Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2: Discussion

[TabbyCat1]

This is a bit late, but I absolutely LOVED this movie. I saw it twice: the first time atcthe midnight premiere, and the second in the beginning of August. It was so good! My favorite part was probably the "Statues" part.

[Apheka]

I can't believe I've seen the film 3 times and now have to ask, does Voldemorte say to Harry on the catwalk, "Why do you live?". I can't believe I don't remember.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by Apheka

I can't believe I've seen the film 3 times and now have to ask, does Voldemorte say to Harry on the catwalk, "Why do you live?". I can't believe I don't remember.

No, he doesn't, that was cut.

[silver ink pot]

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.

Prince's Tale goes back and forth in time. Dumbledore tells Snape about Harry's horcrux when he knows he only has a year to live.

The "Always" scene takes place during HBP, and the Doe in the woods in DH.

The moviemakers are connecting the two doe scenes so viewers will put two and two together and realize that Snape was the one who brought Harry the sword by using the doe to lead him to the pool.

Originally Posted by PianoPlaya

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.

Most of Voldemort's horcruxes were created by him. Parts of his soul were encased in objects through magic and cursed.

By the time Voldemort attacked Harry, his soul was fragile. The Dark Lord couldn't die because there were other horcruxes in existence, so most of his soul became loose from his body - as he describes in GoF:

GoF I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know

One bit of his soul broke off and attached to Harry because Voldemort and Lily's bodies were both dead. That works in the canon because Voldemort says he possessed various creatures and people while looking for a way to return, as he did later with Quirrellmort and then Ginny.

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by Apheka

I can't believe I've seen the film 3 times and now have to ask, does Voldemorte say to Harry on the catwalk, "Why do you live?". I can't believe I don't remember.

no this was cut, Steve kloves originally didnt write this or the sky dive in the script but David yates asked him to write both in but when they saw them in the film Steve kloves pointed out that voldemort asking harry why do you live is not practical because he would just kill him in the time they are stood face to face David yates agreed so it got cut from the final film but they left the sky dive in, but when they released the trailer they used the scene were voldemort asks harry why do you live for dramatic effect although it was cut from the final film, David yates explained all this in an interview bout the final film on the internet

[StaceysChain]

Originally Posted by rogue_bludger

no this was cut, Steve kloves originally didnt write this or the sky dive in the script but David yates asked him to write both in but when they saw them in the film Steve kloves pointed out that voldemort asking harry why do you live is not practical because he would just kill him in the time they are stood face to face David yates agreed so it got cut from the final film but they left the sky dive in, but when they released the trailer they used the scene were voldemort asks harry why do you live for dramatic effect although it was cut from the final film, David yates explained all this in an interview bout the final film on the internet

I really wish Yates had kept this scene in. As much as I enjoyed the scene on the catwalk, it felt really clunky and adrupt because of the editing and I think because they cut it out, there was really no point of having Voldemort try to grab Harry with his cloak. I mean it left you on the end of your seat and geared up for a tense moment, but because it was cut it kinda felt anticlimatic (not that Voldemort beating up Harry wasn't tense) and that adrupt cut from Bellatrix's death to Voldemort throwing Harry against a wall made me personally have a "What the hell? What just happened?" moment if you know what I mean.

Plus I disagree with Kloves's statement about Voldemort asking Harry "Why do you live?" and talking to him (I've always wondered why Voldemort didn't ask this in the books since he's failed to kill Harry with the killing curse twice now). He can't understand why Harry still lives, so he's taking advantage of Harry's position to demand answers, plus they've had "conversations" in the books and the films before - Books: The chamber in Philosopher's Stone, the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire and final duel in Deathly Hallows. Films: agin the chamber and graveyard scenes and the part in OOTP where Voldemort tries to goad Harry into torturing Bellatrix and the whole "I feel sorry for you/You will losing everything moment". So what I'm saying is that Yate's reason for cutting it in my opinion, was a silly one. Plus it was an opportunity to have Harry get one over Voldemort (and I wanted to see his reaction to Harry's response).

