Harry Potter Book 7 [SPOILERS-ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!]

[chaseter]

[YT]UuBm0dvIzcc[/YT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuBm0dvIzcc

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

Neo jets around like Superman and I don't see Voldemort holding out his hands in front of him. I see Voldemort standing pompous yet gracefully with his wand at the ready. It will have to have some sort of effect to look astonishing whether that be his coat just flapping or him sort of standing on a black cloud disentegrating in his wake as I described earlier.

What I meant was ONLY the Neo scene where he's flying to catch Trinity, arms back, focussed with that exact camera angle. Only Voldy would be roaring or like you say, pompously smug.

The scene is only a retelling of Dumbledore's past and how Harry survived. Dumbledore's portrait could tell him that in his office. The explanation was so vague that I think people who haven't read the book won't understand it either way.

The King's Cross in the epilogue is more important.

I think the opposite is true. That scene is integral to the plot. If the portrait explains pretty much what we all want to know and ties EVERYTHING up it will be such an anti climax.

Visually the scene would be beautiful, one of the best in the series, come on its almost heaven! We need the personal touch that we've lacked for a while from Dumbledore. We NEED to see what remains of Voldemorts soul as a useless, tortured child. We NEED to see Harry make a choice between peace and war.

The Epilogue could be done in about 30 seconds, like an ending to the old He-Man cartoons, all smiles, laughs etc. Maybe that wouldn't be right, but I'd rather cut that scene down than the other one.

I couldn't agree less. 100% disagree-age.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

Also I want to see Luna's wall painting, but I'd understand if that goes.

I'd love if they give the Lupin/Tonks death more focus. I'd like them to go together, holding hands as lovers, saving some kids.

Hopefully the fiendfyre will look amazing. If its anything like the dragon firework in OotP, but evil and better, I'll be happy.

 

[Da Docta]

I think the opposite is true. That scene is integral to the plot. If the portrait explains pretty much what we all want to know and ties EVERYTHING up it will be such an anti climax.

The scene is not integral to the plot. It doesn't move the movie forward. Like I said, it could be explained through the portrait. It's integral to appease the fans.

I'm not saying I don't like the scene. However, if they're going to cut a lot from the book, I could see this one as one of those scenes.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I never thought one of the Weasley twins would get iced

I knew one of the Weasley's had to die in book 7, they're way too involved in the action/war to all come out of the series alive. Also, with each book the probability that it'd be one of the twins increased as other Weasley's had their close calls Ginny with Riddle's diary, Arthur with the snake, Bill with Fenrir, then George getting his ear blown off. I guess I just feel all the major/Phoenix members deaths were justified, they each had a point.

Hedwig - last bit of innocence lost
Mad-Eye - someone had to die in that scene, Mad-Eye was the best choice, close, but not too close
Fred - A Weasley had to die
Lupin and Tonks - not all the main characters could die "on-screen" a face had to be put on the deaths at the battle for Hogwarts
Colin - Mudblood who died a hero, defending his school and his hero, Harry

 

[04nbod]

I knew one of the Weasley's had to die in book 7, they're way too involved in the action/war to all come out of the series alive. Also, with each book the probability that it'd be one of the twins increased as other Weasley's had their close calls Ginny with Riddle's diary, Arthur with the snake, Bill with Fenrir, then George getting his ear blown off. I guess I just feel all the major/Phoenix members deaths were justified, they each had a point.

Hedwig - last bit of innocence lost
Mad-Eye - someone had to die in that scene, Mad-Eye was the best choice, close, but not too close
Fred - A Weasley had to die
Lupin and Tonks - not all the main characters could die "on-screen" a face had to be put on the deaths at the battle for Hogwarts
Colin - Mudblood who died a hero, defending his school and his hero, Harry

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Sorry, should have said muggle-born. I think it was important to show that a mudblood died though, plus having him be underaged was a nice touch too. With such a foucs on blood in the last book it was nice to see characters like this fighting in the final battle because their place in the wizard world was severely threatened by Voldemort.

 

[Darkly Dexter]

Sorry, should have said muggle-born. I think it was important to show that a mudblood died though, plus having him be underaged was a nice touch too. With such a foucs on blood in the last book it was nice to see characters like this fighting in the final battle because their place in the wizard world was severely threatened by Voldemort.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

The scene is not integral to the plot. It doesn't move the movie forward. Like I said, it could be explained through the portrait. It's integral to appease the fans.

I'm not saying I don't like the scene. However, if they're going to cut a lot from the book, I could see this one as one of those scenes.

I don't mean to be rude, but REALLY?

You don't think we:

- Need to see Dumbledore sat next to Harry, really/finally being the soft, warm man he was at the beginning? A 2D portrait isn't enough IMO.

