From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 2 13:50:44 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:50:44 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013f01cc511b$2dcda340$8968e9c0$@com> Funny. never heard that one before. LOON... I will use that one IRL . hahaha All I'll add since I've stuck my nose in here is how much I enjoy when films happen (rarely) in my neck of the woods. Philadelphia is the closest big city so there's a handful that happen there. and M.Knight Shamalan is from the 'burbs here where I live . so a lot of his movies are filmed close. I love seeing places I recognize in the films! Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 6:12 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dragon over London... --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com , "Geoff" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com , "Steve" wrote: > > Steve: > > ... > > > ... Harry's ... last year was 1997-1998. > > > As to the shot of the modern London skyline, I think that was a cinematic decision. Objects like the "London Eye" are iconic, it is probably one of the most recognized object in the London skyline, and nothing says London more. > > > > Without this recognizable object, we could be seeing pretty much any generic city in Europe. > > Geoff: > I did post a timeline for Harry and for the publication of the books in post 17467. > > Steve, as someone who lived in London for over 40 years, your last > sentence left me undecided whether to be laughing out loud or > hopping mad! > > What about Tower Bridge, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben,The Tower of > London to mention but a few and which have all been there much > longer than the Eye? Which other city could claim these as > generic? > > Tower Bridge did occur, for example, in OOTP when the group are > flying from Privet Drive to Grimmauld Place. > Steve: Tower Bridge, the Palace, Big Ben, Tower of London, etc... are all iconic ... for people who live outside the bubble of their own little world. I've never traveled to London, but I would recognize those building. However, one must ask, how many 10 year old's would recognize them? But, I guess the same could be said for the London Eye. Still, I think the London Eye is the most iconic modern structure in London; Unique in the world. In a sense, a bridge is a bridge, a palace is a palace, a clock is a clock, and a tower is a tower, but the London Eye is a heck of a lot more than a Ferris wheel. Again, I think, the most iconic structure (to the semi-initiated) in London. Keep in mind, I'm agreeing with you, people SHOULD recognize all those other iconic structures you mentioned, but what people should do, and what the can do are very different things. Far too many teenagers can't even find the USA on a globe. Sad but true. In truth, I really don't think the movie makers were thinking that much about the time line. I suspect Uncle Vernon's car does not fit the time line. I suspect other cars on the road are not 'period' cars. I think to some extent, the time or timeline are not addressed in the movies. Technically, the point is right; the London Eye was build in 1999, one year too late for this story. But again, I think from the movie perspective, the events occur in a non-specified year. That does cause continuity errors, but I suspect only those members of LOON (Loyal Order Of Nitpickers) will notice them. Steve/bboyminn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 3 19:14:13 2011 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (johnkclark) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:14:13 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Steve" wrote: >In truth, I really don't think the movie makers were thinking that much about the > time line. There is no timeline in the movies and except for 2 brief mentions, one in book 2 and one in book 7, there almost isn't one in the books. I think it was a mistake to specify the exact years in the books, it should be timeless. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 3 22:26:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:26:51 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "johnkclark" wrote: "Steve" wrote: > > >In truth, I really don't think the movie makers were thinking that much about the > time line. Eggplant (attribution added): > There is no timeline in the movies and except for 2 brief mentions, one in book 2 and one in book 7, there almost isn't one in the books. I think it was a mistake to specify the exact years in the books, it should be timeless. Geoff: I wouldn't agree with you but that is a personal view. I like to have something to which I can anchor my perception of the action (Even in stories like LOTR, I find it useful). To me the mention in COS is extremely important as it locks the story into real time and, as a retired teacher, I can then link Hogwarts to the then current UK education system. Actually, there is a timeline link in the film - the grave of LIly and James at Godric's Hollow in Deathly, Hallows Part 1. From klewellen at shellworld.net Wed Aug 3 22:42:08 2011 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 18:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: hp 7 part 2, audio descriptions? Message-ID: Hi folks, As with all of the harry potter films, hp 7 part two was released including both closed captions and audio descriptions, (dvs) I am wondering if any of you who would see the film this way have been successful this time around? Off list answers are fine, and feel free to share the question. Karen From lkotur at yahoo.com Thu Aug 4 23:11:34 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:11:34 -0000 Subject: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 Message-ID: To compare the movie to the book - well the movie was the movie and the book was the story. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie to the point of "Harry is dead" and Vodemort gloats at the Hogwarts entrance. The movie was disappointing in the "Harry is alive" scene when Harry rolled out of Hagrid's arms. The Harry and Voldemort "flying" scenes were contrived and I believe that was done for the 3-D effects- and the Ron - Hermione trying to kill the snake did not work for me. To me in the book, when Harry's body "disappeared" under the invisibility cloak and the panic in the Death Eaters that ensued and Voldemort's curses not working due to Harry's "death" in the forest, was more exciting than the dueling in the movie. In the book when Harry finally reveals himself in the Great Hall, there is a gasp of excitement and you can feel Voldemort sweat. Harry's speech to Tom Riddle and Voldemort's refusal to show remorse was a key point of the story. The final curse from Voldemort killed himself. In the book that was clear - in the movie well not so much (if you knew nothing about the book. Also, Voldemort's body disintegrating - another 3D effect - did not work for me. One last thing the move really screwed up was the disposition of the Deathly Hallows. In the movie Harry breaks the elder wand without repairing his wand broken at Godrics Hallow. (The resurrection stone was left in the forest like the book) I think the movie should have shown the scene when Harry goes to the Headmaster's office and all the portraits applaud and Harry speaks with Dumbledore's portrait about the Deathly Hallows and repairs his wand with the elder wand. One thing the movie got right on was the "19 years later". That was good. Overall the movie was entertaining and told a story that finished the series, but JKR told one heck of a story that is much better! Larry From karategal1210 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 5 16:17:42 2011 From: karategal1210 at yahoo.com (karategal1210) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:17:42 -0000 Subject: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Larry, I totally agree with all your points here. JK Rowling wove a better ending to this story. Harry's speech to Tom Riddle was one of my favorite parts of the book. I heard an interview with Director David Yates and they thought that the conversation would not hold up on film, so they came up with their own ending. Personally, I have seen plenty of films where speeches like that work. I guess that is all a matter of opinion. It is all in how you shoot it. Well, we got a good ending to the films. It just could have been so much better if they stuck to Rowling's marvelous ending. danielle --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "lkotur" wrote: > > To compare the movie to the book - well the movie was the movie and the book was > the story. > > I thoroughly enjoyed the movie to the point of "Harry is dead" and Vodemort gloats at the Hogwarts entrance. > > The movie was disappointing in the "Harry is alive" scene when Harry rolled out > of Hagrid's arms. The Harry and Voldemort "flying" scenes were contrived and I > believe that was done for the 3-D effects- and the Ron - Hermione trying to kill > the snake did not work for me. > > To me in the book, when Harry's body "disappeared" under the invisibility cloak > and the panic in the Death Eaters that ensued and Voldemort's curses not working > due to Harry's "death" in the forest, was more exciting than the dueling in the > movie. In the book when Harry finally reveals himself in the Great Hall, there > is a gasp of excitement and you can feel Voldemort sweat. Harry's speech to Tom > Riddle and Voldemort's refusal to show remorse was a key point of the story. > The final curse from Voldemort killed himself. In the book that was clear - in > the movie well not so much (if you knew nothing about the book. Also, > Voldemort's body disintegrating - another 3D effect - did not work for me. > > One last thing the move really screwed up was the disposition of the Deathly > Hallows. In the movie Harry breaks the elder wand without repairing his wand > broken at Godrics Hallow. (The resurrection stone was left in the forest like > the book) I think the movie should have shown the scene when Harry goes to the > Headmaster's office and all the portraits applaud and Harry speaks with > Dumbledore's portrait about the Deathly Hallows and repairs his wand with the > elder wand. > > One thing the movie got right on was the "19 years later". > That was good. > > Overall the movie was entertaining and told a story that finished the series, > but JKR told one heck of a story that is much better! > > Larry > From klewellen at shellworld.net Fri Aug 5 22:29:35 2011 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: whose wand is it anyway? Message-ID: Hi all, Finally saw it last night, hoping to see it again. I know there was a slightly different thread on the wands, but here is one among a few things that still has me confused. Just whose wand does Harry have as his son once the eldar wand is broken, *without* repairing his own wand, and why? Yes during the last fight Voldy has the eldar and Harry has, draco's? hard to say since he was holding it, when he was not supposed to, and logic ditttes he dropped it, fell on it? lol. Still why not repair his own, because I am unsure why he would want to just keep someone elses' wand, he was not happy about his broken one. More later perhaps, Karen From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 5 22:57:41 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:57:41 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm" wrote: houyhnhnm: > > I didn't even think about the timeline. What struck me odd about that scene was