Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion

At midnight on Friday Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, ending the ten year run of J.K. Rowling's extremely popular book series. I imagine that there are a few folks here who have already read the book and want to talk about it. Likewise, the movie version of Order of the Phoenix was recently released (a film I was kind of underwhelmed by). So ... what did you think of them? Be forewarned: I imagine the comments will be filled with spoilers.

Comments

Should have renamed the film something else...

[yroJJory]

...as it barely mentioned the Order of the Phoenix.

The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films:

They focus only on the epic tale of Harry versus Voldemort and not on the far more epic story of Harry's emotional journey to be ABLE to face (and presumably) defeat Voldemort.

If you see the film with someone who has never read the books, they tend not to care one iota bout any of it and the reason is all to clear: the characters never develop. They never change. They never become who they need to be in order to confront the horrible evil that is taking over their world.

The books are amazing because, while there is an epic story of good versus evil, the reader is brought along for the ride to grow alongside the main character. But the movies watch the action from a safe distance and only really focus on the parts that have action.

JRR Tolkien comparison

[apodyopsis]

I know this might prove controversial, but I have always compared Potter to Rings.

In the way they are both multi-volume, long, rambling engaging fantasy stories which good stuff to read, but in a terrible writing style

Don't get me wrong, I *am* a fan and have all of them - but neither are great well written works of prose.

Whats the betting she'll revisit the muggle/wizarding world in a couple of years? There is waaay too much money available not to in my humble opinion, its just too tempting a cash cow now.

I'm pretty happy with it

[dbolger]

First off, I'm just going to assume everybody who clicks into this thread has read the book, because otherwise half the thread is going to require spoiler warnings.

Rowling's style of writing is definitely not where her strenghts lie, and everybody I know who has refused to read Harry Potter has used this as a reason. However, I think people who say this are cutting off their nose to spite their face. What she lacks in writing skill, she more than makes up for in enjoyable, well crafted characters, and amazing plot. Deathly Hallows is by far my favourite of the series (7, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1 - fot those who are interested).

I was pretty sure that Snape was on the side of good before I started reading, but by the time he was made Headmaster, I had actually figured that I had been mistaken, and was wondering how she was going to have a decent ending with him as a bad guy. The last few chapters were magnificently brought together, with payoff after payoff after payoff.

The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.

However, that aside, I am very happy with the book, and am glad to see I didn't waste my time on a series just to have it thrown in my face at the end (*cough* Dark Tower *cough* Wheel of time).

Re:I'm pretty happy with it

[jollyreaper]

The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters. Let's compare the wizards to the Jedi. Now in both universes you have good guys and nasty nasties. The Jedi approach is to make a blanket condemnation against anything that even smells slightly evil, in fact condemning things that could become evil if taken too far. So no families, no sex, no joy. Divorce yourself from emotions and their entanglements lest you turn to the dark side. In other words, the Jedi are pretty hardcore about avoiding evil.

In the Potterverse, on the other hand, you not only have an acceptance of dark magic in the world, there is even a house of evil inside the school. Now the way things are portrayed, there isn't a case of good sylthers and bad ones, you don't really see that for the other houses, either. Pretty much every slther is a baddie and you don't hear of anyone from the other houses going bad. So the question is, why the hell are these people tolerated? There are even black magic shops in the shopping district. Not illicit underground dens that are in constant threat from the law but places of business that are allowed if looked down upon, like a regular porn shop. Huh? Black magic isn't the sort of thing that prudes look down upon that can be used for good or evil like alcohol, firearms, or porn. In fact, let's stick with the firearms angle. Bad guys carry guns but so do cops. They're dangerous, dangerous technology but the gun itself is not good or evil, only the person using it. But black magic is inherently evil and corrupting and the tools used in working it tend to involve dastardly sacrifices. In this universe, there is no demonstrated use for black magic that is benign or useful. It isn't like white magic is used for healing and construction and black magic is used by good AND evil people for defense, a tool that can be used or abused.

So, given that premise, why is black magic so tolerated?

I was mostly dissapointed in the book..

[wanax]

Maybe it's that I read waaaay too much speculation about it, all with interesting theories on how Harry would defeat Voldemort without having to introduce trick wands.... but I just felt that she took the easiest possible route out of the story, giving characters dramatic about-faces when necessary. I mean... Kreacher suddenly becoming Harry's biggest fan? Cop out. Percy's sudden change of allegiance, apology and starting to joke? Excuse me?

I also felt that she let Dumbledore off the hook, and his character would have been much more compelling if he had killed his sister (or something similar)... or maybe, just maybe, we didn't have to have Dumbledore re-appear and explain everything? I mean come on. Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. The only sacrificial death was Harry, and he didn't even die (and don't get me started on the overly sappy epilogue).

