Finally saw it! - Now Just the Ring.

[Carol]

SSSusan wrote:
> > <snip> I was thinking there might be residual "stuff" in the ring that reacted to the horcrux in Harry, but I think you're suggesting that it could be that the horcrux in Harry actively recognized or "remembered" the ring.  Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence, so it was recognizable to it.
> 
> 
> Robin:
> SSS "Sort of as if they were "mates" or made of the same sort of essence (Voldy  :p), so it was recognizable to it."  
> Exactly what I was thinking!!
>
Carol responds:
But if the Horcrux is destroyed, so is the soul bit, so there *is* no "residual stuff." In both the film and the book, Dumbledore can safely put on the ring. That means either Snape removed the curse and DD destroyed the soul bit (book) or DD destroyed the soul bit, which somehow injured his hand without the aid of any additional curse (and Snape gets stripped of credit for saving DD's life). Either way, the ring should have lost all its power to harm the wearer or interact with Harry's scar bit, though it remains a Hallow--which should cause no problems for Harry, who doesn't know it's a Hallow, or even for DD if he doesn't turn it over three times hoping to see Ariana. The Resurrection Stone would not react to Harry's scar. It has no connection with Voldemort, who hates and fears death and would not have used it if he could (unless he knew that the three Hallows together would make him Master of Death, which he didn't).

In short, the ring should *not* have interacted with Harry or his scar if DD destroyed the Horcrux; the soul bit would have been utterly destroyed, as Harry will later learn, by the Sword of Gryffindor. As Hermione says, a soul bit can't exist if its container is destroyed. (Unfortunately, that ring looks intact.) 

Carol, who thinks that the scene is wrong, no two ways about it, znd will just confuse the viewers who don't know the book version of events