[Apheka]

Thank you everyone for answering. I don't know whether I'd have liked it left in or not but it would be a way to show Voldemorte perplexed as to why he couldn't kill Harry and the explanation for that was left out of the battle.

[ajna]

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.

I'm not at all sure why you would think it was the same instance. But then, again, I read the books.

My assumption would be that if a horcrux is intended to be put into an object then it will be so. But, a living soul, without intention, would probably seek something alive. But, then again, that is an assumption.

[mirrormere]

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.

IMO--it should have happened in HBP. The movies, and the books, should have had Harry disarm Dumbledore in the cave, before they got back to the Astronomy tower. Perhaps have DD, disoriented, mistakenly point it at Harry and Harry does a quick "Expelliarmus." Would have thought actually having Harry "win" it would be rather less confusing.

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

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 movie, doesn't Draco lose his mother's wand in the Room of Requirement as well? I think the whole family is disarmed--possibly the reason they all left at the end.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by mirrormere

IMO--it should have happened in HBP. The movies, and the books, should have had Harry disarm Dumbledore in the cave, before they got back to the Astronomy tower. Perhaps have DD, disoriented, mistakenly point it at Harry and Harry does a quick "Expelliarmus." Would have thought actually having Harry "win" it would be rather less confusing.

That is just as convoluted, and even more inconsistent with Rowling's wand rules (such as they are). Moreover, this would rely on the audience remembering things from Prince two years earlier: and only the hardcore Harry Potter fans were going to do that.

A far simpler course of action would resorted to dialogue, unfortunately, but it could have been done succinctly enough. The place to do it was King's Cross. Harry could simply have asked how he could beat Voldemort when Voldemort has the Elder Wand. Dumbledore could have pointed out that the Wand's allegiance to Voldemort was dubious at best: Voldemort had never actually conquered Dumbledore or Dumbledore's true conqueror, Draco. However, Harry had twice: by besting Draco AND by essentially besting Voldemort in the forest. After all, the only thing to die there was another piece of Voldemort.

Unfortunately, however, that scene was already long on dialogue and short on cinema. It was always going to be a very tricky scene to adapt because of that.

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

One bit of his soul broke off and attached to Harry because Voldemort and Lily's bodies were both dead. That works in the canon because Voldemort says he possessed various creatures and people while looking for a way to return, as he did later with Quirrellmort and then Ginny.

True, but we should not forget that prior to July 2007, there were a lot of Harry Potter fans who insisted that this could not happen: the idea that Harry's scar was a piece of Voldemort's soul was just as (and possibly even more) contentious than Snape's loyalties. Obviously, the "Harrycrux is impossible" types have not been posting much the last 4 years, and obviously they were wrong: but obviously a lot of people didn't think that the canon allowed for this possibility prior to the last book.

This is relevant here simply because we really should not blame the films for making something clear in advance when a lot of book readers did not think that it was clear!

And, of course, from a simple story-telling standpoint, Rowling, Kloves & Yates had to be careful: this was the single biggest "reveal" of the series, and the best reveals are those that simulataneoulsy surprise you AND make you think "D'OH! Why didn't I see that?" (Roger Ebert's review of the last film mentions that this made total sense in retrospect, but he hadn't seen it coming.) I think that the Prince's Tale did a pretty good job of that, although the only people I know who didn't "know" it was coming were people who had read the book but forgotten the details over the last 4 years.

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

Ah, Voldy: lying again!

[decarus]

I think in some ways it totally makes sense that Harry is a horcrux and in another way it does not. There is supposedly some spell or something that has to be done to cause a horcrux to be created and Voldemort didn't do that when the Harry horcrux was created. That is the inconsistency i think within the books that exists. I do think that JKR was hinting at Harry being a horcrux from the beginning, but i don't think it exactly makes sense that he is one. There are a lot of things like that in the series though so i am not too worried about it. I enjoy it for what it is and it is not good world building, but it is a good story.