- Need to see the fragment of Voldemort's immortal soul that really highlights how pitiful he has become? We need to see this, as when Harry urges him to feel remorse, we then know why.

- We need to see Harry CHOOSE. Heaven and all his dead family and friends are waiting for him, and he the hero chooses to face his demon instead.

Plotwise, yes, it doesn't move the story forward, but it ties EVERYTHING up.
Visually it could be the best scene in the series. An quick explanation would be a disservice and only accentuate the out of character Dumbledore coldness we're getting at the moment.

If they cut that scene at all, I'll be very unhappy.

The epilogue should be in there, but a short scene and maybe a V/O. It shouldn't turn into a LotR indulgent borefest, despite the epic nature of the finalé.

What does anyone else reckon?

----------------

Other things we must see IMO that COULD be cut:

- The escape from Privet Drive
- The godrick's hollow scene
- Ron's return and the sword scene
- Everyone that dies in the book should die in the film.

----------------

I'd love to see an extended DVD either way.

----------------

BTW, I watched OotP again last night, and I really think that the place for the final battles should be the courtyard (that was filmicly introduced in POA). Nice and open and there could be plenty of people watching from the side.

 

[Majik1387]

I don't think the epilogue should be in the movie at all.

 

[Da Docta]

I don't mean to be rude, but REALLY?

You don't think we:

- Need to see Dumbledore sat next to Harry, really/finally being the soft, warm man he was at the beginning? A 2D portrait isn't enough IMO.

- Need to see the fragment of Voldemort's immortal soul that really highlights how pitiful he has become? We need to see this, as when Harry urges him to feel remorse, we then know why.

- We need to see Harry CHOOSE. Heaven and all his dead family and friends are waiting for him, and he the hero chooses to face his demon instead.

Plotwise, yes, it doesn't move the story forward, but it ties EVERYTHING up.
Visually it could be the best scene in the series. An quick explanation would be a disservice and only accentuate the out of character Dumbledore coldness we're getting at the moment.

I really don't know where you're going with this. I said it doesn't move the plot forward, hence I don't think it will be seen in the movie. You already said so yourself that it doesn't move the story forward. If this movie is as time constrained as its predecessors, I would think that that in itself is reason enough to cut it. I could see this scene going the same route as that of the hospital wing scene in Goblet of Fire.

 

[chaseter]

If they do the King's Cross scene...it will be Dumbledore, Lily and James, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, etc...instead of him conjuring them with the stone. That would be an extremely emotional scene for him having to choose to go back and fight Voldemort than getting to stay with his parents. I think it could it be done in the time frame.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Plotwise, yes, it doesn't move the story forward, but it ties EVERYTHING up.

The producers have already shown they don't care about tying everything up in these movies, otherwise many key scenes at the end of the books, Marauders, Priori Incantum, the Prophecy would have been in the movies.

 

[chaseter]

^The prophecy will be dealt with further in the next movie I believe.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

^The prophecy will be dealt with further in the next movie I believe.

They said the same thing about the Marauders.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

The producers have already shown they don't care about tying everything up in these movies, otherwise many key scenes at the end of the books, Marauders, Priori Incantum, the Prophecy would have been in the movies.

True, but these are big details to leave out. Even they couldn't do it again?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

True, but these are big details to leave out. Even they couldn't do it again?

They've done it three times already, the track record says they'll omit important story stuff for action and insight into their relationship lives again. I'm sure if Warner's had it totally their way and thought they could get away with it the Harry Potter movies would be a teen sex comedy or a Michael Bay-style action franchise by now.

 

[Matt]

If they do the King's Cross scene...it will be Dumbledore, Lily and James, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, etc...instead of him conjuring them with the stone. That would be an extremely emotional scene for him having to choose to go back and fight Voldemort than getting to stay with his parents. I think it could it be done in the time frame.

No! leave the forest scene with Lily, James, Sirius, and Lupin alone! It is the most emotional, well written scene of the series! They must have it in the movie!

 

[Matt]

Anyhow, upon re-reading, I feel I understand why Harry didn't die better.

Lily's sacrifice invoked an ancient magic that kept Voldemort from killing Harry.

Voldemort was ressurected using Harry's blood during the end of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Somehow this kept Lily's protection alive as long as Voldemort was. Therefore Avada Kedavra knocked Harry out and killed the bit of Voldie's soul inside of him but kept Harry alive (though seemingly just barely).

Is this a proper assessment?

 

[Victarion]

I can't wait to see the parts with Bathilda Bagshot/Nagini in the movie. t:

Eh, I vaguely recall Rowling mentioning somewhere that her faith/beliefs would be apparent in this book...does he remember that, or am I thinking about something else?

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

Anyhow, upon re-reading, I feel I understand why Harry didn't die better.

Lily's sacrifice invoked an ancient magic that kept Voldemort from killing Harry.