the fact that they were flying *north* over the Thames. I believe the Leaky Cauldron (and, therefore Diagon Alley and Gringott's bank) is supposed to be located on Charing Cross Road. I only spent 12 hours in London and didn't see much of it, but I did see the Eye, and did see Charing Cross Road, and they are not on the same side of the river. Geoff: > Indeed they are on opposite sides of the river but not very far apart. > The Eye is on the south side, just west of Waterloo railway station while > Charing Cross Road, the supposed site of the Leaky Cauldron, is about > half a mile west of the Eye on the other side of the river running north > from just opposite Charing Cross railway station which is a couple of > hundred yards from Trafalgar Square. > I've seen the film in the cinema once so far and I seem to have a > recollection that the dragon was flying with the Eye and the river to its > right which would put the flight in a southerly direction which would fit: > due east from Gringotts to the river then south from there. > However, I hope to try to get to a second cinema showing this week and > see if I can get a better look. Geoff (again): I have now seen the film for the second time tonight and can confirm what I mentioned here to start with. The dragon is clearly flying with the Eye on its right, the river beyond and the tower of Big Ben beyond that. This places the flight on the east side of the river over the area known to Londoners as the South Bank and it is heading approximately south-west. Just to qualify, the river at this point is actually flowing in a south to north direction, there are a number of big bends in the centre of the city. From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 5 23:48:58 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:48:58 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] whose wand is it anyway? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c001cc53ca$3f05b6a0$bd1123e0$@com> I presume it can be summed up in two words "deleted scenes" md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Lewellen Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 6:30 PM To: hp movie Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] whose wand is it anyway? Hi all, Finally saw it last night, hoping to see it again. I know there was a slightly different thread on the wands, but here is one among a few things that still has me confused. Just whose wand does Harry have as his son once the eldar wand is broken, *without* repairing his own wand, and why? Yes during the last fight Voldy has the eldar and Harry has, draco's? hard to say since he was holding it, when he was not supposed to, and logic ditttes he dropped it, fell on it? lol. Still why not repair his own, because I am unsure why he would want to just keep someone elses' wand, he was not happy about his broken one. More later perhaps, Karen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Fri Aug 5 23:54:02 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:54:02 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c501cc53ca$f3f10560$dbd31020$@com> There were no 3D effects. The film was shot entirely in 2D and WB had it digitally altered later. The 3D alterations for Part 1 where so bad they opted not to release it after the dismal reception of Clash of the Titans and Last Airbender's fake-3D. If anything in the film was shot in 3D it would only be if they shot it in IMAX for IMAX - that's possible but I haven't read where they filmed any of it with those cameras. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lkotur Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:12 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 The Harry and Voldemort "flying" scenes were contrived and I believe that was done for the 3-D effects- and the Ron - Hermione trying to kill the snake did not work for me. Voldemort's body disintegrating - another 3D effect - Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Sat Aug 6 00:01:10 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:01:10 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ca01cc53cb$f319e9d0$d94dbd70$@com> I felt the books ending was weak, I really wanted to see Harry just fight and hold his own against Voldy and JK never let him do that, the movie did. I also felt that Neville's killing of the snake in the book would not work visually, Voldy it would have seemed would have had him down long before he touched the snake so the filmed worked better for me. I also liked that we got to see what was happening in scenes other than where Harry is. I did think editing it down to such a tight 2hrs was a bad idea, some scenes where obviously spliced short and it seemed jerky at times. Over-all I like the ending but wanted Voldy to turn back to Tom in death. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of karategal1210 Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:18 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 Larry, I totally agree with all your points here. JK Rowling wove a better ending to this story. Harry's speech to Tom Riddle was one of my favorite parts of the book. I heard an interview with Director David Yates and they thought that the conversation would not hold up on film, so they came up with their own ending. Personally, I have seen plenty of films where speeches like that work. I guess that is all a matter of opinion. It is all in how you shoot it. Well, we got a good ending to the films. It just could have been so much better if they stuck to Rowling's marvelous ending. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 6 06:48:13 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 06:48:13 -0000 Subject: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "karategal1210" wrote: > > Larry, > > I totally agree with all your points here. JK Rowling wove a better ending to this story. Harry's speech to Tom Riddle was one of my favorite parts of the book. .... Well, we got a good ending to the films. It just could have been so much better if they stuck to Rowling's marvelous ending. > > danielle > Steve replies: In the books, I thought the scene between Harry and Voldemort, as well as the King's Cross scene with Dumbledore and Harry, dragged a but, at least from a cinematic perspective. Those long complex dialog scenes would have slowed the movie to a crawl. Though I do agree, that a few details in the movie could have been handled better. One additional criticism I have is that there is too much 'stand on your mark and react' to David Yates directing. It is his TV background showing through. There are many scenes in which people should have moved forward, when instead they simply stood on their mark. Now in the books, there is more time for long drawn out scenes, and I really enjoyed those scenes in the books, but at the same time knew full well that they couldn't play out that way in the movies. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 6 07:59:07 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:59:07 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > Geoff (again): > ... The dragon is clearly flying with the Eye on its right, the river beyond and the tower of Big Ben beyond that. > > This places the flight ... is heading approximately south-west. Just to qualify, the river at this point is actually flowing in a south to north direction, there are a number of big bends in the centre of the city. > Steve replies: As the river enters the city (actually exist) from the east, it does a couple of wild loops, first is swoops north, then bends south before looping north again, then in the center of the city is sort of levels off on an east to west line. Beyond that to the west it turns sharply south again before somewhat leveling off on an vaguely east to west line near Battersea Park. The London Eye and the Westiminster Place/Big Ben are on the section of river that runs on a north/south line before Battersea Park to the west. But just to the north and slightly west of the North/South section of the river is Charing Cross Road. If you flew a dragon or broom from Charing Cross toward the Lake District to the north, you would be flying away from the river. Charing Cross is NORTH of the River. A quick check of Google Maps, and this will all make sense. Using a iconic landmark, Charing Cross Road north of the eastern tip of St James Park. Again, I think the movie makers simply wanted to show iconic structures in London. Cinematically it made sense, even if logically it didn't make sense. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 6 16:33:21 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:33:21 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: Geoff (again): > > ... The dragon is clearly flying with the Eye on its right, the river beyond and the tower of Big Ben beyond that. > > > > This places the flight ... is heading approximately south-west. Just to qualify, the river at this point is actually flowing in a south to north direction, there are a number of big bends in the centre of the city. Steve: > As the river enters the city (actually exist) from the east, it does a couple of wild loops, first is swoops north, then bends south before looping north again, then in the center of the city is sort of levels off on an east to west line. Beyond that to the west it turns sharply south again before somewhat leveling off on an vaguely east to west line near Battersea Park. Geoff: As someone who lived in London for 45 years and went to school in Battersea, I feel I need to adjust your geography slightly. The river Thames enters London from the *west*. It flows *out* to the east to form the Thames Estuary with Essex on the north and Kent on the south. Steve: > The London Eye and the Westiminster Place/Big Ben are on the section of river that runs on a north/south line before Battersea Park to the west. Geoff: I think you mean Parliament Square? Battersea Park is not a good marker, it's about two miles upstream from the centre. The river does wind around quite a bit. Before it reaches the centre, it takes a big southward loop near Richmond and Twickenham (the latter famous as the home of our premier Rugby Union ground), then a northward loop towards Hammersmith followed by another southward loop towards Fulham (home of one Dan Radcliffe) and Wandsworth - where I lived for many years - then a slight northern loop before levelling out on a west-east line as you suggested past Chelsea and Battersea Park and then begins to curve north on the approach to Westminster, the Houses of Parliament and the Victoria Embankment. Steve: > But just to the north and slightly west of the North/South section of the river is Charing Cross Road. If you flew a dragon or broom from Charing Cross toward the Lake District to the north, you would be flying away from the river. Charing Cross is NORTH of the River. Geoff: Charing Cross is actually west of the river, just before the river turns east towards the City of London and the financial district. Steve: > A quick check of Google Maps, and this will all make sense. Using a iconic landmark, Charing Cross Road north of the eastern tip of St James Park. Geoff: As a better landmark, find Trafalgar Square and Nelson's Column. St.Martin's Place leaves the north-east corner of the square near the National Gallery and within a couple of hundred yards becomes Charing Cross Road leading past Leicester Square (famed for HP film Premieres!). Steve: > Again, I think the movie makers simply wanted to show iconic structures in London. Cinematically it made sense, even if logically it didn't make sense. Geoff: I'm not sure they particularly wanted to show iconic structures. You just get a glimpse of the Eye and for a person knowing London, I had to look pretty quickly to get a further glimpse of the Houses of Parliament as the dragon moved on. In the same way, when they fly along the river on OOTP, you get a lot of quick glimpses which, even a person knowing London has to be quick. there is the Canary Wharf complex, Tower Bridge, HMS Belfast, ane the Houses of Parliament. And, as is usual with film makers, they get the order wrong. They are flying upstream from the east and pass under an ordinary bridge, then you see Tower Bridge in the rear, which is the last downstream bridge in the centre of the city. see As regards the direction, as I said in my last post, it was quite clearly flying roughly south-west along the river. But let's return to the story... We know from Griphook that the dragon was partially blind; that was brought out in the film. I felt sorry for the dragon, having been mistreated. It might have flown off in the direction in which it first left Gringotts and then adjusted in some way; perhaps using the earth's magnetic- as it is thought that migrating birds do - to head north. From swartell at yahoo.com Sun Aug 7 08:14:16 2011 From: swartell at yahoo.com (Sue Wartell) Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1312704856.98010.YahooMailNeo@web161211.