Generally, I think the book was missing most of JKR's trademark wit, that made the rest of the story so enjoyable... and had too much of her maddening 'hand of god' habit of introducing new magical concepts to get the characters out of sticky situations instead of them having to figure a way out themselves.

Re:Spoiler alert.

[Osty]

On the other hand the Curious incident of the dog in the night, whilst also a children's book would probably appeal to most of the readers of /. being about a kid with Aspergers syndrome

Why? Are you saying that Slashdot is filled with people with Asperger's Syndrome? That's highly unlikely. There are plenty of people here who wish they had Asperger's, even going so far as to self-diagnose. The truth of the matter is that while Asperger's is real, it's nowhere near as common as internet message boards would have you believe. It is a good scapegoat for people who never learned how to interact socially with other people.

The three choices

[the_tsi]

It seems to me that the climax of the entire series hinged upon three choices that Harry made in this book. They epitomize everything Rowling was trying to convey: that the choices individuals make are ultimately what determines "good"ness or "evil"ness, and they are not concrete extremes that guide actions but rather a result of choices that are made in every aspect of life.

1. He had to decide to face Voldemort willingly, accept that he is going to die, and understand that he is doing this to save his friends. Courage and selflessness are the keys to defeating the emotions that power Riddle: greed, selfishness, and fear.

2. He had to decide, after being struck with the Killing Curse, to return. Death is easy. It is the easiest thing every living organism *will* do -- life (and staying alive) is a constant struggle not to die. When in King's Cross talking to Dumbledore, he had the opportunity not to go back; he had the chance to take the easy route. Again, he had to decide to return to save his friends.

3. When finally facing Riddle, now that both were free of any sort of magic to protect themselves, he had one final choice: To take life to protect his (Avada Kedavra) or to show mercy, compassion, love, even to his gravest enemy. By choosing Expelliramus, even after being explicitly told numerous times NOT to use this particular spell, he truly sets himself apart.

Answers, I think...

[Hamster Lover]

If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.

Isn't it obvious? Snape wasn't working for the Death Eaters, he was working for the Order and Dumbledore. This was a major plot of the book. I really do not understand why you are confused about this.

Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?

This was hinted to in the book in that Gryffindor's sword can only remain in the possession of one who's valor and need of the sword are true. One cannot simply possess the sword out of greed, which is how the goblin Griphook acquired it.

How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?

Again, the answer was hinted at in the book if not a running theme throughout the series. Dumbledore admits to Harry that they were both skilled wizards, but that Dumbledore was perhaps a bit more skillful. That fact, taken together with the theme that runs throughout the books that it is not what skills or magical items you possess so much as what you do with them that is the key. I think that is your answer.

How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?

I suspect someone in the Order other than Snape is in communication with the painting.

Re:What did I think of them?

[mr_matticus]

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole Harry Potter and I am not a "fan."

The first movie was insipid and lifeless (outside the visualization of an entire world, which makes it interesting as an introduction). The movies progress with the age of the characters and become better, though I think the latest one fell a bit flat.

I wouldn't judge the series based on the first film, but keep in mind that they're designed to capture the imaginations of children and to resonate with them and I think it's very effective at that. The series really does progress in thematic depth with time, which is somewhat unusual (and redeeming) for contemporary wannabe epics. Harry Potter certainly will never be a literary classic because of its plain and uninteresting writing, but it probably will be an enduring and popular tale because of its imaginative universe and fairly strong internal coherence. It's no Lord of the Rings, but then again it's aimed a little younger, and it is enjoyable as a story and a universe, if not as a rich experience with literature.

It's sort of like Star Wars. It's a fascinating, vast universe and a compelling story by a brilliant *storyteller*; on the other hand, it doesn't have the textual beauty and pleasurable reading experience that truly great *authors* achieve.

couldn't read Harry Potter myself

[nido]

I picked up a copy of the first Harry Potter sometime before the first movie was released - I had the idea that I was going to read the book first. Somehow I managed to scan my eyes over all the pages of text. Something about a boy and his broom. The movie had been released on DVD by that point, and I eventually rented it.

I also picked up a copy of the second book before the movie was released. I was only able to get 50 or so pages into it before I was lost. Didn't bother to rent the movie.

Tried to read Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring before the movie came out. I was lost in the first chapter.

