Harry Potter 7.2

[JasonEvans]

Since Voldemort's greatest defense (the elder wand) was stripped away, he was easy pickings, again, for Harry if no one else.

But Harry did not cast a spell that kills. There is no indication he had any desire to kill Voldy. Harry was throwing a simply Stupify spell at Voldy. No way that kills him, even in his fragile state.

-Jason "I still hate that the battle happened in private and that there is no Voldy body for Harry to show anyone -- frankly, I would not have trusted that Voldy was dead" Evans

[Billy Dat]

But Harry did not cast a spell that kills. There is no indication he had any desire to kill Voldy. Harry was throwing a simply Stupify spell at Voldy. No way that kills him, even in his fragile state.

-Jason "I still hate that the battle happened in private and that there is no Voldy body for Harry to show anyone -- frankly, I would not have trusted that Voldy was dead" Evans

There is the whole "nonverbal spell" world discussed through the books...here's a Harry Potter wiki page that discusses them and mentions that the film versions, especially HP 7.2, feature them
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Nonverbal_spell

[Olympic Fan]

As the "owner" of the elder wand, it should be nearly impossible for Voldemort to hurt Harry with it, unless maybe he stabbed him with it. Therefore, it wouldn't be so hard for Harry to beat him, and with only 1/8th of a soul, he would be pretty fragile, I would think. More dead than alive already. Can't say why he'd die without anyone casting a spell, but I can see why he wouldn't be too hard to defeat, for Harry (for others it would be a different matter all together). Many of the other horcruxes were so difficult not because they were strong from Voldermort's soul being in them but because Voldemort had set up defenses around/in them, or they had defenses of their own, at least that's how I read/viewed it. Since Voldemort's greatest defense (the elder wand) was stripped away, he was easy pickings, again, for Harry if no one else.

I don't disagree that (1) because Harry was the true owner of the Elder Wand, he was relatively invulnerable to its effects (PS, it's not mentioned in the movie, but in the book, Harry gives everybody else protection from Voldy and the Elder Wand by his sacrifice in the forest -- it's like his mother's sacrifice that protected him as a baby) and (2) Voldemort was mortal after Neville kills the snake. Maybe he is weaker because of his oft-divided soul, but it would stilol take a killing spell to kill him.

But again my argument -- and I think Jaon's -- is that the filmmakers don't provide any visual reason for Voldemort's death. Yeah, there are non-verbal spells in the books -- but Rowling makes it quite clear that Harry does not have that gift. Several times he tries to use them without success.

But even if he did use a non-verbal spell, as Jason points out, he would NOT have used a killing spell on Voldemort. He was not trying to kill him. In the film, it looks like he uses Stupify in his duel right before the death scene. In the book, he uses Expellaramus -- which blocks Voldemort's Avra Kedavra (death spell) that rebounds and kills Voldemort.

But if the filmmakers want to show Voldemort killed by a rebounding spell, they fail to show that. Up until the end, such spells are ALWAYS shown as bolts of colored light from a wand. Harry and Voldemort had just been locked in a duel wth bolts from Harry's wand and Voldemort's wand connected. But before the death, the break it off. They stand there looking at each other. There's no spell to rebound and Harry is not casting a spell (non-verbal or otherwise) when Voldemort straightens up and disintergrates.

THAT is what Jason and I have been arguing. That visually the final scene cheats us. There is nothing to kill Voldemort at the moment he is killed.

And I agree that by having the duel in private AND destroying Voldemort's body, the filmmakers create a situation where the rest of the wizarding world would doubt that Voldemort is destroyed.

[brevity]

-Jason "I still hate that the battle happened in private and that there is no Voldy body for Harry to show anyone -- frankly, I would not have trusted that Voldy was dead" Evans

Maybe it was the giant IMAX 3D screen, but I saw a few people in the walkway who witnessed the final face-off. No one identifiable, and not what you had in mind, but...

