The Elder wand -- Book vs movie

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 192166



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charla Mason" <vikingwoman at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
> I have read the books and watched the movies many times..  And for
> the most part I think the movies captured the books very well except
> the last movie.
> 
> In the books Harry repaired his broken wand and restored the elder
> wand with Dumbledore.
> 
> Why in the movie did they have Harry break the Elder wand and throw
> it away??
> 
> It seemed very short sighted for the film makers if the wanted to
> make more films and why so different from the book?

Pippin:
I don't think JKR restored the wand to Dumbledore's tomb so that it would be available for a sequel. I think the idea is that it would rest there unused until Harry died unconquered, which, in the books, was the only way to break the power of the wand. 

If it could have been broken like an ordinary wand, Dumbledore would have done so, IMO.  But the point is made (in the books) that the Hallows are unusually durable magical objects. Notice that the Resurrection Stone functions perfectly well despite being cracked by the Sword of Gryffindor, and the cloak shows no sign of wear despite all the adventures it's been on  and its many hundreds of years, though Ron's and Lupin's robes are frayed and shabby with age. 

So the film makers were following JKR's general plan, IMO, to have Harry reject using the wand and put it beyond reach,  but made the point in a more dramatic and visual fashion. 

There has been a lot of debate on this list about whether Harry really did the right thing by choosing not to use the wand. By breaking the wand, the filmmakers finesse the issue of whether it was really right for Dumbledore to use it, and if so, why not Harry? But I think Harry considered  that Dumbledore had been a  safer guardian than Harry would be because unlike Harry, Dumbledore had never really wanted to kill.

Pippin