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> one point to keep in mind re: the route taken by the dragon from Gringotts - the trio were not steering, they were going wherever the dragon took them.? Fortuitously, they went north towards Hogwarts, but that wasn't by their design.? In the end, they apparated into Hogsmead, so they could have gone there from anywhere in Great Britain. Sue ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 7 12:08:24 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:08:24 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: <1312704856.98010.YahooMailNeo@web161211.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Sue Wartell wrote: Sue: > one point to keep in mind re: the route taken by the dragon from Gringotts - the trio were not steering, they were going wherever the dragon took them.? Fortuitously, they went north towards Hogwarts, but that wasn't by their design.? In the end, they apparated into Hogsmead, so they could have gone there from anywhere in Great Britain. Geoff: In the book, and also in the film, they arrive over a lake. this could have been either the Lake District in north-western England or one of the Scottish lochs which would have pout it nearer to Hogwarts. but, as you say, Apparating to Hogsmeade presents no problems. From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 7 20:58:16 2011 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:58:16 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Dave: > > I can't help pointing this out: When HRH are flying over London atop > > the Gringotts dragon, you can catch a brief glimpse of the London > > Eye. But according to Wikipedia, construction on the London Eye did > > not complete until 1999, a year after LV's defeat. > > > > Would you all agree this is an anachronism? (It's a teeny tiny > > detail, I know, but I'm just curious...) > > Geoff: > Yes, it was a Millennium thing actually opened in 2000, and there were the > Dome and the Bridge - the latter of these I am suddenly reminded features > in HBP. > > The other silly thing about the films is that they always use the exterior of St. > Pancras railway station for the Hogwarts Express scenes but use Kings Cross > itself for the interior shots. The two stations are about 100 yards apart, having > been built by different railway companies (the Midland and the Great Northern) > in the 19th century. > Just had to add my 2cents on the London eye. I was in London in the summer of 1997 and I have pictures of the London eye. I can't say if it was or was not operational at the time, but it does look complete. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 7 21:22:51 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:22:51 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve replies to Geoff: A appreciate the reply, as I appreciate all of your thoughtful posts, I did make a futile attempt to indicate that even though I was moving from East to West, the river itself moves from WEST TO EAST. I went something like this - "As the river enters the city (actually ***exist***) from the east..." Which of course make no sense because it should have said 'Exits', not 'exist'. I was going from east to west because starting in the east has the most recognizable feature of the river, a huge triple-loop "S" shaped bending of the river. Just beyond, to the west of that big "S", the river flattens out on an east/west line, then turns south again (moving east to west, though in reality, as you are trying to point out, based on the flow of the river, rather than turning south it turns north). Then at Battersea Park, the river again flattens out on an east/west line. None the less on the North/South section of the river, that is where the London Eye (south/east bank) and the many iconic government buildings (north/west bank) are. And that is the section of the river we see in the movie. But a section of the river that makes no sense if flying by dragon to the north. As you point out, to have that view of the river, they would have to be flying south/west, which is completely wrong. In fact, to fly north to the Lake District, you would have no more than a distant view of the river behind you. I wasn't trying to contradict you, simply trying to help create a visual picture of what the area in question looked like. Though I quick visit to Google Maps would do wonders. Again, I think it is merely an attempt by the movie makers to find an iconic shot of London from the air. If the flying shot had simply shown the city to the north, there would have been nothing recognizable to anyone but a Londoner. My final correction is that I said "Westminster Place" when, of course, I meant 'PALACE of Westminster'. Again, I wasn't trying to contradict you, just trying to expand on your point. Between the two of us, those not inclined to go to Google Maps, should have a reasonably good mental picture of what the area looks like. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 7 21:41:03 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:41:03 -0000 Subject: Dragon over London... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: ... > > Geoff: > ... > > But let's return to the story... We know from Griphook that the dragon was partially blind; that was brought out in the film. I felt sorry for the dragon, having been mistreated. It might have flown off in the direction in which it first left Gringotts and then adjusted in some way; perhaps using the earth's magnetic- as it is thought that migrating birds do - to head north. > Steve replies: On this I think we can agree. If I were escaping from anywhere, when I got out, I would just run to put some distance between myself and the place where I was imprisoned. Then, once I got my bearing, decided what direction to go. When the dragon escaped, I suspect it just 'rushed out the door', then once in the air (if you can forgive the mixed metaphors) it sensed the proper direction to go. I've always assumed there were some limits on apparation. You can not Apparate from the UK to China in a single go, it is just too far. >From Harry's perspective, we see that Apparation is not instant. He perceives the passing of time, he has time to think, etc..., and he also indicates that he can't breath. So, I conclude you can Apparate as far as you can hold your breath. In my world view, only the very best (if even that) can go from London to Hogsmeade in a single go. I suspect, it would take two hops. I'm guessing maybe 300 miles in a single go. But then, that's just my world view. Steve/bboyminn From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Tue Aug 9 10:49:46 2011 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 06:49:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433D8B3A-987B-4075-8E9B-34505708461A@verizon.net> On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:11 PM, lkotur wrote: > > > To me in the book, when Harry's body "disappeared" under the > invisibility cloak > and the panic in the Death Eaters that ensued and Voldemort's curses > not working > due to Harry's "death" in the forest, was more exciting than the > dueling in the > movie. In the book when Harry finally reveals himself in the Great > Hall, there > is a gasp of excitement and you can feel Voldemort sweat. Harry's > speech to Tom > Riddle and Voldemort's refusal to show remorse was a key point of > the story. > The final curse from Voldemort killed himself. In the book that was > clear - in > the movie well not so much (if you knew nothing about the book. Also, > Voldemort's body disintegrating - another 3D effect - did not work > for me. > > One last thing the move really screwed up was the disposition of the > Deathly > Hallows. In the movie Harry breaks the elder wand without repairing > his wand > broken at Godrics Hallow. (The resurrection stone was left in the > forest like > the book) I think the movie should have shown the scene when Harry > goes to the > Headmaster's office and all the portraits applaud and Harry speaks > with > Dumbledore's portrait about the Deathly Hallows and repairs his wand > with the > elder wand. > > Larry > I re read the book after I'd seen the movie 3x because I didn't want to be too disappointed in the differences. One thing that was quite confusing in the book and barely adequately described in the movie was "Why did Harry come back to life?" [Frankly I'm not 100% sure I understand it, and this was my 3rd read of the book since it came out...!] I thought it was because he sacrificed himself for 'the greater good' (a la Jesus). So this afforded him the choice to 'move on' or go back & finish the job. Which was only part of it. Then there was the whole thing of Voldemort having Harry's blood in him after he regenerated himself in HP4. This offered him Harry's mother's protection, which is why the wands were ineffective against one another. But then Harry's wand broke in HP7 pt1 and he was using Draco's wand (or was is the Snatcher's wand that Ron gave him upon his return? What happened to that wand?) I think the point in the book was that Harry had 'won' Draco's wand, thus becoming it's true owner. But he also won the elder wand, which is why Voldie's spell cast from the elder wand wouldn't kill Harry (b/c it recognized it's rightful owner and wouldn't kill his owner). I thought they simplified this in the movie w/Harry's speech on the bridge b4 he broke the elder wand. But that really only scratched the surface. I do think it would've been nice to have Harry give his remorse speech to V right b4 he died. This was very lengthy in the book and certainly could've been edited down for cinematic purposes. It was almost like Kloves read the book and said "Ah to heck w/it; let's just have a totally non-verbal fight between V & H. I've had quite a few 'non-HP book readers' confused about why H came back to life and why/how V died. Oh and in the interest of time, Harry could've pulled his broken wand out of his pocket, repaired it, THEN broken the wand. In the book it was implied that he was going to put it back in Dumbledore's tomb, right? He says something to D like "I'm going to put it back where it belongs, then when I die the power of the wand will die as well." I thought it was actually more immediately & visually effective to have Harry break the wand and toss it into the abyss. Oh and yes, I thought the book was more direct (albeit shorter and less dramatic?) to have the whole group there to witness the final duel between H & V. Instead of having Harry & V flying off cliffs and running all over the castle and Ron & Hermione being chased by Nagini. Pretty chilling too how V puts the sorting hat on Neville's head and catches it on fire! This is when H jumps out of Hagrid's arms and all hell breaks loose. So yes, movies vs. books...some things are cut for time, and some things are expanded for cinematic purposes. Those who are true HP fans will read, view and enjoy both. ;-) Val~ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Tue Aug 9 10:54:09 2011 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 06:54:09 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <00ca01cc53cb$f319e9d0$d94dbd70$@com> References: <00ca01cc53cb$f319e9d0$d94dbd70$@com> Message-ID: <51338D87-0982-483E-9E1A-A7ABBBFD668E@verizon.net> On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Child of Midian wrote: > > Over-all I like the ending but wanted Voldy to turn back to Tom in > death. > > md > > WOW, interesting, never thought of that. In your mind's eye would he have turned into the actor who played him in HP2 in the C of S? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Tue Aug 9 10:56:25 2011 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 06:56:25 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <00c501cc53ca$f3f10560$dbd31020$@com> References: <00c501cc53ca$f3f10560$dbd31020$@com> Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Child of Midian wrote: > There were no 3D effects. The film was shot entirely in 2D and WB > had it > digitally altered later. The 3D alterations for Part 1 where so bad > they > opted not to release it after the dismal reception of Clash of the > Titans > and Last Airbender's fake-3D. > > If anything in the film was shot in 3D it would only be if they shot > it in > IMAX for IMAX - that's possible but I haven't read where they filmed > any of > it with those cameras. > > md > > I saw it for the 3rd time in 3D. The outer edges of the screen were blurred and things in the middle were 3D. Very annoying to my eyes. Didn't like it at all, tho the part that sticks out as visually cool is when Voldie's body is disintegrating and you feel like the pieces will fly on to you (the audience...ewwww!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 9 12:27:31 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:27:31 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <51338D87-0982-483E-9E1A-A7ABBBFD668E@verizon.net> References: <00ca01cc53cb$f319e9d0$d94dbd70$@com> <51338D87-0982-483E-9E1A-A7ABBBFD668E@verizon.net> Message-ID: <007601cc568f$b66c3a80$2344af80$@com> And why didn't they use the same actor for teen volde? I'm sure this was discussed but I don't remember. Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Valerie Flowe Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:54 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Child of Midian wrote: > > Over-all I like the ending but wanted Voldy to turn back to Tom in > death. > > md > > WOW, interesting, never thought of that. In your mind's eye would he have turned into the actor who played him in HP2 in the C of S? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 9 15:44:32 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:44:32 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <51338D87-0982-483E-9E1A-A7ABBBFD668E@verizon.net> References: <00ca01cc53cb$f319e9d0$d94dbd70$@com> <51338D87-0982-483E-9E1A-A7ABBBFD668E@verizon.net> Message-ID: <003501cc56ab$3be5e420$b3b1ac60$@com> -Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Valerie Flowe > WOW, interesting, never thought of that. In your mind's eye would he have turned into the actor who played him in HP2 in the C of S? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] :: Ralph Fienes md [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 9 15:47:21 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:47:21 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <433D8B3A-987B-4075-8E9B-34505708461A@verizon.net> References: <433D8B3A-987B-4075-8E9B-34505708461A@verizon.net> Message-ID: <003a01cc56ab$a0b75eb0$e2261c10$@com> From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Valerie Flowe Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:50 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 One thing that was quite confusing in the book and barely adequately described in the movie was "Why did Harry come back to life?" [Frankly I'm not 100% sure I understand it, and this was my 3rd read of the book since it came out...!] ::::::::::::::::::: Thought it was because his blood was in Voldy, from GOF, and voldy was like a horcrux for Harry through that. I was pretty sure Dumbledore mentioned it at some point in the books, that it was a big mistake on voldys part to use Harry's blood. md Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From agdisney at msn.com Tue Aug 9 16:55:08 2011 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera ) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:55:08 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 Message-ID: The way i understand it Voldy killed his own horcrux - not Harry and the reason why the Elder wand wouldn't kill Harry was because Draco's wand defeated it and Harry was using Draco's wand Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE -----Original Message----- From: Child of Midian Sent: 8/9/2011 3:47:21 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Valerie Flowe Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:50 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Movie] My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 One thing that was quite confusing in the book and barely adequately described in the movie was "Why did Harry come back to life?" [Frankly I'm not 100% sure I understand it, and this was my 3rd read of the book since it came out...!] ::::::::::::::::::: Thought it was because his blood was in Voldy, from GOF, and voldy was like a horcrux for Harry through that. I was pretty sure Dumbledore mentioned it at some point in the books, that it was a big mistake on voldys part to use Harry's blood. md Yahoo! Groups Switch to: ?subject=Change%20Delivery%20 Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, ?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Diges t> Daily Digest . ?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 9 17:09:22 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:09:22 -0000 Subject: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <007601cc568f$b66c3a80$2344af80$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Tague" wrote: Michelle: > And why didn't they use the same actor for teen volde? I'm sure this was > discussed but I don't remember. Geoff: If you mean Christian Coulson, who played him in COS in 2002, he was then already 24 so for DH2, he would be 33; hardly a teenage Voldemort. :-( From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 9 18:06:07 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:06:07 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: References: <007601cc568f$b66c3a80$2344af80$@com> Message-ID: <01c101cc56bf$0374a4a0$0a5dede0$@com> Ohhhhhh, makes sense..thanks! Michelle Tague From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:09 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com , "Michelle Tague" wrote: Michelle: > And why didn't they use the same actor for teen volde? I'm sure this was > discussed but I don't remember. Geoff: If you mean Christian Coulson, who played him in COS in 2002, he was then already 24 so for DH2, he would be 33; hardly a teenage Voldemort. :-( [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 9 23:25:36 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:25:36 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Main) Message-ID: As Steve remarked on a recent Main post "Each to his own"; what follows are my own thoughts on the meeting between Voldemort and Harry in the forest. In the early days after the publication of the book and in the sometimes intense discussions which took place, I made the point on a number of occasions that my belief was that Harry did NOT die in the Forest encounter and quoted canon to support my view: `"But you're dead," said Harry. "Oh, yes," said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. "Then I'm dead too?" "Ah," said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. "That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not." They looked at each other, the old man still beaming. "Not?" repeated Harry. "Not," said Dumbledore. "But ' Harry raised his hand instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there. "But I should have died ? I didn't defend myself! I meant to let him kill me!" "And that," said Dumbledore, Will, I think, have made all the difference."' (DH "King's Cross" p.567 UK edition) `Harry sat in thought for a long time or perhaps seconds. It was very hard to be sure of things like time, here. "He killed me with your wand." "He failed to kill you with my wand," Dumbledore corrected Harry. "I think we can agree that you are not dead - though, of course, " he added, as if fearing he had been discourteous, "I do not minimise your sufferings, which I am sure were severe."' (ibid. p.570) There is obviously the section in the chapter where Dumbledore tells Harry he has the option to go on. This seems to suggest that he has gone to some sort of limbo but ? and this is a big but ? can go back which is not granted when people die. This is obviously some sort of unusual occurrence for unusual circumstances: `He (Dumbledore) looked interrogatively at Harry and Harry nodded. "Which means," said Dumbledore slowly, his eyes upon Harry's face, "that some form of Cedric must have re-appeared." Harry nodded again. "Diggory came back to life?" said Sirius sharply. "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily.' (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition) But, to return to the results of the spell. I commented in a recent post that I thought that the Elder Wand had a part to play in the final fight.. When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. It was destroyed in a kind of reversal of what happened in Godric's Hollow where Voldemort's spell rebounded and disembodied him leaving the Horcrux fragment to latch onto baby Harry. There was obviously some sort of reaction because Voldemort was apparently knocked out judging from what Harry could determine without daring to open his eyes. Now, what about the Great Hall duel at the very end? I believe that the Elder Wand came into play here. The sequence of holding the Elder Wand was that Draco disarmed Dumbledore on the Tower but did not take possession because the wand was buried with the Headmaster. However, because he had disarmed him, the wand's allegiance shifted to Draco although he did not have the wand in his possession. When Harry disarmed Draco at the Manor, the Elder Wand was not physically involved but, since Harry had defeated Draco, the wand's master had been defeated and so it's allegiance moved again ? to Harry, Voldemort being ignorant of this change. So when Voldemort rather foolishly attempted an Avadra Kedrava for the third time on Harry, this was someone who was not the master of the wand attempting to defeat the real master without the authority to do so and the wand therefore responded to Harry's Expelliarmus and went to him while Voldemort's spell rebounded ? yet again! and this time he had nothing left with which to cushion or reduce the spell. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 04:42:41 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:42:41 -0000 Subject: My "disappointment" with the Movie Part 2 In-Reply-To: <003a01cc56ab$a0b75eb0$e2261c10$@com> Message-ID: > One thing that was quite > confusing in the book and barely adequately described in the movie was > "Why did Harry come back to life?" [Frankly I'm not 100% sure I > understand it, and this was my 3rd read of the book since it came > out...!] > > ::::::::::::::::::: > Thought it was because his blood was in Voldy, from GOF, and voldy was like > a horcrux for Harry through that. I was pretty sure Dumbledore mentioned it > at some point in the books, that it was a big mistake on voldys part to use > Harry's blood. > > md Niru: That is one way of putting it I suppose. :) Voldemort unintentionally doubled his connection to Harry in the graveyard in GoF when he resurrects himself using Harry's blood. When he takes Harry's blood, he also takes in the protection Lily has provided Harry. In that sense, Voldemort can be loosely said to act as a Horcrux for Harry. However, this different from a true Horcrux because Harry is not immortal. He can still be killed by someone else and he will die unlike Voldemort on that fateful night in Godric's Hollow. The way I see it, Harry is protected only from Voldemort's attack which is why Dumbledore insists that 'Voldemort himself must do it'. This is the only thing that will provide Harry a way back. Also, as I understand it, Harry must not fight to defend himself thereby recreating the circumstances of that night in Godric's Hollow where he could not fight (being a baby). But perhaps I'm over-analysing it on this particular point... Niru From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 06:51:33 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:51:33 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > As Steve remarked on a recent Main post "Each to his own"; what > follows are my own thoughts on the meeting between Voldemort > and Harry in the forest. > > In the early days after the publication of the book and in the > sometimes intense discussions which took place, I made the point > on a number of occasions that my belief was that Harry did NOT > die in the Forest encounter and quoted canon to support my view: > > ... > Steve replies: Sorry, just wanted to add that that was a pretty concise and accurate description of what happened. And, for the very most part, I agree. I would add that while Harry was in Limbo, it seemed as if Voldemort was also in Limbo, but held there by Harry's fate. If Harry doesn't go back, I'm not sure Voldemort could go back. Though perhaps, I'm not certain, he would have again been left as a disembodied spirit. I find it interesting that Voldemort failed to kill Harry the first time because of Lily's protection. The protection of her self-sacrifice. The second time, the time we are discussing, Lily's protection was still in effect, though Voldemort had some small portion of it in him. Regardless of Voldemort have a small degree of that protection, I really don't think he was protected to the degree that Harry was. So, the forest spell being unable to kill Harry, killed the only thing it could which was the fragment of Voldemort's soul contained in Harry. Precisely how their fates are bound together in that moment, are not completely clear to me, but it does seem as if Harry is in charge. He makes the decision as to whether he goes 'On' or goes 'back' and Voldemort must follow suit. The one part I'm not sure of is if Harry chooses to go 'On', what happens to Voldemort? Dead or Disembodied? I suspect disembodied, otherwise there is no point in having Harry go back. Of course, the addition of the Elder wand only complicates things even more. If Voldemort could not kill Harry twice, it is illogical for him to be able to do it a third time. But really ... what choice does he have but to try. Redemption does not seem to be an option for such an Evil Overlord. I like your analysis of the Elder Wands reaction to Harry's Expelliarmus, and I agree, the Wand came to Harry willingly and easily. I never quite thought about that aspect before, but your description seem very poetic to me now. So, in short, I really love your concise analysis of how all the pieces fit together. There has been discussion on this and confusion about it, and I think you nailed it. Steve/bboyminn From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Fri Aug 12 14:59:10 2011 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Main) Message-ID: <73e47.292a04a4.3b7699bd@aol.com> A response from someone who is usually a lurker: In a message dated 8/10/2011 2:51:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: Steve replies: Sorry, just wanted to add that that was a pretty concise and accurate description of what happened. And, for the very most part, I agree. I would add that while Harry was in Limbo, it seemed as if Voldemort was also in Limbo, but held there by Harry's fate. If Harry doesn't go back, I'm not sure Voldemort could go back. Though perhaps, I'm not certain, he would have again been left as a disembodied spirit. I find it interesting that Voldemort failed to kill Harry the first time because of Lily's protection. The protection of her self-sacrifice. The second time, the time we are discussing, Lily's protection was still in effect, though Voldemort had some small portion of it in him. Regardless of Voldemort have a small degree of that protection, I really don't think he was protected to the degree that Harry was. So, the forest spell being unable to kill Harry, killed the only thing it could which was the fragment of Voldemort's soul contained in Harry. Precisely how their fates are bound together in that moment, are not completely clear to me, but it does seem as if Harry is in charge. He makes the decision as to whether he goes 'On' or goes 'back' and Voldemort must follow suit. The one part I'm not sure of is if Harry chooses to go 'On', what happens to Voldemort? Dead or Disembodied? I suspect disembodied, otherwise there is no point in having Harry go back. In the forest, the horcrux in Nagini was still alive and well, so Voldemort would NOT have died or become disembodied. He would have been stunned, as we saw, but the piece of his soul in Nagini would have protected him. Harry realized that, I'm sure, so he knew he had to come back and finish things, one way or the other. jamelia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Fri Aug 12 15:09:53 2011 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:09:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Did I Imagine it? - Spoilers Message-ID: <74543.5df72190.3b769c41@aol.com> Since no one else seems to have noticed this, I thought I'd point out something: In a message dated 7/20/2011 4:44:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, CatMcNulty at comcast.net writes: > June: > Yes, it definitely was Lavender. It could be that with all the > commotion Ron didn't notice who it was. I was thinking about that > myself because if I remember right, I thought in the book that he > only mauled Lavender and that she survived. Cat Replies: Oh...I didn't remember that! Think of the repercussions! Dang now Lavender will be a werewolf! Poor girl, she just can't get a break! I don't think Lavender is a werewolf. I think she died. In POA, I believe Lavender and Parvati were the two students in Prof. Trelawney's Divination class who hung on her every word. In the movie, as Harry walked into the Great Hall and saw all the dead and wounded, there was a quick shot of Parvati and Trelawney sitting together, with someone lying between them. We don't see the face of the person lying there, but I took it to be Lavender when the professor shook her head sadly and covered the face while Parvati reacts. I thought they were indicating that Lavender had actually been killed by Greyback (although I certainly could be wrong). jamelia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Fri Aug 12 15:35:27 2011 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Did I Imagine it? - Spoilers Message-ID: <756a4.1a9915f5.3b76a23f@aol.com> In a message dated 7/20/2011 3:49:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, CatMcNulty at comcast.net writes: Cat Replies: Granted it may be that Dan and Geradine's eyes match. In the movie it is hard to tell because all of their scenes together are shadowy and/or dark. The Lily I am refering to is YOUNG Lily with the glaringly apparent DARK BROWN eyes as seen in the bright daylight extreme close up. I noticed this too, but it only bothered me for a little while. There are two reasons I thought of that would account for this apparent discrepancy: 1. In one of the scenes, DAN'S eyes looked brown to me. I know some of the special effects used in the movies were various types of "color washes" for mood. It's possible that something like this might have caused the young actress' eyes to look a different color than they usually are. They often seemed to play with the color palette in the "memory" or Penseive scenes, especially by washing out a lot of the colors. 2. The producers may not have been able to find a young actress with blue eyes who they thought could handle the part as well as the girl they finally cast for young Lily. Personally, I'd rather a girl with the wrong color eyes rather than a kid who would not have been able to been good, if that was the choice they had to make. I do agree, however, that with all the other effects they played with, the producers could have given her the right color eyes if that were the case; it wasn't a deal-breaker for me. I actually was impressed that they did as good a job as they did tying up the loose ends of the plot, given the omissions and changes made in previous movies. As others have mentioned, there were a couple of changes I thought were improvements on the books. I agree with the poster (sorry--forgot who it was so I can't go back to your quote) who said they thought it made sense that Voldemort could "feel" when a horcrux was destroyed, which he didn't in the books. I also thought that the explanation that Harry could "feel" where the diadem was because of the horcrux in it made perfect sense, given the effects the locket had on HRH in Part 1, which IS part of canon in the book. The explanation of how Harry was the master of the Elder Wand made SO much more sense in the movie than in the books. I also didn't have a problem with Harry's snapping it and throwing it away instead of fixing his original wand. In the scene with Ollivander in Shell Cottage, the wand maker told Harry that Draco's wand had "changed its allegiance" to him. Since Harry's wand and Voldemort's had a shared history, maybe Harry wouldn't have felt the need to get his original wand back in the movie HP universe. We who read (and reread!) the books know how devastated Harry was to lose his wand, but in the movie, the key thing was that he needed a wand to use that would work for him. As long as he had one that had "chosen" him, Harry in the movies was good to go. Do I have quibbles about how some things were handled in the movies? Sure, but I am one of you who have no trouble separating Movie HP Universe from Book HP