[NightStrike91]

Originally Posted by decarus

I think in some ways it totally makes sense that Harry is a horcrux and in another way it does not. There is supposedly some spell or something that has to be done to cause a spell to be created and Voldemort didn't do that when the Harry horcrux was created. That is the inconsistency i think within the books that exists. I do think that JKR was hinting at Harry being a horcrux from the beginning, but i don't think it exactly makes sense that he is one. There are a lot of things like that in the series though so i am not too worried about it. I enjoy it for what it is and it is not good world building, but it is a good story.

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit defending, but Harry Potter not a good world building? Isn't the complexity and logic of the Potterverse what makes it special? I'm sorry but I disagree on all you said there. Hasn't Jo made it quite clear that Harry, per definition, is not a horcrux, but Dumbledore just used horcrux in lack of a better word to describe it?

[mirrormere]

[

Originally Posted by mirrormere

IMO--it should have happened in HBP. The movies, and the books, should have had Harry disarm Dumbledore in the cave, before they got back to the Astronomy tower. Perhaps have DD, disoriented, mistakenly point it at Harry and Harry does a quick "Expelliarmus." Would have thought actually having Harry "win" it would be rather less confusing.

Originally Posted by Wimsey

That is just as convoluted, and even more inconsistent with Rowling's wand rules (such as they are). Moreover, this would rely on the audience remembering things from Prince two years earlier: and only the hardcore Harry Potter fans were going to do that.

Actually, it's not. It simply replaces Harry with Draco; same movie-fans have still have to remember that Draco disarmed DD from two years earlier (HBP.) DD would still be able to use the wand, as LV is able to use it - just not to it's full capacity; it would explain a little better why Draco COULD disarm DD. It wouldn't change allegiance when Draco disarmed DD, because Harry had preceded him. There wouldn't have to be any changes made to how the films are currently laid out other than Harry wouldn't have to use the excuse that he won the elder wand because he won Draco's wand-that just doesn't fit. It conforms perfectly with JKR's wand rules and eliminates the uncomfortable one, made up at the end, that somehow winning one wand entitles you to all the wands that wizard ever had (or possibly would have.)

[decarus]

Originally Posted by NightStrike91

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit defending, but Harry Potter not a good world building? Isn't the complexity and logic of the Potterverse what makes it special? I'm sorry but I disagree on all you said there. Hasn't Jo made it quite clear that Harry, per definition, is not a horcrux, but Dumbledore just used horcrux in lack of a better word to describe it?

I don't know anything about what JKR said about it and don't want to know those things, but in the book they say Harry is a horcrux and something about that does not make sense and JKR can't talk her way out of it after the fact. There are a lot of issues like this throughout the series. That is the major flaw in the books for me. Not very good world building. I think at times the world is not coherent and certainly not consistent. I also think she has character issues, but anyways. I like the story. It is a good story and that is enough for me.

[JohanT]

I sort of agree with you, decarus. The movies and books are all very good, but there are many plot devices that are thrown in at the last minute in order to enable the heroes to survive and appear vicotrious... It does seem too convenient, doesn't it? But that is also a part of the story, and I personally could see no other way for the trio to win without these rather bizarre plot details.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by NightStrike91

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit defending, but Harry Potter not a good world building? Isn't the complexity and logic of the Potterverse what makes it special? I'm sorry but I disagree on all you said there. Hasn't Jo made it quite clear that Harry, per definition, is not a horcrux, but Dumbledore just used horcrux in lack of a better word to describe it?

I agree completely. Voldemort's soul was so unstable at that point (which is why it is inadvisable to make a horcrux, let alone so many) that a piece of it chipped off when his main soul was ripped from his body and attached itself to the only living being in the vicinity. Makes absolute sense. Harry wasn't an official Horcrux, Jo said that it was more of a parasitic growth.