Kinda late to this party. I thought I'd point out a few places where the movie deviated from the book and was better for it:

1. Narcissa Malfoy taking a stand. I always thought the book wimped out by depicting the Malfoys huddled together in the Great Hall at the end, refreshingly normal but not very interesting. In the movie, she's already decided what to do -- walk away from Voldemort, her sister, and the Death Eaters -- long before the battle is over. Taking Draco, and Lucius can make up his own mind.

2. Maggie Smith saying "Boom." It wasn't much, but coming from her, it was hilarious. Lost opportunity: the writers of the series should have taken the time to craft one or two lines in each film that they knew she would have to speak. (They clearly did that for Alan Rickman.)

3. Moving Snape away from the Shrieking Shack. The movies have done a better job in depicting Hogwarts as a full blown campus than the books have. For Harry, locating Snape should be difficult, and not limited to the few options we already know about. On the other hand, the Shrieking Shack does have some existing significance for Snape, as a representation of past exclusions.

4. Showing Ron speak Parseltongue. The books have the disadvantage of mostly being defined from Harry's perspective, so the episode of Ron and Hermione destroying the cup in the Chamber of Secrets was presented as an afterthought. The movie version was way funnier.

Burning question: who was the leader of the Death Eater ground forces, the one who chased Neville across the bridge before it went "Boom"? Dude looked like vintage Adam Ant.

adamant.jpg

[Stray Gator]

I don't disagree that (1) because Harry was the true owner of the Elder Wand, he was relatively invulnerable to its effects (PS, it's not mentioned in the movie, but in the book, Harry gives everybody else protection from Voldy and the Elder Wand by his sacrifice in the forest -- it's like his mother's sacrifice that protected him as a baby) and (2) Voldemort was mortal after Neville kills the snake. Maybe he is weaker because of his oft-divided soul, but it would stilol take a killing spell to kill him.

But again my argument -- and I think Jaon's -- is that the filmmakers don't provide any visual reason for Voldemort's death. Yeah, there are non-verbal spells in the books -- but Rowling makes it quite clear that Harry does not have that gift. Several times he tries to use them without success.

But even if he did use a non-verbal spell, as Jason points out, he would NOT have used a killing spell on Voldemort. He was not trying to kill him. In the film, it looks like he uses Stupify in his duel right before the death scene. In the book, he uses Expellaramus -- which blocks Voldemort's Avra Kedavra (death spell) that rebounds and kills Voldemort.

But if the filmmakers want to show Voldemort killed by a rebounding spell, they fail to show that. Up until the end, such spells are ALWAYS shown as bolts of colored light from a wand. Harry and Voldemort had just been locked in a duel wth bolts from Harry's wand and Voldemort's wand connected. But before the death, the break it off. They stand there looking at each other. There's no spell to rebound and Harry is not casting a spell (non-verbal or otherwise) when Voldemort straightens up and disintergrates.

THAT is what Jason and I have been arguing. That visually the final scene cheats us. There is nothing to kill Voldemort at the moment he is killed.

And I agree that by having the duel in private AND destroying Voldemort's body, the filmmakers create a situation where the rest of the wizarding world would doubt that Voldemort is destroyed.

Just a bit of idle and admittedly flimsy speculation--I didn't read the books, but I saw the movies and got a little background explanation from my daughter and wife--based on the "sensitivities" that seem to have influenced moviemaking in recent years. Perhaps the filmmakers, knowing that the audience would include a lot of young children who regard Harry Potter as a hero and champion for good over evil, wanted to avoid portraying Potter as someone who deliberately killed another character, even the principal villain. I agree that the cause of Voldemort's death was a mystery; but maybe for the filmmakers all that really mattered is that Voldemort faced off against Potter, and Voldemort died while Potter lived. As a result, "good triumphed over evil" without the good guy having to take on the karmic burden of being a killer. And staging the final battle in the absence of a crowd would avoid showing the rest of the "good guys" openly cheering or celebrating that death. Then again, maybe there was no underlying reason for those modifications.