Voldemort was ressurected using Harry's blood during the end of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Somehow this kept Lily's protection alive as long as Voldemort was. Therefore Avada Kedavra knocked Harry out and killed the bit of Voldie's soul inside of him but kept Harry alive (though seemingly just barely).

Is this a proper assessment?

That is a fair assessment, altough I prefer thinking that when Voldemort AK'd Harry the second time (in the forest) he simply obliterated his horcrux within Harry (which he unknowingly created when he fell the first time) rather than Lily's blood protection was still in effect.

That is simpler, and makes more sense to me than a second, more tenuous link between the two. Also, the protection was supposed to wear off when Harry came of age I think. It may be wrong, but it makes more sense to me. That is also why in the 'heaven' scene, we see Voldy's fractured soul 'waiting' for the train to come and get him. Harry could choose to go with him, but stayed and fought.

 

[Matt]

That is a fair assessment, altough I prefer thinking that when Voldemort AK'd Harry the second time (in the forest) he simply obliterated his horcrux within Harry (which he unknowingly created when he fell the first time) rather than Lily's blood protection was still in effect.

That is simpler, and makes more sense to me than a second, more tenuous link between the two. Also, the protection was supposed to wear off when Harry came of age I think. It may be wrong, but it makes more sense to me. That is also why in the 'heaven' scene, we see Voldy's fractured soul 'waiting' for the train to come and get him. Harry could choose to go with him, but stayed and fought.

But if I recall, during the King's Cross scene Dumbledore said that their blood connection kept Lily's protection alive.

 

[Da Docta]

My two Knuts:

Anyhow, upon re-reading, I feel I understand why Harry didn't die better.

Lily's sacrifice invoked an ancient magic that kept Voldemort from killing Harry.

Voldemort was ressurected using Harry's blood during the end of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Somehow this kept Lily's protection alive as long as Voldemort was.
Is this a proper assessment?

The initial enchantment Lily put up was gone when Voldemort was resurrected; in doing so, however, he created a new one. The first enchantment (Lily's) makes all of Voldy's AK's rebound and prevents him from touching Harry. The second one (the one Voldy inadvertently created) tethers Harry's soul back to life.

Therefore Avada Kedavra knocked Harry out and killed the bit of Voldie's soul inside of him but kept Harry alive (though seemingly just barely).

People are still debating on whether or not Harry did die in the Forbidden Forest. I personally think he did. When the AK hit him both his and Voldy's soul were released and went into limbo. The difference was that Harry's (soul) could go back to his body because of the "tethering to life" thingermajiger.

, the protection was supposed to wear off when Harry came of age I think.

That was a different enchantment. Dumbledore set it up around Privet Drive to prevent Death Eaters/Voldemort from entering the place. Moody refers to it as "Your mother's charm" because Lily's sacrifice was used as a base to set it up.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

But if I recall, during the King's Cross scene Dumbledore said that their blood connection kept Lily's protection alive.

I know but its just too tenuous for me at least. How could that work? Either it should be the same as its always been, or null and void since book 4. Its both too complicated and way too simple at the same time.

My two Knuts:

The initial enchantment Lily put up was gone when Voldemort was resurrected; in doing so, however, he created a new one. The first enchantment (Lily's) makes all of Voldy's AK's rebound and prevents him from touching Harry. The second one (the one Voldy inadvertently created) tethers Harry's soul back to life.

I just don't see how Voldy could possibly tether his soul back, I don't get how that could work, but thats me, and I understand that this is how it is written. I just have my own take.

People are still debating on whether or not Harry did die in the Forbidden Forest. I personally think he did. When the AK hit him both his and Voldy's soul were released and went into limbo. The difference was that Harry's (soul) could go back to his body because of the "tethering to life" thingermajiger.

That sounds spot on, but I prefer to think that the AK is a simple but powerful death spell. ONE instant and un-blockable death. Since Harry effectively had two souls in his body, he could effectively allow Voldy's horcrux to be destroyed (taken on the train that would come to limbo Kings Cross) or join Dumbledore et al in the afterlife. Since he chose to fight, the horcrux took the AK and was left in limbo.

That was a different enchantment. Dumbledore set it up around Privet Drive to prevent Death Eaters/Voldemort from entering the place. Moody refers to it as "Your mother's charm" because Lily's sacrifice was used as a base to set it up.

I remember now cheers.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

Oooh! I have a question!

When Voldemort originally AK'd Harry as a baby (which was deflected back onto himself) he was rendered incorporeal, NOT DEAD. So, he didn't need to use any of his horcruxes (as Harry and da crew would then only have to have destroyed 6 objects including the diary).

What was to stop him being merely rendered incorporeal again, ready to rise at a later date when his final AK was reflected back?

Ideas? Have I forgotten something?