Jo didn't introduce plot devices at the last minute to save her heroes. The core reason why Harry was able to return to life goes back to Goblet of Fire when Voldemort took Harry's blood.

What people IMO don't realize is the Elder Wand technicality isn't important at all. All Harry becoming master of the wand did was allow Harry to face Voldemort off one more time and give him a chance at redemption and allow it to be Harry to finish him off. Voldemort was powerless at this point. He had a wand that wasn't working for him, all his horcruxes were destroyed rendering him a mortal man once more and Harry's love charm was enacted upon all those who opposed Voldemort. At that point, Voldemort was just another powerful dark wizard and could have been captured or killed by a skilled auror. Everything that made him exceptional was stripped away at that point.

The point of the Hallows was how insignificant the Wand was, ultimately. Harry emulated the third brother, using the cloak to hide from death until his death seemed inevitable and he took it off and used the resurrection stone to summon his lost loved ones which was the final ingredient he needed to be able to willfully walk to his own death and accept his own death, something that was set up back in OOTP when after Sirius dies and Harry is being possessed by Voldemort and thinks he's going to die, the longing and happiness at the possibility of being reunited with Sirius is enough to draw Voldemort out. What's significant about the wand is Harry is able to REMAIN it's owner even after being killed by Voldemort because how he was able to accept his own death rendering himself undefeatable. It all goes back to conquering death the true way by accepting it and you can do that through the power of love.

The point of the Hallows was how they was only some truth to them, the master of death thing was all myth, but Harry used them as instruments to conquer death through love. Through loving people and losing people and wanting to be reunited with them again, a theme established back in the very first book with the mirror of erised.

The cloak and that Dumbledore had it (when in the same book he says he doesn't need a cloak to become invisible) was set up in PS/SS. Dumbledore defeating Grindelwald was set-up in PS/SS as well and the theme behind the resurrection stone of the longing to bring people back to life was also set-up in the first book with the mirror of erised.

Harry having a piece of Voldemort's soul in him was hinted at all through the series.
Now the film completely guts the story and makes it all feel too convenient and silly but the book doesn't at all IMO.

[decarus]

There are so many issues that it would be difficult to even think of all of them let alone fix them. I think that is why she should have written better formed characters then what happens happens because that is what the character would do instead of the characters being forced through a plot.

And i think that you could possibly get away with the horcrux thing by just saying that the spell to create a hocrux is only needed once and then after your soul is unstable which is sort of what i think she has to be suggesting. Though it was always my impression based on the books that Voldemort did the spell before each horcrux was created. Something like the spell is done once and then Voldemort just causes the split by the force of his will. They could also state that a hocrux would rather attach to a living thing then a non living thing though it can be forced into a non living thing. There are ways.

I think that in general JKR's magic is a little wonky just because there is something innate within each wizard, but there are also the use of wands and words that are necessary. It seems like Harry is innately more powerful then the others in his year, but then Hermione knows more spells so she is generally more helpful. I guess though that it is really more about the innate magic within a person and the wand and words are more of a focus tool because spells can be nonverbal. It is just a strange.

PS. I definitely agree that Harry being a hocrux was hinted at throughout the entire series. And i agree that Harry lives because of the blood connection and not because of the wand. The wand just kills Voldemort in the end because it backfires on Voldemort, but Voldemort could have been killed by anyone at that point.

[NightStrike91]

Originally Posted by decarus

There are so many issues that it would be difficult to even think of all of them let alone fix them. I think that is why she should have written better formed characters then what happens happens because that is what the character would do instead of the characters being forced through a plot.

And i think that you could possibly get away with the horcrux thing by just saying that the spell to create a hocrux is only needed once and then after your soul is unstable which is sort of what i think she has to be suggesting. Though it was always my impression based on the books that Voldemort did the spell before each horcrux was created. Something like the spell is done once and then Voldemort just causes the split by the force of his will. They could also state that a hocrux would rather attach to a living thing then a non living thing though it can be forced into a non living thing. There are ways.

