Things I wish they'd included in the Deathly Hallows movies - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) Discussion

[–] LiteraryLadyofLothlorien 8 years ago

Fred's death as it is in the book.

To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

reply

[–] wickedkittiesmom 8 years ago

Trelawney throwing the crystal balls at the Deatheaters. I also would have like to see the whole Weasley family included.

I will never let you part, for you are always in my heart: MJ
turn to page 394: Snape

reply

[–] thecherrypop 8 years ago

That would've been so fun to see her kicking some ass like that.

reply

[–] A_Bob 8 years ago

Kreacher's backstory as well as his "help" in interrogating Mundngus.

Luna and Harry in Ravenclaw's dorm. First, I would have liked to see the common room. Also cool to see Luna stun Alecto.

The Fred death scene.

The trio in the headmaster's office rather than outside on the ruined bridge and Harry mending his wand.

Bob

reply

[–] thecherrypop 8 years ago

I think it would've been perfect to see more of the supporting characters actually fighting.

Tonks, Luna, Remus, etc ...

reply

[–] pete-293 8 years ago

Seamus, Dean, Luna, Padma, Parvati, and others were mentioned in the book. would have been nice to see them fighting in the film.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 8 years ago

There are a whole bunch of things that they easily could have included but didn't. Like someone else said 'Trelawny throwing crystal balls'... well, why not have her in the background doing that while something important was going on.

My one though, is Harry repairing his wand with the elder wand.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] adamnichols 8 years ago

1. I wish they'd included Charlie and Percy in the two movies.

I agree. But even more actually. I wish they would have introduced Bill and Charlie when they were supposed do: Goblet of Fire. Not just exclude Charlie all together and introduce Bill as an afterthought in Deathly Hallows Part 1 because his house would eventually be necessary to go to. But instead they all but wrote Charlie out of the movies, and all of a sudden Bill just turns up and is randomly in a relationship with the Beauxbatons student from the fourth movie with no explanation.

Additionally, I wish they fleshed out the Percy leaving thing. They just never mentioned it. All of a sudden Percy just isn't part of the family anymore and then he is part of the Ministry team trying to capture Dumbledore in Order of the Phoenix.

It was all so annoying.

With the wedding and Fred's death, it would have been nice to see all 9 Weasleys included. I think they were supposed to be included originally. Not sure why they nixed it.

But Percy wasn't at the wedding. He was still at odds with his family at that point. He didn't reconcile with them until just before the Battle of Hogwarts. But with Fred's death, I agree. Fred's death hit Percy particularly hard I think, so to not have him there was obnoxious.

2. Teddy Lupin. Again, I believe he was supposed to be in the second movie but the scene was cut. I mean, they go to all the trouble of mentioning him when Remus and the others come back with the Resurrection Stone. Take the time to show him at the end!

Ehh but Teddy was never shown in the books. He was mentioned in passing (James saw him and Victoire making out), but we never actually see him (beyond a picture from when he was a baby). So I'm not too upset about that.

reply

[–] Distantwords 8 years ago

But Percy wasn't at the wedding.

But what was said was:

With the wedding and Fred's death, it would have been nice to see all 9 Weasleys included. I think they were supposed to be included originally. Not sure why they nixed it.

Fred didn't die at the wedding, so they were talking about the book itself in its entirety. Charley was at the wedding (and showed up at the end battle), and Percy was present when Fred died - in the book.

So talking about having all 9 Weasleys meant having them in the movies where they were supposed to be, not specifically all at the wedding.

Ehh but Teddy was never shown in the books.

No, but Teddy was important in the book. First, Harry has blows with Lupin at Grimmuld Place and feels bad about it later. The next time Harry sees Lupin personally is when he's hiding out at Shell Cottage and Lupin shows up to announce the birth, where he also makes Harry Godfather.

Then later Harry wonders if he is shaping up to be any better a Godfather than Sirius was to him.

Then later than that, Harry sees Lupins' ghost/whatever with the stone, and specifically mentions Teddy.

Teddy was never "shown" in the books, but he DID weigh on Harry's mind.

I'm just trying to show that just because the audience doesn't 'see' a character, doesn't mean a character can't be important to the story.

reply

[–] adamnichols 8 years ago

Fred didn't die at the wedding, so they were talking about the book itself in its entirety. Charley was at the wedding (and showed up at the end battle), and Percy was present when Fred died - in the book.

So talking about having all 9 Weasleys meant having them in the movies where they were supposed to be, not specifically all at the wedding.

Okay....

No, but Teddy was important in the book. First, Harry has blows with Lupin at Grimmuld Place and feels bad about it later. The next time Harry sees Lupin personally is when he's hiding out at Shell Cottage and Lupin shows up to announce the birth, where he also makes Harry Godfather.

Then later Harry wonders if he is shaping up to be any better a Godfather than Sirius was to him.

Then later than that, Harry sees Lupins' ghost/whatever with the stone, and specifically mentions Teddy.

Yeah I'm aware of what happens in the books.

Teddy was never "shown" in the books, but he DID weigh on Harry's mind.