[The Gordog]

I've never read a page of Harry Potter (but have seen the movies). Here's how I interpreted it: the Horcruxes made Voldemort invincible defensively. Harry telepathically sensed when the last Horcrux (the snake) was destroyed, and when he did, he Jedi'ed the Elder Wand to his hand for the kill. He always had control of the Elder Wand, but he knew he needed to wait for that moment - even the power of that wand would have been worthless as long as the snake was alive.

The part that confused me more was Harry coming back to life. I don't even have a coherent guess as to how that happened. But I still really enjoyed the movie.



In defense of Harry and friends, I think all the applause moments I've ever heard in theaters have been sparked by secondary characters - Yoda, Eowyn, Legolas, Jim Gordon, and Shadowcat/Juggernaut.

"I want my father back you son of a I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.!" -- Inigo Montoya

[tbyers11]

Just a bit of idle and admittedly flimsy speculation--I didn't read the books, but I saw the movies and got a little background explanation from my daughter and wife--based on the "sensitivities" that seem to have influenced moviemaking in recent years. Perhaps the filmmakers, knowing that the audience would include a lot of young children who regard Harry Potter as a hero and champion for good over evil, wanted to avoid portraying Potter as someone who deliberately killed another character, even the principal villain. I agree that the cause of Voldemort's death was a mystery; but maybe for the filmmakers all that really mattered is that Voldemort faced off against Potter, and Voldemort died while Potter lived. As a result, "good triumphed over evil" without the good guy having to take on the karmic burden of being a killer. And staging the final battle in the absence of a crowd would avoid showing the rest of the "good guys" openly cheering or celebrating that death. Then again, maybe there was no underlying reason for those modifications.

Good points about not wanting Harry to have to be a killer. However, this topic was covered in the book by discussing the importance of Harry's soul remaining pure because he hadn't killed anyone. In the book, in the final moments against Voldemort he casts his "trademark" Expelliarmus disarming spell simultaneously with Voldemort's Avada Kedavra killing spell. Because Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort's spell backfires upon him and he, in essence, kills himself. I think this would have been fairly easy to portray on screen. Harry's red Expelliarmus spell meets Voldemort's green Avada Kedavra spell (the killing spell always emits a burst of green light) between the two of them and the green jet rebounds toward Voldemort and kills him.

Everyone who had read the books would have known exactly what happened and I think those who hadn't wouldn't have thought that Harry actually killed Voldemort by his spell.

[bjornolf]

I don't disagree that (1) because Harry was the true owner of the Elder Wand, he was relatively invulnerable to its effects (PS, it's not mentioned in the movie, but in the book, Harry gives everybody else protection from Voldy and the Elder Wand by his sacrifice in the forest -- it's like his mother's sacrifice that protected him as a baby) and (2) Voldemort was mortal after Neville kills the snake. Maybe he is weaker because of his oft-divided soul, but it would stilol take a killing spell to kill him.

But again my argument -- and I think Jaon's -- is that the filmmakers don't provide any visual reason for Voldemort's death. Yeah, there are non-verbal spells in the books -- but Rowling makes it quite clear that Harry does not have that gift. Several times he tries to use them without success.

But even if he did use a non-verbal spell, as Jason points out, he would NOT have used a killing spell on Voldemort. He was not trying to kill him. In the film, it looks like he uses Stupify in his duel right before the death scene. In the book, he uses Expellaramus -- which blocks Voldemort's Avra Kedavra (death spell) that rebounds and kills Voldemort.

But if the filmmakers want to show Voldemort killed by a rebounding spell, they fail to show that. Up until the end, such spells are ALWAYS shown as bolts of colored light from a wand. Harry and Voldemort had just been locked in a duel wth bolts from Harry's wand and Voldemort's wand connected. But before the death, the break it off. They stand there looking at each other. There's no spell to rebound and Harry is not casting a spell (non-verbal or otherwise) when Voldemort straightens up and disintergrates.

THAT is what Jason and I have been arguing. That visually the final scene cheats us. There is nothing to kill Voldemort at the moment he is killed.

