61 replies to this topic

[Darth Lefty]

trying not to spoiler for those who haven't read all the books, but they never even explained what Dumbledore had deducted about where the remaining horcruxes are. Big plot hole, IMHO.

No. This whole Legend of Zelda plotline seriously weakens the last two books and if they can avoid dwelling on the inane details of it, it's all for the better.

[a little bean]

Not my fault you said the first half coud be put into a 2 minute montage, instead of could contain a 2 minute montage. Sorry if it upsets you that you got called out on your statement and now you are back pedaling on it.

and who is getting nasty? I haven't called you any names like many others on here do.

Would you prefer if I said you were a liberal fascist neocon with a disease that can't read?

Who's back pedaling? I had it right there, not my fault you didn't read it. Anyway, you are being nasty. Being nasty doesn't require that you call anyone names. You're nasty because you're picking a fight rather than just discussing. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about anyway.

And no, Mr Sarcasm, I would not prefer that you call me names. I would prefer that you would have just said "I don't undestand what you mean. Please explain".

[a little bean]

No. This whole Legend of Zelda plotline seriously weakens the last two books and if they can avoid dwelling on the inane details of it, it's all for the better.

Anyway, back to the discussion....though I don't necessarily agree that they're "inane" details in the book, I do agree that they don't belong in the movie. You have to cut a lot when you turn a book into a movie, and I thought they made good choices in what they cut in the last one. It would have been too overwhelming to do more and I thought that they chose character over mythology, which I always think is a smart move

[Bill Z]

Who's back pedaling? I had it right there, not my fault you didn't read it. Anyway, you are being nasty. Being nasty doesn't require that you call anyone names. You're nasty because you're picking a fight rather than just discussing. I'm not sure what you're all worked up about anyway.

And no, Mr Sarcasm, I would not prefer that you call me names. I would prefer that you would have just said "I don't undestand what you mean. Please explain".

OK, then.

Please explain exactly what you mean by:

the first half of the book could easily be put into a 2 minute montage showing them camping around moping.

[a little bean]

OK, then.

Please explain exactly what you mean by:

I'm sorry that my last explanation didn't suffice. What I meant is that a large portion of the first part of the book is taken up by Ron, Hermione, and Harry traveling around the countryside, bickering with each other. I know that things happen during this time, but it's also easy to show this passage of time in a movie quickly.

Also, since the book begins with characters that have had little to no screen time (and since they destroyed the Weasley's house for some unkown reason), I'm sure that much of the wedding will be absent from the movie, also saving time.

[Bill Z]

I'm sorry that my last explanation didn't suffice. What I meant is that a large portion of the first part of the book is taken up by Ron, Hermione, and Harry traveling around the countryside, bickering with each other. I know that things happen during this time, but it's also easy to show this passage of time in a movie quickly.

Also, since the book begins with characters that have had little to no screen time (and since they destroyed the Weasley's house for some unkown reason), I'm sure that much of the wedding will be absent from the movie, also saving time.

Yeah, I was baffled by the movie having the weasley's bungalow blown up and the whole chase through corn fields. What was that all about? And why did the movie start off with Dumbledore surprising Harry in some muggle downtown area? Did the director have to make something up because the actors for the Dursley's didn't want to play their parts anymore, or what? They also never showed us Mrs. Weasley's clock showing "everyone" "in mortal danger".

or...

I could go on & on about what was missing from the movie, but I will refrain

[a little bean]

Yeah, I was baffled by the movie having the weasley's bungalow blown up and the whole chase through corn fields. What was that all about? And why did the movie start off with Dumbledore surprising Harry in some muggle downtown area? Did the director have to make something up because the actors for the Dursley's didn't want to play their parts anymore, or what? They also never showed us Mrs. Weasley's clock showing "everyone" "in mortal danger".

or...

I could go on & on about what was missing from the movie, but I will refrain

I know. It makes me so mad when they cut a bunch of stuff, but then they add random things that detract from the movie. I love that scene in the book for instance, when the Minister of Magic comes to visit the Prime Minister. I was bummed that wasn't in there. And it would have been so easy to include Mrs. Weasley's clock which makes so many appearances in the book. I was reading that the director decided to add the weird scene where the Weasley's home gets blown up because he wanted to show how it was affecting the wizarding community (in the book, kids keep getting pulled out of school, people are hearing about relatives that they've lost), but he wanted it to hit the main characters. I think he totally missed the mark on that one. I missed that entirely. It felt more like a direct attack on Harry, not that the wizard world as a whole was being affected.

