MovieChat Forums > Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) Discussion > Six things Harry Potter fans universally...

Six things Harry Potter fans universally agree on

posted 7 years ago by Manipole
18 replies | jump to latest

Found this in an article and thought it was funny, so figured I'd share it and see if everyone else agreed with the list. Like the title says it lists six things Harry Potter fans all seem to universally think. They are:

1. Umbridge is awful
2. Maggie Smith is a perfect Professor McGonagall
3. Everyone should be at least slightly bothered by "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!".
4. Book Ginny is a 100 times better than movie Ginny
5. Where the hell was Peeves
6. Voldemort's movie death stupid

For me, I agree with all but number 5. I don't think it mattered that Peeves wasn't in the movies. It would have been fun, but it really isn't a big deal.

I definitely agree with everything else though. Especially Voldemort's death. Would it have been so hard to just have him die normally instead of turning into ash and floating away?

[–] marinalva1996 7 years ago

I disagree with 5 and 6. I don't think Peeves was needed in the movies. I disagree with 6 mainly due to the fact that movies are a visual media, and as such having Voldemort turn into ashes instead of just having him tumble and lay dead on the floor added more impact to the whole scene. It would have been fine by me if they had decided to stick to his original death, but I liked the movie's death just the same.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

1. Umbridge is awful
2. Maggie Smith is a perfect Professor McGonagall
3. Everyone should be at least slightly bothered by "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!".
4. Book Ginny is a 100 times better than movie Ginny
5. Where the hell was Peeves
6. Voldemort's movie death stupid

I agree with most of these. But I see a few problems.

1. Why say "Umbridge awful" rather than saying "Imelda Staunton plays a perfect Umbridge"

Smith gets credit, why not Staunton.

3. It's true that Richard Harris would never have roughed up Harry and shaken him violently when asking about the Goblet of Fire. Nor would he have put his beard in a ring. Why doesn't Gambon get negative credit for doing these things?

4. I'm fine with movie Ginny. What's so bad about her? Book Ginny seems more of a tramp than movie Ginny. Movie Ginny's only real fault is that she isn't Hermione.

6. I prefer movie Voldemort's death. It has finality to it. We've already seen Voldemort rise from the dead a few times in a few different ways. Quirrell and the Diary and the fetal thing and then the cauldron. I agree that something more permanent was needed to conclusively demonstrate this was Voldemort's true end.

[–] Manipole 7 years ago

1. I think it's just saying how the character herself is awful. Staunton was listening but the character is just the worst person ever. Whereas 2 is just saying how Maggie Smith was perfectly cast, and wasn't talking about the character herself.

4. I don't really like book Ginny that much either but she at least has personality. Whereas movie Ginny is really bland. She's just kind of there. I also think her chemistry with Daniel is horrible. I think she's just even more poorly written.

6. Fair enough. That's a good point actually. Maybe I'd have liked it more if it didn't happen in the courtyard where nobody saw. That's the main thing that bugged me. I liked how everyone else got to witness their final duel in the book. If they'd have crashed into the great Hall instead of the courtyard I think I'd have liked it a lot more.

[–] mav100000 (340) 5 years ago

bsharporflat, great point on 6! I think it failed for other reasons, especially with Bellatrix's death mirroring his for no reason (floating ash), but you make a great point about it!

[–] TexasJack (12515) 5 years ago

I agree. It looked very good on the screen.

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

2) I won't say Dame Maggie was a perfect McGonagall, but she was an excellent one. I say that simply because we don't know how great other actresses would have been.

4) I do agree with that. The movies mostly ignored Ginny so that by the time we really start to see her, it doesn't feel right.

5) They actually cast a role for Peeves. British comedian/actor Rik Mayall was cast as his voice (I'm not sure if his image was to be used for the character) and they even had a scene in the first movie, but the scene was cut and the character eliminated permanently from the movies. It would have been fun if he had been there, but it was fine without him. In fact, most of the ghosts were cut from most of the movies except for plot relevant scenes.

6) The Voldy death scene was done for the 3D audience, not for plot reasons. The same thing with Bella's death. This is what got me upset with those two deaths--they did it for a small portion of the audience.