And I agree that by having the duel in private AND destroying Voldemort's body, the filmmakers create a situation where the rest of the wizarding world would doubt that Voldemort is destroyed.

Stupid idea, and I haven't seen the movie yet (seeing it Friday with my wife), but maybe the death blow is landed when the wands were connected, thrusting his AK back at him. Maybe Voldy's already dead from that, and then he straightens up and disintegrates, kind of like when the bad guy is shot at the end of a movie and the two stand there staring at each other for a second before the blood wells out of the villain's chest and he collapses? After all, we see several people do that when hit by avada kedavara in the movies (Dumbledore kind of stands still with his eyes wide open before falling out the window and Black kind of looks up wide-eyed before falling back into the archway...to name the obvious two that I can think of off the top of my head). No, the others didn't disintegrate, but Voldemort's body was a little unusual in that it only had 1/8th of a soul and on top of that, it was a magical construct created in a cauldron, NOT his original body. Just a thought.

[BD80]

Could the HP 7.2 makers have fallen prey to the classic comedic/dramatic device I believe pioneered by Wylie Coyote, apparently surviving a catastrophic encounter, only to have body parts fall off or disintegrate after a brief still shot. This device was later used in horror flicks (no, not like with Jane Fonda), particularly with decapitation. I should ask a unc literature major which cartoon gave birth to the device.

[mr shadow 008]

I just saw the movie last night and I think I can give some clarification as too how Voldy dies. I paid very close attention to that part of the movie because of all the discussion on this thread. If you watch closely when the wands connect from the expelliarmus and the avada kadvra if you watch closely the avada kedavra vets pushed back into Voldys wand which in turn kills him. Also I just want to say I really disliked this movie. It wasn't that it was a bad mOvie I just feel like they changed way too many things from the book.

[bjornolf]

I just saw the movie last night and I think I can give some clarification as too how Voldy dies. I paid very close attention to that part of the movie because of all the discussion on this thread. If you watch closely when the wands connect from the expelliarmus and the avada kadvra if you watch closely the avada kedavra vets pushed back into Voldys wand which in turn kills him.

I watched the movie with my wife on Friday, and with my dad yesterday, and I have to agree with mr shadow. Voldemort's Avada Kadavera gets pushed back in a little dome until it surrounds him, then we see it crack the wand and turn it all green, and finally Voldemort's hand and arm turn all black, then he dies. Voldemort's curse is what kills him as it is pushed back into him.

[COYS]

Okay, just got back from HP7.2 and I have to say I share both the admiration and the disappointment of most of our previous posters.


All that said, I come away from the eight films with two major and four minor quibbles.

The big big ones involve the ending of the HP6 and HP 7.2. I wish Yates had included the battle up the Astronomy stairway between the Order and DA vs. the Death Eaters (and maybe the idea that Harry gave the last of his FF to his friends to protect them from harm), but I could live with that omission if they had just remembered to have Harry under his cloak, petrified by Dumbledore (which is what gave Draco time to disarm him). Harry Potter would not have stood by and watched that long, drawn-out murder of Dumbledore ... the character that JK Rowling created would not have, no matter what he promised Dumbledore.

My other major complaint is the same as Jason's and everyone else. WHY did they mess with the finale of 7.2 the way Rowling wrote it? I remember thinking when I read it that it was perfectly cinematic -- Harry and Voldie circling each other in the Great Hall, trading insults and being watched by the wizarding world. And Harry explaining to "Tom" why he's going to win before he does. I agree that there's no logical reason in the film for Voldemort to die -- I don't see how it can be a backfiring curse ... Harry disarms him with a (non-verbal) expelleramus, the Elder Wand flies through the air and Harry catches it, then without Harry doing anything else, Voldemort screams and disintergrates. I don't get it.

