then they don't have to explain it. They could talk around it.

That is why i like the idea of having it be Bill and Fleur's wedding, but have Shell Cottage belong to Lupin and Tonks. I think it might have helped them slow down a little at shell cottage too. I liked the two scenes at shell cottage with Griphook and Ollivander, but as throughout the film they had transition problems and needed to slow down a bit. As well as an opening continuity error with Harry wearing the wrong clothes by Dobby's grave.

hmm, valid points, that does sound a good idea having shell cottage lupin and tonks, but i do like having bill and fleur in the film even with the cameo roles they have, and maybe having lupin visit the cottage would disturb the flow but i guess we would never know unless we saw it and tbh i dont think it would be a deleted scene, but David yates has stated that they got a longer aberforth scene and a longer kings cross scene and they will be added in the dvd extras as deleted scenes and David yates has said when they were part of the film they didnt seem right they disturbed the flow of the film so to speak thats why they got cut so i cannot w8 to see them because these were two of the scenes that most people complained about so i wonder if these added scenes will satisfy people, if its more detail about dumbledores back story personally i think it May seem odd or out of the blue for most non book fans i dont know, i guess ill have to wait and see. . . . .

[PianoPlaya]

I have a few questions about Deathly Hallows Part 2.

1. In the Prince's Tale at the part when Snape is in Dumbledore's office with him and Snape shows Dumbledore his patronis and he finds out that its a Doe. Same as Harry's mom. Well then the Doe jumps out of the window and you see the scene from DH pt 1 where Harry is in the forest and he sees the Patronis from Snape. Well why was Dumbledore alive there? He dies in number 6, but he is talking to Snape in his office in number 7. I dont get it.

2. Also during the Prince's Tale, it is explained that Harry is the horcrux that Voldemort never meant to make. And when Voldy tried to kill Harry, his soul latched onto the closest living thing it could find. But I don't get why it needed to latch itself onto a living thing? Because the rest of his horcrux's are objects.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by PianoPlaya

I have a few questions about Deathly Hallows Part 2.

1. In the Prince's Tale at the part when Snape is in Dumbledore's office with him and Snape shows Dumbledore his patronis and he finds out that its a Doe. Same as Harry's mom. Well then the Doe jumps out of the window and you see the scene from DH pt 1 where Harry is in the forest and he sees the Patronis from Snape. Well why was Dumbledore alive there? He dies in number 6, but he is talking to Snape in his office in number 7. I dont get it.

2. Also during the Prince's Tale, it is explained that Harry is the horcrux that Voldemort never meant to make. And when Voldy tried to kill Harry, his soul latched onto the closest living thing it could find. But I don't get why it needed to latch itself onto a living thing? Because the rest of his horcrux's are objects.

1. It's not the same instance, it's just edited in a way that it looks that way but it's supposed to be different nights.

2. In order to transfer a piece of your soul you have to perform a very specific spell. The piece of soul that ripped off from Voldemort's main soul wildly latched itself onto the only living thing it could find.

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by PianoPlaya

I have a few questions about Deathly Hallows Part 2.

1. In the Prince's Tale at the part when Snape is in Dumbledore's office with him and Snape shows Dumbledore his patronis and he finds out that its a Doe. Same as Harry's mom. Well then the Doe jumps out of the window and you see the scene from DH pt 1 where Harry is in the forest and he sees the Patronis from Snape. Well why was Dumbledore alive there? He dies in number 6, but he is talking to Snape in his office in number 7. I dont get it.

2. Also during the Prince's Tale, it is explained that Harry is the horcrux that Voldemort never meant to make. And when Voldy tried to kill Harry, his soul latched onto the closest living thing it could find. But I don't get why it needed to latch itself onto a living thing? Because the rest of his horcrux's are objects.

1. I got mixed up with this i also posted asking more or less the same question but i realised after re reading that part of the book that when snape casts his patronus in front of dumbledore at that point dumbledore is alive, its the part in the book were dumbledore is telling snape that part of voldermort lives within harry which means voldermort cannot die because apart of his soul is basically protected by harry, and snape is horrified to hear that it is essential that harry must die because he says that he has spied and lied for dumbledore to protect Lillys son and basically theyve been raising him like a pig for slaughter, and dumbledore asks if he has grown to care for the boy and then snape casts his patronus which is to show that it is the same patronus as Lillys and he will always love her, then in the film we see snapes doe patronus in the woods but it is not the same night as in the office this is now when dumbledore is dead, they show this to show that it was snapes patronus that helped harry that night get the sword. 2. When dumbledore explains that part of voldemorts soul latched onto harry its important to know that when the killing curse rebound on voldemort a fragment of voldemorts soul was blasted apart from the whole and latched itself onto the only living SOUL left in the building, the difference is i think is that when you are creating a horcrux you are intentionally concealing apart of your ripped soul into an object using a spell, but with voldemort apart of his soul was blasted away from the rest and the fragment of soul blasted away was not intentionally 'encased' (as slughorn put it) into anything using a spell, it was unintentionally blasted away and it just latched itself onto the nearest soul it could find