I think that in general JKR's magic is a little wonky just because there is something innate within each wizard, but there are also the use of wands and words that are necessary. It seems like Harry is innately more powerful then the others in his year, but then Hermione knows more spells so she is generally more helpful. I guess though that it is really more about the innate magic within a person and the wand and words are more of a focus tool because spells can be nonverbal. It is just a strange.

PS. I definitely agree that Harry being a hocrux was hinted at throughout the entire series. And i agree that Harry lives because of the blood connection and not because of the wand. The wand just kills Voldemort in the end because it backfires on Voldemort, but Voldemort could have been killed by anyone at that point.

I'm sorry, I just can't see any "issues" and inconsistencys in the books that are of any significance. As it's a series filled of magic, why should anyone question the logic about it? It's not like we have anything to compare it with in our non-fictional world.

A person has some innate magic power, and with the use of spells and a wand they can use that innate power to produce magic. I don't see that as something strange. Would it be less wonky if every wizard and witch could just right from the beginning without wands or spells use magic relative to their innate power?

I don't really know how to express my thoughts, as I see the Harry Potter world extremely trustworthy and real. I don't know, it just seems very odd to me that someone can say it's actually bad world building when I see it as splendid. It might not be the most detailed, as many others are completely made from scratch, whereas Harry Potter is parallell to our world. But to fit it in to our society just makes it more real to me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think we're going a bit off-topic here.

[rogue_bludger]

Originally Posted by decarus

I think in some ways it totally makes sense that Harry is a horcrux and in another way it does not. There is supposedly some spell or something that has to be done to cause a horcrux to be created and Voldemort didn't do that when the Harry horcrux was created. That is the inconsistency i think within the books that exists. I do think that JKR was hinting at Harry being a horcrux from the beginning, but i don't think it exactly makes sense that he is one. There are a lot of things like that in the series though so i am not too worried about it. I enjoy it for what it is and it is not good world building, but it is a good story.

There is no inconsistency whatsoever, just because there was no spell cast to hide the piece of voldemorts soul within harry doesnt make it inconsistent and im guessing thats what you mean, a horcrux is the word used for an object which contains part of a persons soul wether it be placed there intentionally or accidentally its the same thing, as long as part of the soul is concealed in an object outside of the body of whoevers soul it is then it will work as a horcrux, part of voldemorts soul is concealed inside of harry which makes harry a horcrux the difference is that harry being a horcrux is not a dark object because there was no horcrux spell used, when creating a horcrux you perform an act of evil i.e. Murder which rips the soul apart and then you encase one part of the ripped soul into an object out of the body which is considered dark magic and it makes the object a dark object, by the time voldemort went to kill harry, it is explained in the books that voldemorts soul was very fragile and unstable because of the numerous murders he had committed and the previous horcruxes he had created so when the killing curse voldemort fired at harry back fired onto him and destroyed his body which meant he had nothing to hold his soul and because it was so unstable part of it broke away latched onto harry which ultimately created a horcrux, it makes total sense and holds no inconsistency whatsoever imo

[decarus]

I don't think it makes total sense. Like someone else said there seems no reason why Voldemort's soul piece would attach to Harry rather then any other object in the room. I just think in the book when they first mention horcruxes they talk about an entire book that is necessary to create one as well as an act of murder and none of that was done in the moment before Harry was turned into a horcrux. It was a failed murder. It is just contrived more then anything. I agree with you that Harry is a hocrux because he contains a piece of soul. That is what a horcrux is.

I think a lot of JKR's world building problems are because she is writing a parallel world instead of a completely made up world. I mean these people are supposed to be human beings, human beings in our world, so they should act similar to real people and sometimes they don't. Also there are inconsistencies within the series about what they can do with the magic or even how exactly it works. I agree we shouldn't over think it because when you do it seems a little off. It is a good story and that is really enough for me and really that is one of the most important things.

I don't really want to go into all kinds of detail about some of the things because i do think it is a very good story. We can just agree to disagree.