I'm just trying to show that just because the audience doesn't 'see' a character, doesn't mean a character can't be important to the story.

Cool man. I literally never said Teddy wasn't significant to the story. You're arguing against a point that I never made. In fact, your arguing against an assumption you came to. I said there is no reason to judge the movie for not physically showing us Teddy when Rowling didn't even do that in the books. That's all. I'm not downplaying the character's significance.

reply

[–] Distantwords 8 years ago

I literally never said Teddy wasn't significant to the story. You're arguing against a point that I never made. In fact, your arguing against an assumption you came to.

And you are literally overreacting to a simple forum post. I wasn't arguing anything, I was simply typing a thought.

reply

[–] adamnichols 8 years ago

Why am I overreacting? You're thought included an implication that I said something I didn't. So I corrected you. I'm supposed to just bite my lip and let you imply that I was insinuating Teddy wasn't an important character? Sorry man, not gonna do that.

reply

[–] Distantwords 8 years ago

Why am I overreacting? You're thought included an implication that I said something I didn't. So I corrected you. I'm supposed to just bite my lip and let you imply that I was insinuating Teddy wasn't an important character?

Clearly you do not know what the word 'overreacting' means. A very quick google search will show:

respond more emotionally or forcibly than is justified.

That does not imply in any way, shape or form that you cannot correct someone that is wrong. So no, overreacting does not in fact mean you have to 'bite your lip' and do anything.

And just so you know, it wasn't really you I misunderstood; it was the OP. One misread word changed the whole context. And since I misunderstood the OP, I misunderstood your post. A simple mistake that required a simple correction.

But whatever man. Keep your angerball mentality. It's cool.

reply

[–] adamnichols 8 years ago

But whatever man. Keep your angerball mentality. It's cool.

I will.

reply

[–] A_Bob 8 years ago

"I wish they would have introduced Bill and Charlie when they were supposed do: Goblet of Fire."

Actually, Charlie was introduced in the first book when he was one of those who came to pick up Norbert. However, since they chose not to show the actual pickup, which was the reason Harry and Hermione were out of bed, they had no reason to show him.

With Bill, his introduction is not only where we were properly introduced to him, but also where he first meets Fleur.

"I wish they fleshed out the Percy leaving thing. They just never mentioned it."

That, too, irked me.

Bob

reply

[–] Distantwords 8 years ago

Actually, Charlie was introduced in the first book when he was one of those who came to pick up Norbert. However, since they chose not to show the actual pickup, which was the reason Harry and Hermione were out of bed, they had no reason to show him.

In the first book, they do write to Charlie to ask him to take Norbert. But Charlie does not pick him (later her) up, his friends do. In the movie, Ron does mention his brother Charlie who works in Romania with dragons.

So book to movie, Charlie has roughly the same role and introduction. But he's never 'shown' in either.

Harry first meets Charlie, in person, in the book GoF.

reply

[–] A_Bob 8 years ago

Thanks, I kept remembering it as Charlie and his friends who came instead of Charlie's friends.

Bob

reply

[–] DaxTony 8 years ago

I wish they would've made Deathly Hallows into one film. I know many fans supported the split after the films were released, myself included, but looking back at Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2, it could have worked wonders by keeping it one film.

reply

[–] megaruda 8 years ago

I strongly disagree, I liked the split, I think it was one of the few movies that needed it, I wished they had included the more interesitng parts of the book if they had already done a split as opposed to Harry dancing with hermione for 5 minutes.

reply

[–] DaxTony 8 years ago

Actually, the Harry/Hermione dancing scene is my favorite part of the movie. I think most of the action events that took place in the book translated very poorly onto the screen and the film was a major let-down for me, which was disappointing.

reply

[–] megaruda 8 years ago

The films continously forced romantic plot lines in order to satisfy teens who liked twilight, deviating from the more interesting parts of the book, tried a lot harder to make those sequences interesting than the actual magic, the greatest example would be the order of the Phoenix, they relegate Dumbledore's army to one scene pretty much in order to give cho Chang's sub plot 3 hours the whole movie.

reply

[–] DaxTony 8 years ago

"The films forced romantic plot lines"...yes, I agree that the Harry Potter/Ginny Weasley romantic plot was forced because the two lacked any chemistry whatsoever. However, Harry/Hermione, on the other hand, had plenty of on-screen chemistry that was basically consistent throughout the entire film series.

And what is your reference for, as you say, "forcing romantic plot lines to make them more interesting than the actual magic"? What did you expect them to do in "Order of the Phoenix;" there's only so many of the same scenes you can film and put in the movie before audience members become bored with it. Cho Chang's plot was cut down severely from book to screen, so I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make there, either.

reply

[–] megaruda 8 years ago

Not really, The Dumbldores army lasted like what? 400 pages? the movie did a quick montage and that was it. It was easily the most interesting part of the book, I thought it was one of the worst adaptations, the material from the book is good enough is almost unscrewable. But, that one could of been much better, just like Deathly Hallows part 2, they made the first one slow then tried to rush through the second, in which case I preferred the first part. They had Molly Weasley grin for like 2 full seconds in a face paced fight scene, just for what? they director made some really odd choices and favoured awkward shots in order to please certain audiences, instead of being amazing. I mean, the material is too entertaining, but like, too many directors, writers, would of done much better. I did enjoy the dance, it just felt like a waste, those minutes were too slow, the movie has some real pacing issues.

reply

[–] DaxTony 8 years ago

I actually think the best part of Order of the Phoenix was the battle at in the Department of Mysteries; it's a shame that they cut so much out of the film.