It took me a while to finally see the movie as my summer schedule has been insanely busy. However, my wife and I finally made it out to the theaters so i'm just now catching up on all the discussion of the movie. 1st of all, I'd like to say that these two issues are my two biggest problems with the movies, as well. The 1st one ruined the 6th movie for me and makes it the least enjoyable movie of all of them for me. Harry never listens to authority. he always relies on his gut and his heart for advice. And he's fiercely loyal to Dumbledore. While that last point might explain why he sat around and watched him get murdered, I think given Harry's other actions it makes it obvious that Harry would taken on hundreds of Death Eaters in an attempt to save Dumbledore. The scene on the astronomy tower was perfect in the book. I felt just as helpless as the petrified Harry watching from underneath his invisibility cloak. Why mess with perfection? In the book Dumbledore uses a silent spell to freeze Harry which requires narration only a book can provide. However, in the movie they could have had him say the spell aloud before Malfoy disarms Dumbledore and mocks him for "missing" with his spell when in reality he hits the invisible Harry with it.

Anyway, on to the last movie. I completely agree with everyone about the final battle scene. I actually didn't mind it not happening in front of everyone. And I also didn't mind Harry providing an explanation for what happened later rather than including the dialogue in the fight scene as JK Rowling did in the book. For the life of me, however, I can't figure out why they didn't make it obvious that the AK spell backfired on Voldemort . . . or at least that some spell of some kind backfired. That was a big mistake.

Overall, though, I really enjoyed both parts of the final movie. As a huge fan of the books, I wouldn't have minded if more attention had been paid to the secondary characters so I could say my farewell, but on the other hand I liked how understated everything was. I actually liked that everyone inside Hogwarts didn't rush to celebrate with Harry after Voldemort finally ate it. The terrible losses they had suffered and the destruction to the Hogwarts Castle seemed to overshadow everything else. The films don't really have too much in common with LOTR to begin with, but the understated nature of the conclusion only further separated them. As for one of my favorite parts of the movie, I LOVED how they explained Snape's affection for Lily Potter. It was beautifully done . . . almost fairy-tale like. The tragedy of Snape's character is so central to Harry's own character development by the time the epilogue rolls around. I was worried that since the films had hardly even hinted at this subplot that it would be haphazardly constructed in the final movie. Not so. They did a great job with that. I actually liked the very brief explanation for the reason for the rift between Albus and Aberforth, as well, as I thought there needed to be some explanation as to why Aberforth had not already been passionately involved with the Order of the Phoenix nor had he been mentioned as a Death Eater. Some explanation was necessary for his absence from the previous films and I think that short conversation in Aberforth's basement explained it without taking up too much time.

I also liked how the movie managed to fit so many of the images from the previous movies into the final one. It never did much for the plot, but it was some fun fan-candy. The scene when Harry is looking for one of the last Horcruxes in the Room of Requirement is particularly fun with objects and creatures (those pesky pixies!) popping up from previous movies. I thought that was fun.

[dukebsbll14]

-Jason "I still hate that the battle happened in private and that there is no Voldy body for Harry to show anyone -- frankly, I would not have trusted that Voldy was dead" Evans

Actually there was one other witness. When the camera pans up and shows the castle right after Voldy dies, Harry is standing where he was and there's someone standing in the doorway, presumably Neville because he walked out to the fight after killing the snake. Neville don't lie.

[JasonEvans]

Actually there was one other witness. When the camera pans up and shows the castle right after Voldy dies, Harry is standing where he was and there's someone standing in the doorway, presumably Neville because he walked out to the fight after killing the snake. Neville don't lie.

If it is not obvious to the audience, it is a failure by the filmmakers. You may be right, but if I missed it and many of the other folks reading this thread missed it... FAIL!

-Jason "by the way, like I predicted, HP7.2 will not make $400 million at the domestic boxoffice" Evans

[bjornolf]

If it is not obvious to the audience, it is a failure by the filmmakers. You may be right, but if I missed it and many of the other folks reading this thread missed it... FAIL!

-Jason "by the way, like I predicted, HP7.2 will not make $400 million at the domestic boxoffice" Evans

I couldn't help it, but when I first saw his ashes fly up in the air, I thought, "Man, when that comes down, a whole lot of people are going to be like 'Ew, I just got a bunch of Voldy in my hair.'"