I do alright with non-fiction books that I've an interest in, and was reading John Taylor Gatto's A Different Kind of Teacher the summer after I finished teh college, and all my reading troubles suddenly made sense. Mr. Gatto realized over the course of his 30-year teaching career that most of his 7th-graders were incapable of reading beyond the level required for a standardized test. To prove this for his readers, he suggested going to the library and borrowing a copy of the classic, All Quiet on the Western Front, read the first 20 pages, and return for a question on the text.

I went to the library, checked out the book, and scanned the first 20 pages as best I could. I saw the answer to Mr. Gatto's question, but only because I'd read the question before going to the library. But he did have a follow up question too, and I had no idea whatsoever what was going on in this particular book.

Gatto says that he found that most his students didn't 'make pictures' to go along with the words comprising book's stories. Not because they can't, but because the way reading is taught in the Feral Government's schools trains children not to make pictures, but to read for the (multiple-choice) test.

Finally - why I couldn't (and still can't) read fiction. I've been spending these last few years trying to get my mental-picture-maker working, and when I succeed someday, then I'll pick up the Harry Potter books again. Until then, I'm not going to frustrate myself with fiction anymore.

My reviews of the Book and Movie

[hansamurai]

The Book: I thought it was the best in the series, honestly. The book is so different than the first six though, but I think it's for the better. If Harry had just gone to Hogwarts and then realized in April that he hadn't yet destroyed all the Horcruxes, I would have been very disappointed. The way Rowling wrote the last book, it was very believable how hard their journey was. The trio fought, got bored, got cold, split up, adventured, almost gave up, and persevered. All very believable for a nine month journey if you ask me. And everything was wrapped up nearly perfectly. I loved the Battle of Hogwarts and the final battle, but the epilogue didn't really do "19 Years Later" justice. Obviously Harry and Ginny get together, obviously Ron and Hermione get together. They have kids, the circle completes, blah blah blah. I want to know what Harry did for 19 years? Become Minister of Magic? Become and Auror? Teach Defense Against the Dark Arts for a few years? No answer but we do learn that he has a son named Albus Severus so it's all good, right?

Anyways, the book was the perfect ending to a series many of us grew up with. I remember the first time my grandpa shows me the book and said "Hey, this is a story about a boy wizard, and they play games on broomsticks!" That was nearly 10 years ago and I remember it so fondly. Harry and me grew up together, and now his story is complete. I'm done with college now, am working in the real world. But how I still wish I was a wizard, going to school at Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and hanging out with Harry, Ron, and Hermione.

The Movie: Order of the Phoenix is my second favorite novel in the series, after Deathly Hallows. However, the movie kind of stinks. It's more in line with the last two, thankfully, but I thought the book was so good that maybe I had such high expectations. Umbridge was the star of that book, such evil but clearly not with Voldemort. It was a great concept and I think it worked wonderfully, in the book. In the movie, however, she's just an obstacle in the hero's path and not that interesting of a character. The final scenes at the Ministry were also a let down, and differed a lot from the book. I understand that the movie series now is pretty much on it's own, but it's hard for me not to compare.

I'd rate the book a 10/10 and the movie a 6/10.

All in all, thank you J.K. Rowling for a magnificent set of novels, you are a master storyteller.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

[ZombieWomble]

Ironically though, kids aren't reading. Yes, they're reading Harry Potter, but various reports on the topic of reading in the generation who have grown up with it suggest that it isn't translating that into a general interest in books (One random article on the topic grabbed from a quick look at google). I'd be very interested to see what happens in 5 or 10 years, once the craze really goes away - will there be any lasting change, or will the whole "reading" malarky vanish into the night?

But I did read Vonnegut (Cats Cradle) in 5th Grade

[quanta]

It was 1963, kept the book below the desk, but I'm sure the teacher noticed. Also quite a few other SF books. We had a great library...

I'll probably get modded down but...

[pbaer]

I felt the author did a poor job with the Deathly Hallows and that the book's overall quality was mediocre. First I'll start off with what she did well:
1. Snape as a hero. I doubt it was that surprising for most people, but her explanations of his motives were very plausible.
2. Dumbledore's history was intriguing.

What she did poorly:
1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from? Hermione becomes stupid. Hermione knows that there is a spell that can destroy horcruxes and _Crabbe_ of all people is capable of casting it, yet Hermione doesn't consider it worth learning as it is too "dangerous". Clearly running around without a plan and hoping a special sword drops into her lap is a much more intelligent choice.

2. Magic System still isn't explained. We have muggles, purebloods, mudbloods, halfbloods, and squibs and yet why certain people can do magic and others can't isn't even hinted at. Honestly the rules of her magic system are so poorly explained and adhocced that it can almost be considered it's own deus ex machina. Anytime someone is in a sticky situation that couldn't previously be solved, just change the rules of magic! See house-elves, wand pseudo sentience, and transfiguration limitations. I don't know about you, but I would like a magic system that is deeper than speak latin + wave wand + made_up_rule_that_conveniently_solves_plot_problem .