Bob

[–] halieb87 7 years ago

My biggest peeve with Maggie Smith is that McGonagall was supposed to have her black hair, so I always pictured her to be much younger.

[–] A_Bob 7 years ago

According to her harry wikia page, McGinagall was 56-57 during the first book.

Dame Maggie Smith was not quite a year older than McGonagall.

Bob

[–] Tacky187 7 years ago

All agreed.

I take #6 a step further. Not only was his death lame, but the entire final sequence was just an action focused turd that nearly completely lost the power of Harry completely undressing Voldemort with his words and offering him a chance at redemption. The more I watch this film, the more I want it to be completely remade with a screen writer/director that doesn't suck.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

The more I watch this film, the more I want it to be completely remade with a screen writer/director that doesn't suck.

Why don't you do it? You seem incredibly perceptive with an awesome sense of developing both characters and plotline. Plus your writing skills obviously belong to someone who is highly educated, experienced and trained in auctorial technique. I'm sure you will do a MUCH, MUCH better job than the ninnies they hired to make the Harry Potter series.

I await your product with much anticipation. How soon can you get it done?

[–] Tacky187 7 years ago

8/10 troll. Well done.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 7 years ago

So you aren't going to rewrite and reshoot Harry Potter?

Damn.

Oh well, you have mocked, complained and criticized Harry Potter so eloquently and intelligently I guess we'll have to settle for that as the pinnacle of your artistic expression.

Thanks for sharing your gift.

[–] marinalva1996 7 years ago

@Tacky187 Just how anti-climatic would it have been for the final battle of the final act to only showcase Harry and Voldemort circling each other while Harry reveals all the truth? I agree that the movie should have allowed for Harry and Voldemort to have a brief conversation exchange revolving around the most important points, like the Snape reveal. That along with the fact that there was nobody there to witness the duel, are my two biggest beefs with this movie. However, movies are not the same as books, it worked well in the books, but it's an adaptation to other media and as such, the makers should be allowed the freedom to intervene and make changes to a certain extent. We can't always have it the way we want it.

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 5 years ago

only harry and dumbledore had the nerve to call voldemort riddle

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 5 years ago

Where the hell was winky?

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Winky was a victim of the movie role "show don't tell". In a book having a character sit down and tell another what happened is a great way to get information out, but having someone sit down and talk is deadly in a movie. So where books use witnessing, movies use flashbacks. Winkie's only function in the story was to bear witness to the happenings in the Crouch family home, that function was not needed for the movie.

And re #5. "Where the hell was Peeves..."

I never liked Peeves in the book, and he would have been unbearable on film. Glad to see him get the boot, here.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 5 years ago

Would it have been so hard to just have him die normally instead of turning into ash and floating away?

Well... it’s a memorable and great image. For a movie, particularly one of this size and scale, I certainly find it more impactful — along with the whole battle. That, of course, is my opinion.

Mind you, I never expect or wish for a movie adaption of a book to be an entire recreation of the source material. I’m not opposed to movies changing some details - even major ones - and surprising me as long as it’s handled well. And ya know, if this post proved something... is that
universal agreement is pure fiction!! :D

[–] JaqenHgar (679) 5 years ago

1. Umbridge is awful
2. Maggie Smith is a perfect Professor McGonagall
3. Everyone should be at least slightly bothered by "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!".
4. Book Ginny is a 100 times better than movie Ginny
5. Where the hell was Peeves
6. Voldemort's movie death stupid

1. Umbridge was horrible, but Imelda Staunton was PERFECT in her portrayal.
2. Agreed
3. Didn't bother me at all, but it was out of character for Dumbledore
4. Agreed
5. Peeves wasn't really needed
6. I rather liked it

My main complaint to this day is still with OOtP and the Dumbledore vs. Voldemort duel. In the novels, Dumbledore was calm, cool, and collected and barely had to do anything to counter Voldemort's attacks. The movie however...well I still don't understand why WB let David Yates direct 3 more films after he bollocksed up OOtP.