WHY did they change the Neville sword scene from the book??!!


SERIOUSLY!! That totally ruined the F-ing movie for me!! It happened so cool in the book. He yanked the sword out of the hat at the last minute, and sliced it's head off. But ohhhh no, in the movie, they got to change it to where he gives an AWFUL, stupid LAME a*s speech about "Harry and the others who died, are alive in here, in our hearts". Same tired crap I've heard in hundreds of movies when someone dies. "They're still alive, in our hearts" crap. SO been done before! So WHY was it needed here?! They've said that same stuff in the Harry Potter movies over and over! Then he pulls the sword out of the hat pathetically, and hobbles around pathetically. It could have been such a great scene. But nope, once again some dumb a*s director, or screen writer thought this stupid way would be better. Yea, good thinkin MORONS.

reply

100% agree, especially considering they did a way better version of the "dead are always in our hearts" speech later when Harry uses the resurrection stone. And he asks them to stay with him and they said of course and then he DROPS THE STONE. That was so subtle and beautiful.

But they ruined Neville, that speech was lame. And it's annoying cause JUST DO WHAT THEY DID IN THE BOOK. You don't have to make it up, all the cool stuff that we love has already been written for you lol.

reply

I thought the scene was an improvement. It was more dramatic and worked better withe the scene. And one thing about that scene in the book that I didn't care for, Neville had just destroyed Voldemort's last Horcrux, and yes, Voldy was peeved, but he didn't seem as upset as you'd expect him to be for having a piece of his soul destroyed and being returned to mortality. He seemed more frustrated than anything. The movie definitely improved the scene.

reply

>>>Neville had just destroyed Voldemort's last Horcrux, and yes, Voldy was peeved, but he didn't seem as upset as you'd expect him to be for having a piece of his soul destroyed and being returned to mortality. <<<

One of the things that were different in the films than in the books: in the books, Voldemort never felt when one of the horcruxes was destroyed. Its been a long time since I read them, but going into the final battle the only horcrux he knew was destroyed was the book. So he would have been upset that Nagini was killed, but he didn't realize that all the others were gone too and he was now mortal.

reply

Why did he drop the stone? I didn't get that part.

reply

Why did he drop the stone? I didn't get that part.

It serves two purposes.

First, Harry had been in possession of one of the Deathly Hallows for a long time. He owned the "good" Hallow, which the youngest brother had kept and used to his advantage his whole life.

The other two Deathly Hallows, the Stone and the Wand were "bad" hallows which lead to the death of their owner. Harry drops the stone and breaks the wand to show that he is not power hungry like the two elder brothers. It shows he will use the humble cloak to his advantage for life then pass it on to his son.

Second, dropping the stone serves as plot misdirection. We have been told that owning the three Deathly Hallows will make one "Master Of Death". And in this scene, Harry is marching off to his death. Naturally we wonder how he will be able to get out of it (death).

We know Harry owns one of the Hallows (the Cloak) and if he clearly owns a second one (the Stone) it would force us to wonder if he also owned the Elder Wand. But by dropping the Stone it leaves ownership of it in doubt. Thus we are ultimately surprised to find Harry does also own the Elder Wand in the end. Dropping the Stone was a necessary misdirection to provide a surprise ending.

reply

Good points. I was thinking though that the stone meant that Harry would be able to come back to life when Dumbledore killed him, and that in dropping it he was basically saying he was ok with dying. I'm not sure if that was part of it or not.

reply

Good points. I was thinking though that the stone meant that Harry would be able to come back to life when Dumbledore killed him, and that in dropping it he was basically saying he was ok with dying. I'm not sure if that was part of it or not.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think so.

It was Voldemort who killed Harry. And the Tale of the Three Brothers and Dumbledore's attempted use both suggest that the Resurrection Stone isn't used to raise one's self from the dead, but rather to raise lost loved ones from the dead.

Personal mastery of death is cited as coming from the unification of all three Deathly Hallows. And when we learn, in the end, that Harry owns the Elder Wand (as well as the Cloak), I think we are meant to interpret that he owns the Resurrection Stone also. Yes, he has discarded it and it lies in the grass but it WAS given to him by Dumbledore. Until someone else finds it, who could be the owner, other than Harry?

reply

In the last few films, David Yates, turned the films into Action/Adventure rather than elaborate the story told in the books. So a lot of scenes became very simplified to speed things up and get the WOW factor.

reply

I agree, the speech was terrible. And who fights a major, end-of-the-world battle in a cardigan?

reply