I wish they'd had Harry's scar disappear in both book and movie once he was no longer the horcrux. After he "died" and was remade/came back to life, I think that would have been cool.

[dukebsbll14]

If it is not obvious to the audience, it is a failure by the filmmakers. You may be right, but if I missed it and many of the other folks reading this thread missed it... FAIL!

-Jason "by the way, like I predicted, HP7.2 will not make $400 million at the domestic boxoffice" Evans

aha just "technically speaking."

Anyways, I hope some sort of a directors edition of this movie is released, like they did with all of the LOTR movies. Yeah, it wouldn't fix the issues that a lot of people have with the movie, specifically the ending, but it'd still be cool to see what didn't make the cut because there are a bunch of scenes that they film that don't make the final movie, and don't even make it as deleted scenes. I'm sure HP fans would love to see that. In fact, I kind of wish they had done that for the last few movies given how long the books were and how much had to be changed to fit cinema requirements. Too late? Still got all of the movie files on record?

[bjornolf]

aha just "technically speaking."

Anyways, I hope some sort of a directors edition of this movie is released, like they did with all of the LOTR movies. Yeah, it wouldn't fix the issues that a lot of people have with the movie, specifically the ending, but it'd still be cool to see what didn't make the cut because there are a bunch of scenes that they film that don't make the final movie, and don't even make it as deleted scenes. I'm sure HP fans would love to see that. In fact, I kind of wish they had done that for the last few movies given how long the books were and how much had to be changed to fit cinema requirements. Too late? Still got all of the movie files on record?

I agree. In fact, I think I wrote a few years back that every book from GoF on could have been split into two movies or received the LotR treatment and had a much longer home edition.

[lotusland]

Wow didn't know there was a HP thread on here until I just hit the wrong link on my phone trying to check
EK. I agree with the general consensus that the movie was great but the ending could have been better. I was a bit late to the HP party- most of the books and some of the movies were out when I started reading tomy kids. So the only book I had to wait for was DH but i've been on pins and needles waiting for each of the last 3 movies. No one in my family was as anxious to see 7.2 as I was.

I would just add that I think JKR will return to the topic at some point. I think/hope there will be new installments to elaborate on Dumbledore's early years through Lilly, James and Tom Riddle time at HW and the first battles with Voldy. Hope I'm right although the movies would likely have a Star Wars like feel wher the original productions seem dated compared with the prequels.

[dukebsbll14]

I agree. In fact, I think I wrote a few years back that every book from GoF on could have been split into two movies or received the LotR treatment and had a much longer home edition.

I did a little research and apparently there have been "Ultimate Editions" released for years 1-6. Each are I think 3 disks, one includes the movie, then two with a bunch of special feature, making of, etc. Good news is for films 1 and 2, there's some additional footage (about 10 minutes each) in disk one. The bad news is for years 3-6, the movie version is the exact same as the theater version. There are deleted scenes on another disk, but they're probably just the ones released with the regular DVD. Kind of frustrating for a lot of people considering films 1&2 were extended, but the ones that really needed to be extended weren't. Plus, David Yates said the Order of the Phoenix was "originally going to be 3 hours long, but 45 minutes had to be cut." So the "ultimate editions" are more like "collectors boxes" grrr Warner Bros.

Given that each of the extended LOTR movies were released a year after the regular DVD, chances are we won't see anything for the previous films. Most of the extra footage is probably gone. And given how 5-6 "Ultimate editions" were just really cool boxes, I doubt we'll see any extended version for DH1 and 2. I don't know if this is Warner Bros. doing, but I repeat myself grrr Warner Bros.

Side note: -in my research I found out that Sirius was originally going to die exactly like it was in the book (dueling Bellatrix and pushed into the veil by random spell, not Avada Kedavra) but had to be changed because of budget or time.
-Also, you know right after Sirius dies and Lupin is holding Harry back? Harry lets out a scream, but the audio for that entire section is cut. Apparently, it was because Dan's scream was "too antagonizing."