I was the most angry about the change at the end. I feel like it took away from Harry's character that he would just stand there and watch in horror. Very strange decision, when it would have taken no more time to follow the book.

There was a lot missing. I still liked it better than the last one however.

[tgianco]

I liked the snogging.

Hermione and Ginny are growing up. I thought Lavender was kinda hot... psycho, but hot.

Who cares about Harry and Ron? Just save the world and leave the chicks to Neville Longbottom.

[bookwom]

I agree, if anyone watches the movies only, there are missing key points from books 5 & 6 that didn't make it into the movies which I think will leave people wondering what's going on in the final movies. Of course those will likely be re-written scripts, so who knows.
Maybe we will never see Fleur again.

Actually, Fleur and Bill are in the Deathly Hallows (from imdb.com), which is good since their wedding is a big part of the plot and much of the action takes place at their cottage. But I think its going to be weird to all of a sudden have these two people getting married without any prelims at all. One of my favorite scenes in "Half Blood Prince" is when Fleur starts to tend to Bill after he was scarred up and its obvious it doesn't make a bit of difference to her. "I am plenty good-looking enough for both of us" I know it would have been hard to include the whole Fleur-Bill subplot, but why did they have to mess up the whole ending. The book was so much more exciting, and made so much more sense. Harry's actions were in character in the book, not in the movie.

PS Bill - just a friendly observation - you're taking this a bit too seriously. Lighten up, its entertaintment.

[uberman]

It boggles my mind that there are still TWO movies left, right? The last book is in two movies?

[Bill Z]

It boggles my mind that there are still TWO movies left, right? The last book is in two movies?

It doesn't boggle my mind, to attempt to do justice to the last book would require a 5-6 hour movie or more (the book is what, a 10 hour read or so). So it makes sense to split it into parts one & two and I think it was on Veritaserum.com I read that the part one may end right after Ron returns, which makes sense as that is a turning point in the book.

[Bill Z]

Actually, Fleur and Bill are in the Deathly Hallows (from imdb.com), which is good since their wedding is a big part of the plot and much of the action takes place at their cottage. But I think its going to be weird to all of a sudden have these two people getting married without any prelims at all. One of my favorite scenes in "Half Blood Prince" is when Fleur starts to tend to Bill after he was scarred up and its obvious it doesn't make a bit of difference to her. "I am plenty good-looking enough for both of us" I know it would have been hard to include the whole Fleur-Bill subplot, but why did they have to mess up the whole ending. The book was so much more exciting, and made so much more sense. Harry's actions were in character in the book, not in the movie.
PS Bill - just a friendly observation - you're taking this a bit too seriously. Lighten up, its entertaintment.

Yeah, rather than have Harry stand around watching it wouldn't have required any more time to have Dumbledore cast his spell freezing Harry from action until Snape casts his spell.

Hey, I'm a serious HP fan, I can take things as Sirius as I want.

[tgianco]

Actually, Fleur and Bill are in the Deathly Hallows (from imdb.com), which is good since their wedding is a big part of the plot and much of the action takes place at their cottage. But I think its going to be weird to all of a sudden have these two people getting married without any prelims at all. One of my favorite scenes in "Half Blood Prince" is when Fleur starts to tend to Bill after he was scarred up and its obvious it doesn't make a bit of difference to her. "I am plenty good-looking enough for both of us" I know it would have been hard to include the whole Fleur-Bill subplot, but why did they have to mess up the whole ending. The book was so much more exciting, and made so much more sense. Harry's actions were in character in the book, not in the movie.

PS Bill - just a friendly observation - you're taking this a bit too seriously. Lighten up, its entertaintment.

Good points. Those are seriously relevant to the story. I guess they could have cut a little bit of Lavender out.

[Darth Lefty]

Yeah, rather than have Harry stand around watching it wouldn't have required any more time to have Dumbledore cast his spell freezing Harry from action until Snape casts his spell.

But this gives Harry a final crisis in the movie. He must...

• Decide whether to take Dmbd's orders even knowing it may mean Dmbd's life
• Decide whether to trust Snape in a life or death situation
• Decide whether to trust Dmbd's trust in Snape

And he does decide to trust Snape. And he's wrong. Which is much more interesting than having him propped in a corner like a cue stick, don't you think?

[PathFinder]

*SPOILER ALERT*

Snape kills Dumbledore!