I think the Dumbledore's Army "montage" was well done, but then again, I didn't find it too intriguing when I first read it.

Deathly Hallows, parts 1 and 2, were major letdowns, not that the book was that great initially, but so much more could have been done (especially the Molly vs Bellatrix scene, as you mentioned); so many great, epic battles that did not take place (e.g. Voldemort vs. McGonagall, Slughorn, and Kingsley). Deathly Hallows Part 1 just felt like a convoluted mess, in which the scenes of Harry having "visions" were poorly executed.

Prisoner of Azkaban is by far my favorite but again, it's too bad Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 weren't as great as they could have been.

reply

[–] megaruda 8 years ago

I agree on that, on some points, I did not love the battle at the department of Mysteries it was just ok, I very personally think it lacked imagination or a better shot list, but that is a very personal point of view, it was well done, I love the Bellatrix vs Molly fight, but it was not good in the movie, she wasnt fighting 3v1 so that took a lot of intensity imo, instead of been a holy *beep* moment, it became a ¨I think my mom will enjoy this scene I will turn a sec to look if she is smiling¨ kind of thing... Def Voldemort vs McGonagall not happening was a letdown. If wasnt a bad movie it was just a missed opportunity. And actually Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite as well, I think it had the least pacing issues even if the cinematography felt too dark.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

I actually think the best part of Order of the Phoenix was the battle at in the Department of Mysteries; it's a shame that they cut so much out of the film.

I did not love the battle at the department of Mysteries it was just ok

I also thought that battle was a highlight of the series. Without Dumbledore dueling against Voldemort there would have been a huge gap in the story. Like Yoda never battling the Emperor.

Plus it was nicely done with surprising spell and counter-spell action. The powdered glass scene was especially nice.

I love the Bellatrix vs Molly fight, but it was not good in the movie

I can agree. The emotional intensity was there in the movie. Well acted. But it was too short to have its proper impact.

Voldemort vs McGonagall not happening was a letdown.

I disagree. McGonagall vs. Snape battle was what the series really called for and we got that. They were roughly equals, like Dumbledore and Voldemort.

In a way we did get McGonagall vs. Voldemort in that she led the defense of Hogwarts. It was a good attempt and it fit her motherly style. But "realistically" she was never going to be a match for Voldemort.

And actually Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite as well, I think it had the least pacing issues even if the cinematography felt too dark.

Prisoner of Azkaban was one of the few in which I enjoyed the movie more than the book. (Order of the Phoenix was the other, mostly because of the battle at the Ministry, already mentioned above; the book focused on the Prophesy, which was boring.)

reply

[–] megaruda 8 years ago

Harry Potter boards are easily the most calm and cool on imdb, I have not been called an idiot for disagreeing with someone, I feel like staying here forever.

The point you brought about McGonagall is pretty good. It would be a bit repetitive. And I did not dislike the fight at the Ministery, It is pretty epic, I just expected a lot more when I read the book. So it was well executed but it all happened so fast and to me it was underwhelming. If the books did not exist I would of been amazed.

reply

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

Harry Potter boards are easily the most calm and cool on imdb, I have not been called an idiot for disagreeing with someone, I feel like staying here forever.

I appreciate intelligent, respectful discussions also. It is nice when people can agree and disagree without resorting to insults.

The point you brought about McGonagall is pretty good. It would be a bit repetitive. And I did not dislike the fight at the Ministery, It is pretty epic, I just expected a lot more when I read the book. So it was well executed but it all happened so fast and to me it was underwhelming.

Ah, well, if you were hoping for a longer battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore, I definitely can agree with that.

reply

[–] A_Bob 8 years ago

I always imagined that Rowling was writing a script for the movie with the Ministry battle in OoP. Instead of carrying it to multiple rooms as was the case in the book, they just did the first and last rooms. The movie had far too much of the white smoke vs black smoke.

"Def Voldemort vs McGonagall not happening was a letdown."

I agree. There were a lot of missing duels. But remember, it wasn't just a one on one duel. Like the Bella duel, it was three vs one. McGonagall was fighting alongside Kingsley and Slughorn against Voldy.

Instead of showing Voldy fighting a number of people, he only gets to shoot a spell at Neville and then spend a number o fminutes chasing after Harry.

Bob

reply

[–] haaavard 8 years ago

Wormtails silver hand strangling him.
McGonagall charging with writingdesks.
Sprout fighting with plants.
Trelawney throwing crystal balls.
Dumbledores army students fighting.
Kreacher and houseelf fighting.

reply

[–] johnnm58 (545) 3 years ago

Who was Percy?

reply