Universe. I think what they did, with all of the time constraints forced by the rate the kid actors were maturing, was a remarkable achievement. I've enjoyed the comments of many of you who have not been happy about certain things, but I'm really happy with the movies overall. jamelia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mugg1eb0rn at aol.com Fri Aug 12 15:40:04 2011 From: mugg1eb0rn at aol.com (mugg1eb0rn at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Did I Imagine it? - Spoilers Message-ID: <759fd.2a9fb57d.3b76a354@aol.com> Sorry, everyone. I should have read my first post so I knew that the spaces and what indicates the original post were missing in my replies (now I see why everyone puts in their name and "replies" in their messages!). If I respond to any other posts, I will remember! the List Elves do not have to chastise me! I'm doing it to myself! Me bad! jamelia In a message dated 8/12/2011 11:35:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mugg1eb0rn at aol.com writes: In a message dated 7/20/2011 3:49:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _CatMcNulty at comcast.net_ (mailto:CatMcNulty at comcast.net) writes: Cat Replies: Granted it may be that Dan and Geradine's eyes match. In the movie it is hard to tell because all of their scenes together are shadowy and/or dark. The Lily I am refering to is YOUNG Lily with the glaringly apparent DARK BROWN eyes as seen in the bright daylight extreme close up. jamelia replies: I noticed this too, but it only bothered me for a little while. There are two reasons I thought of that would account for this apparent discrepancy: 1. In one of the scenes, DAN'S eyes looked brown to me. I know some of the special effects used in the movies were various types of "color washes" for mood. It's possible that something like this might have caused the young actress' eyes to look a different color than they usually are. They often seemed to play with the color palette in the "memory" or Penseive scenes, especially by washing out a lot of the colors. 2. The producers may not have been able to find a young actress with blue eyes who they thought could handle the part as well as the girl they finally cast for young Lily. Personally, I'd rather a girl with the wrong color eyes rather than a kid who would not have been able to been good, if that was the choice they had to make. I do agree, however, that with all the other effects they played with, the producers could have given her the right color eyes if that were the case; it wasn't a deal-breaker for me. I actually was impressed that they did as good a job as they did tying up the loose ends of the plot, given the omissions and changes made in previous movies. As others have mentioned, there were a couple of changes I thought were improvements on the books. I agree with the poster (sorry--forgot who it was so I can't go back to your quote) who said they thought it made sense that Voldemort could "feel" when a horcrux was destroyed, which he didn't in the books. I also thought that the explanation that Harry could "feel" where the diadem was because of the horcrux in it made perfect sense, given the effects the locket had on HRH in Part 1, which IS part of canon in the book. The explanation of how Harry was the master of the Elder Wand made SO much more sense in the movie than in the books. I also didn't have a problem with Harry's snapping it and throwing it away instead of fixing his original wand. In the scene with Ollivander in Shell Cottage, the wand maker told Harry that Draco's wand had "changed its allegiance" to him. Since Harry's wand and Voldemort's had a shared history, maybe Harry wouldn't have felt the need to get his original wand back in the movie HP universe. We who read (and reread!) the books know how devastated Harry was to lose his wand, but in the movie, the key thing was that he needed a wand to use that would work for him. As long as he had one that had "chosen" him, Harry in the movies was good to go. Do I have quibbles about how some things were handled in the movies? Sure, but I am one of you who have no trouble separating Movie HP Universe from Book HP Universe. I think what they did, with all of the time constraints forced by the rate the kid actors were maturing, was a remarkable achievement. I've enjoyed the comments of many of you who have not been happy about certain things, but I'm really happy with the movies overall. jamelia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iluvoz2 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 13 23:42:53 2011 From: iluvoz2 at yahoo.com (iluvoz2) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:42:53 -0000 Subject: Hallows Message-ID: I just listened to the Deathly Hallows again.... What I can't understand is why they feel like they need to change the way JK Rowling wrote the book... I understand omitting things for time sake...but why change something that doesn't need changing? For instance... the battle and the way Harry and Voldy ended things...she wrote a much better scene so why not just film it that way. Not showing how important characters died.... Changing the things characters do and have other characters do it... Not seeing Hagrid before the forest or not showing Grop at all, leaving out all the creatures of the forest come that come to the rescue at the battle. In the book Harry uses the invisibility cloak before he battles Voldy, to me that was something that needed to happen. I think they should have made part 1 and 2 into 2 1/2 or 3 hour movies, I don't think anyone would have complained about that...look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy.. I did really like the movie I just wanted more.... I don't post much here so thanks for listening Barb From md at exit-reality.com Sun Aug 14 19:09:15 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:09:15 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> I read the American and British versions of the books, since Harry wasn't present when any main characters died their deaths were not in the book so they didn't change that for the film. Not at all agreeing with every change they make, I offer only this; as someone who has studied screenwriting and tried his hand at it a few times it must be kept in mind that the visual medium of film and the written word are not the same. The first two films kept very close to the book and they both rank in the bottom when they poll people. Interesting you mention LOTR, because the films went in wildly different directions from books on many occasions. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of iluvoz2 I understand omitting things for time sake...but why change something that doesn't need changing? For instance... Not showing how important characters died.... Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 14 19:52:46 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:52:46 -0000 Subject: Hallows In-Reply-To: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Child of Midian" wrote: md: > I read the American and British versions of the books, since Harry wasn't > present when any main characters died their deaths were not in the book so > they didn't change that for the film. Geoff: That is not absolutely correct. Harry was present when Fred Weasley was killed. From lkotur at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 21:19:13 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:19:13 -0000 Subject: Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "iluvoz2" wrote: > > I just listened to the Deathly Hallows again.... > > What I can't understand is why they feel like they need to change the way JK Rowling wrote the book... > > I understand omitting things for time sake...but why change something that doesn't need changing? > > For instance... > > the battle and the way Harry and Voldy ended things...she wrote a much better scene so why not just film it that way. > > Not showing how important characters died.... > > Changing the things characters do and have other characters do it... > > Not seeing Hagrid before the forest or not showing Grop at all, > > leaving out all the creatures of the forest come that come to the rescue at the battle. > > In the book Harry uses the invisibility cloak before he battles Voldy, to me that was something that needed to happen. > > I think they should have made part 1 and 2 into 2 1/2 or 3 hour movies, I don't think anyone would have complained about that...look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy.. > > I did really like the movie I just wanted more.... > > I don't post much here so thanks for listening > > Barb > The movie was great up to the part where Voldemort returned to Hogwarts with Harry's body. When Harry revealed himself by rolling out of Hagrid's arms, the movie went south from there to the epilog. Larry From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 15 02:02:34 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:02:34 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Hallows In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d701cc5aef$66741930$335c4b90$@com> Well, I liked it. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lkotur The movie was great up to the part where Voldemort returned to Hogwarts with Harry's body. When Harry revealed himself by rolling out of Hagrid's arms, the movie went south from there to the epilog. Larry [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taguem at jmsearch.com Mon Aug 15 15:13:01 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:13:01 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows In-Reply-To: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> References: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> Message-ID: <020d01cc5b5d$d41d7c10$7c587430$@com> Funny. the first 3 films are my favorite . Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Child of Midian Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:09 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows I read the American and British versions of the books, since Harry wasn't present when any main characters died their deaths were not in the book so they didn't change that for the film. Not at all agreeing with every change they make, I offer only this; as someone who has studied screenwriting and tried his hand at it a few times it must be kept in mind that the visual medium of film and the written word are not the same. The first two films kept very close to the book and they both rank in the bottom when they poll people. Interesting you mention LOTR, because the films went in wildly different directions from books on many occasions. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of iluvoz2 I understand omitting things for time sake...but why change something that doesn't need changing? For instance... Not showing how important characters died.... Yahoo! Groups Switch to: ?subject=Change%20Delivery%20 Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, ?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Diges t> Daily Digest . ?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Mon Aug 15 19:41:09 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:41:09 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows In-Reply-To: <020d01cc5b5d$d41d7c10$7c587430$@com> References: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> <020d01cc5b5d$d41d7c10$7c587430$@com> Message-ID: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> That's interesting because most people divided on the third film due to how radically different and heavily abridged it was, I don't think I've ever heard anyone group the three together before. Personally I think the 4th was the lowest point in the films. The story was to complex to cut so much and it felt like nothing more than jumping from challenge to challenge and trying to paste a story in between. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michelle Tague Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 11:13 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows Funny. the first 3 films are my favorite . Michelle . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taguem at jmsearch.com Mon Aug 15 20:08:57 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:08:57 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows In-Reply-To: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> References: <00af01cc5ab5$a94cb9e0$fbe62da0$@com> <020d01cc5b5d$d41d7c10$7c587430$@com> <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> Message-ID: <032e01cc5b87$2afc1d60$80f45820$@com> Totally agree about the 4th . And I think I include 3 in there because of my boys. Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Child of Midian Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:41 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows That's interesting because most people divided on the third film due to how radically different and heavily abridged it was, I don't think I've ever heard anyone group the three together before. Personally I think the 4th was the lowest point in the films. The story was to complex to cut so much and it felt like nothing more than jumping from challenge to challenge and trying to paste a story in between. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Michelle Tague Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 11:13 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] Hallows Funny. the first 3 films are my favorite . Michelle . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nday326 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 15 20:04:10 2011 From: nday326 at yahoo.com (NDAY) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hallows In-Reply-To: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> Message-ID: <1313438650.61491.YahooMailClassic@web121807.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> > md: > Personally I think the 4th was the lowest point in the films. The story was to complex to cut so much and it felt like nothing more than jumping from challenge to challenge and trying to paste a story > in between. Nikki: I think that Half Blood Prince was the worst movie of the series. The inordinate amount of time spent on drama between Ron, Lavender and Hermione. The director basically ignored Tom Riddle's story, The ending with Bellatrix and the rest sauntering through Hogwarts without resistance. Not showing Dumbledore's funeral. The 6th book was really good. I don't understand why they couldn't follow the crux of the plot in the book. Nikki [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 16 12:28:41 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:28:41 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows In-Reply-To: <1313438650.61491.YahooMailClassic@web121807.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> <1313438650.61491.YahooMailClassic@web121807.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001cc5c10$08aa6a80$19ff3f80$@com> I totally agree! HBP really was the worst for me?very disappointing? so many really crucial things just completely removed from the movie. Although I will admit to be a bit relieved with them for not including the funeral, I would have been a blubbering idiot in the theater and made an ass out of myself? I cried for what seemed like hours after I finished that book (at 1 am) ? my husband still giggles about how devastated I was over Dumbledore?s death? Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of NDAY Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:04 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows > md: > Personally I think the 4th was the lowest point in the films. The story was to complex to cut so much and it felt like nothing more than jumping from challenge to challenge and trying to paste a story > in between. Nikki: I think that Half Blood Prince was the worst movie of the series. The inordinate amount of time spent on drama between Ron, Lavender and Hermione. The director basically ignored Tom Riddle's story, The ending with Bellatrix and the rest sauntering through Hogwarts without resistance. Not showing Dumbledore's funeral. The 6th book was really good. I don't understand why they couldn't follow the crux of the plot in the book. Nikki [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 16 15:39:56 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:39:56 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows In-Reply-To: <000001cc5c10$08aa6a80$19ff3f80$@com> References: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> <1313438650.61491.YahooMailClassic@web121807.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <000001cc5c10$08aa6a80$19ff3f80$@com> Message-ID: <004901cc5c2a$c01a4270$404ec750$@com> I like to not look at the films from the bias of a book-reader. By that token, the first and second films where sluggish and stagnant with some horribly dialogue (?there?s only one place for that, Diagon Ally? ? as if the other wizards wouldn?t have ever been there or already known that?s where they would go.) The third was the most ?cinematic? and though they cut a ton from the book it felt like a complete story, the acting / dialogue improved 10X. The forth film was a mess, it was just 5 parts joined weekly together, the Quiddich world cup, thee tri-wizard challenges, Yule ball, end; however, Hermione?s ?I?m not an owl? line was perfect. I liked OOTP and HBP, as films, I didn?t care much what was lost, but I did feel jerked forward a bit by the overly-fast pacing. Part one of the DH was near perfect, proving they had the write director and just needed to have a more complete script, but DH2 was a little short of plot due to the pace it was Gringots, battle of Hogwarts, the end. $.02 md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michelle Tague Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:29 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows I totally agree! HBP really was the worst for me?very disappointing? so many really crucial things just completely removed from the movie. Although I will admit to be a bit relieved with them for not including the funeral, I would have been a blubbering idiot in the theater and made an ass out of myself? I cried for what seemed like hours after I finished that book (at 1 am) ? my husband still giggles about how devastated I was over Dumbledore?s death? Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 16 17:33:25 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:33:25 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows In-Reply-To: <004901cc5c2a$c01a4270$404ec750$@com> References: <001b01cc5b83$484b2770$d8e17650$@com> <1313438650.61491.YahooMailClassic@web121807.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <000001cc5c10$08aa6a80$19ff3f80$@com> <004901cc5c2a$c01a4270$404ec750$@com> Message-ID: <00ba01cc5c3a$9b70c7e0$d25257a0$@com> I enjoyed your $.02 ;-) and do agree that I do try to enjoy the movies in a separate entity?. As a movie truly never is as good as the book? Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Child of Midian Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:40 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows I like to not look at the films from the bias of a book-reader. By that token, the first and second films where sluggish and stagnant with some horribly dialogue (?there?s only one place for that, Diagon Ally? ? as if the other wizards wouldn?t have ever been there or already known that?s where they would go.) The third was the most ?cinematic? and though they cut a ton from the book it felt like a complete story, the acting / dialogue improved 10X. The forth film was a mess, it was just 5 parts joined weekly together, the Quiddich world cup, thee tri-wizard challenges, Yule ball, end; however, Hermione?s ?I?m not an owl? line was perfect. I liked OOTP and HBP, as films, I didn?t care much what was lost, but I did feel jerked forward a bit by the overly-fast pacing. Part one of the DH was near perfect, proving they had the write director and just needed to have a more complete script, but DH2 was a little short of plot due to the pace it was Gringots, battle of Hogwarts, the end. $.02 md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Michelle Tague Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:29 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [HPFGU-Movie] RE: Hallows I totally agree! HBP really was the worst for me?very disappointing? so many really crucial things just completely removed from the movie. Although I will admit to be a bit relieved with them for not including the funeral, I would have been a blubbering idiot in the theater and made an ass out of myself? I cried for what seemed like hours after I finished that book (at 1 am) ? my husband still giggles about how devastated I was over Dumbledore?s death? Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 17 17:36:21 2011 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (johnkclark) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:36:21 -0000 Subject: How it should have ended In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/08/17/random-blam-how-it-should-have-ended-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2 From taguem at jmsearch.com Wed Aug 17 17:48:52 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:48:52 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] How it should have ended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017801cc5d05$ee0dc040$ca2940c0$@com> LOVE IT! Thank you so much for sharing! Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of johnkclark Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:36 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] How it should have ended http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/08/17/random-blam-how-it-should-have-ende d-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From agdisney at msn.com Wed Aug 17 21:40:21 2011 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:40:21 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] How it should have ended In-Reply-To: <017801cc5d05$ee0dc040$ca2940c0$@com> References: <017801cc5d05$ee0dc040$ca2940c0$@com> Message-ID: That was great!! Andie LOVE IT! Thank you so much for sharing! Michelle Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] How it should have ended http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/08/17/random-blam-how-it-should-have-ende d-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 01:10:03 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:10:03 -0000 Subject: How it should have ended In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "johnkclark" wrote: > > > > http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/08/17/random-blam-how-it-should-have-ended-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2 > Pat: Terrific! Thanks for sharing! From susiek77 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 22 22:45:09 2011 From: susiek77 at yahoo.com (SusieK77) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:45:09 -0000 Subject: whose wand is it anyway? In-Reply-To: <00c001cc53ca$3f05b6a0$bd1123e0$@com> Message-ID: > Karen: > Finally saw it last night, hoping to see it again. > I know there was a slightly different thread on the wands, but > here is one among a few things that still has me confused. > Just whose wand does Harry have as his son once the eldar wand > is broken, *without* repairing his own wand, and why? > Yes during the last fight Voldy has the eldar and Harry has, > draco's? > hard to say since he was holding it, when he was not supposed > to, and logic ditttes he dropped it, fell on it? lol. Susie: Well in both the book and the movie it explains that Draco's wand changed allegiances when Harry won it. So it was Harry's wand that he had, and that is why the elder wand was his as well. From md at exit-reality.com Tue Aug 23 02:30:42 2011 From: md at exit-reality.com (Child of Midian) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:30:42 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201cc613c$a84555b0$f8d00110$@com> Didn't matter to me at all. md From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SusieK77 Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 6:54 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Was anyone disappointed that... Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? Susie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 23 06:51:27 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:51:27 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "SusieK77" wrote: Susie: > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and > V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? Geoff: This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range of opinions aired. From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 23 12:40:19 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:40:19 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009301cc6191$d1e32be0$75a983a0$@com> I'm not on the main, I stopped forever ago. the rules on how to properly post got to be too much for me.. So I'm just on this one. Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:51 AM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Was anyone disappointed that... --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com , "SusieK77" wrote: Susie: > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and > V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? Geoff: This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range of opinions aired. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Tue Aug 23 16:46:42 2011 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (catmcnulty) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:46:42 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "SusieK77" wrote: > > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and > V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? > > Susie > Cat replies: As far as I am concerned it would have been a much more satisfying "End of Voldemort" if everybody got to witness this historic event AND if Harry (in his monologing)would have been able to encourage Voldemort to show genuine regret for his actions, thus being redeemed. It would have been a good lesson (for everyone)that NO ONE is a lost cause. Remember what Dumbledore said (paraphrased) "It is our choices that make us who we are" From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 23 19:45:42 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:45:42 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: <009301cc6191$d1e32be0$75a983a0$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Tague" wrote: Susie: > > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and > > V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? > Geoff: > This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range of > opinions aired. Michelle: > I'm not on the main, I stopped forever ago. the rules on how to properly > post got to be too much for me.. So I'm just on this one. Geoff: Well, I've been in main just over 8 years and never found the posting rules particularly difficult. Perhaps you ought to rejoin to just lurk and sneak the threads back over here. :-) One of the reasons there is so much activity there is that there is a lot of overlapping discussion comparing the books and films . From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Aug 23 19:56:46 2011 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle Tague) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:56:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: References: <009301cc6191$d1e32be0$75a983a0$@com> Message-ID: <021201cc61ce$cb0cc230$61264690$@com> LOL, I don't possess the ability to just lurk . Michelle From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:46 PM To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: Was anyone disappointed that... --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com , "Michelle Tague" wrote: Susie: > > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP and > > V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? > Geoff: > This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range of > opinions aired. Michelle: > I'm not on the main, I stopped forever ago. the rules on how to properly > post got to be too much for me.. So I'm just on this one. Geoff: Well, I've been in main just over 8 years and never found the posting rules particularly difficult. Perhaps you ought to rejoin to just lurk and sneak the threads back over here. :-) One of the reasons there is so much activity there is that there is a lot of overlapping discussion comparing the books and films . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 23 22:07:43 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:07:43 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: <021201cc61ce$cb0cc230$61264690$@com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle Tague" wrote: Michelle: > LOL, I don't possess the ability to just lurk . Geoff: Pity. I'm sure you could contribute some good stuff to that topic. From susiek77 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 24 02:38:07 2011 From: susiek77 at yahoo.com (SusieK77) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:38:07 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susie: > > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP > > and V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? > Geoff: > This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range > of opinions aired. Susie: Sorry, when I finally was able to coax my computer to get on a group this is the only one that it did not jump pages, I am not good on computers and do not know why on some pages my computer jumps pages. I was just happy to find someone I could talk about HP with. Please forgive me if I repeat questions of the past. From susiek77 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 24 02:41:51 2011 From: susiek77 at yahoo.com (SusieK77) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:41:51 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Cat replies: > As far as I am concerned it would have been a much more satisfying > "End of Voldemort" if everybody got to witness this historic event > AND if Harry (in his monologing) would have been able to encourage > Voldemort to show genuine regret for his actions, thus being > redeemed. It would have been a good lesson (for everyone)that NO > ONE is a lost cause. Remember what Dumbledore said (paraphrased) > "It is our choices that make us who we are" Susie: I agree that it would have been more satisfying. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 24 06:57:21 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:57:21 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "SusieK77" wrote: Susie: > > > Was anyone disappointed that in the movie the fight between HP > > > and V was not done in front of everyone like it was in the book? Geoff: > > This has been discussed quite extensively on Main and a wide range > > of opinions aired. Susie: > Sorry, when I finally was able to coax my computer to get on a group > this is the only one that it did not jump pages, I am not good on > computers and do not know why on some pages my computer jumps pages. > I was just happy to find someone I could talk about HP with. Please > forgive me if I repeat questions of the past. Geoff: Sorry, my comment wasn't meant as a criticism. It's just the fact that because there has been much more discussion about the differences between the book and the film as there has been in the past that the interesting threads have shifted to Main and there's rather a lot of information to summarise. I'm surprised that your computer jumps pages. Perhaps a well-aimed kick might persuade it to cooperate? :-) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 25 19:25:43 2011 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (johnkclark) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:25:43 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "catmcnulty" wrote: ">if Harry (in his monologing) would have been able to encourage Voldemort to show genuine regret for his actions" So it all comes down to this, does the wand that's in your hand know I defeated its last master? Well to tell you the truth I don't know enough wand lore to be able to answer to that question, I don't think anybody does, not even Dumbledore, but a wand won't kill its master so the question you have to ask yourself is: do I feel lucky today? [long pause with nothing happening] Well do you, Junior? Come on make my day! From susiek77 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 26 05:04:23 2011 From: susiek77 at yahoo.com (SusieK77) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:04:23 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed that... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > Sorry, my comment wasn't meant as a criticism. It's just the fact > that because there has been much more discussion about the > differences between the book and the film as there has been in the > past that the interesting threads have shifted to Main and there's > rather a lot of information to summarise. > > I'm surprised that your computer jumps pages. Perhaps a well-aimed > kick might persuade it to cooperate? > :-) Susie: I did not take it as a criticism, I took as I came into the middle of the conversation and you were trying to help me catch up. My son tells me that kicks nor baseball bats help the computer only my mood. But he can not figure out why it started jumping pages six days ago but he assures me it is probably something I did, and he is probably right. From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Fri Aug 26 16:53:39 2011 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (catmcnulty) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:53:39 -0000 Subject: Was anyone disappointed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "johnkclark" wrote: > > "catmcnulty" wrote: > > > ">if Harry (in his monologing) would have been able to encourage Voldemort to show genuine regret for his actions" > > > So it all comes down to this, does the wand that's in your hand know I defeated its last master? Well to tell you the truth I don't know enough wand lore to be able to answer to that question, I don't think anybody does, not even Dumbledore, but a wand won't kill its master so the question you have to ask yourself is: do I feel lucky today? [long pause with nothing happening] Well do you, Junior? > > Come on make my day! ROFLMAO!!!! I CAN see it!!! Love It! Thanks for the giggle! Cat >