3. The use of house elves as deus ex machina- Oh no Harry Potter is trapped in a dungeon where apparition is impossible. Hah house-elves can teleport where wizards can't, problem solved!

4. Magical battles are _boring_. Yes boring, if you are good you spam stupefy/expelliarmus, if you are evil you spam Unforgivable Curses although mainly Avada Kedavra. Occasionally someone does something mildly clever but this is the exception even for supposedly intelligent characters! No one does anything clever like "accio testicles", or transmogrifying the ground under them to something dangerous, or even something as simple as using a high-powered lumens to blind. Instead it's cast their faction's spell over and over and over. On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse" yet hitting it in midair with stupefy causes it to "explode into red and green fireworks".

5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable. Okay so she wanted Voldemort's flaw to be his arrogance, but he isn't a moron. He knows Harry will come back to Godric's Hollow and yet lays a pathetic trap. He should have at least made it unapparatable. He doesn't exploit the mind link like he previously did to kill Sirius. He also continues to be outsmarted by a 17 year old with no plan. It is like watching a movie where the superweapon has a giant self-destruct button that the hero pushes and the villian doesn't see it coming!

6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life.

7. Predictable- Who didn't know that Harry was the last Horcrux or that Snape was a good guy, or that Harry wasn't actually dead?

8. It had the plot of a bad rpg- Find the magical item that will help you complete your quest. Now destroy the villain's enchantments. Congratulations, kill the final boss. Scroll credits.

9. Unsatisfying epilogue. Now this could potentially be cleared up in a different book but it would be nice to know what actually happened to everyone. We aren't even told what Harry did afterwards. Did he become an auror, a quidditch player, or did he do something else? All this emphasis on non-human's rights by Hermione and no mention of if wizarding politics changed. Nothing is told about the main characters other than who they reproduced with and how they named their children (also not a surprise). Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information.

Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but...

[westlake]

Rowling caught the wave of popular opinion and surfed it to fame and riches; her books do not represent anything out of the ordinary for the genre (fantasy) or the audience (middle-grade). They're entertaining works, but they only live in the house that Tolkien (and some of his contemporaries) built.

The female is all but non-existent in Tolkien's world.

There is a kind of abhorrence that a woman might be compelled to directly engage the evil which surrounds her.

Tolkien ideal is the structured pre-industrial - pre-war - society of rural England.

Rowling's world is as ramshackle, crowded and intensely vital as Dicken's London - or more properly the England that would emerge from the Blitz.

Re:Spoiler alert

[pelrun]

It isn't as if the goblin tricked Harry into making the agreement under false pretenses.

Well, the goblin did assume that Harry would act in bad faith, and so made the deal planning to steal the sword and strand them in Gringotts. That sounds exactly like "false pretenses" to me.

Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book

[DavidTC]

Yeah, there's something really odd going on there, but I'm not entirely sure it's what people might think, that Grindelwald was involved with the Nazis in some way.

Why? Because there was the explicit point made that most British wizards didn't know about his 'take over the world attempt'. Now, there's a rather large disconnect between the wizarding and muggle world, but to have British wizards unaware of WWII is rather absurd, especially if WWII was secretly being run by a wizard! I mean, if a wizard was doing the invading, wizards would have had to fight it off, or he could have walked into England and owned it two weeks later with a few well placed unforgivable curses.

I suspect that, instead, Grindelwald took advantage of the chaos of WWII to attempt a takeover of the wizarding parts of places that Germany conquered. I mean, think about...in Vichy France, who was in charge of magic? I bet Grindelwald was. Germany wasn't working for him, and he wasn't really involved in the war per se, he was just walking into the wizarding areas that the war effort was effecting and saying 'I'm in charge now' and there was no effective force to stop him.

Even in places that hadn't lost to the Germans might have been in enough disorder to take over, which raises the interesting question: Did Dumbledore attack Grindelwald to stop him in general, or did Grindelwald finally attack England and Dumbledore only acted to defend it. (Implying he was okay with the rest of Europe being conquered, but had a change of heart when England was attacked.)

OTOH, Krum's reaction to the Deathly Hallow's symbol was certainly intended to parallel a Nazi symbol. Although note that what Krum described happened at Durmstang, not Germany in general, so it's possibly it's only the school where that is incorrectly interpreted as his symbol. (Technically, do we even know that Durmstang is in Germany?)