History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsFilms

** Ron always wanted to be the hero and likely fantasized a lot about having to rescue Hermione in the Chamber and imitating what he remembers from Harry's Parseltongue. The films ruin that, however, since in CoS Harry only hisses a short phrase, which he repeats with some alteration in DH, and then when Ron opens the chamber, he says something a lot lengthier and totally different:

*** Why were all the Slytherins escorted to the dungeons by Filch, a Squib? If McGonagall was so worried about them, shouldn't she have sent someone more competent? Not that I would have minded Slytherins fighting Voldemort.

** Look at how many people, on these very {{Headscratchers}} pages, are annoyed at how Harry "talked Voldemort to death." Personally, I'm not one of them, but that sort of thing only really works in a print medium; it would have looked ''very'' cheap when played out visually. After eight full movies of conflict, the audience deserved a powerful and climactic final brawl between the hero and villain, and there's little doubt that this movie delivered on that front.

** It was said above and I'll reiterate it: ''Voldemort let Harry go,'' we see the straps retracting back into Voldemort's cloak when the scene shifts. As for dropping all that "toying with your enemy" bullshit back in [=OotP=]," that happened in the book not the movies. If you want proof, in the OotP movie, when Voldemort arrives at the Ministry he first tries to tempt Harry into killing Bellatrix and then mocks him when he doesn't, even though he could have easily killed him while his back was turned.

* Minor gripe. One minute, Hermione is barely able to walk in heels (despite having worn them without trouble at the Yule Ball three years ago...); the next minute, she's sprinting and long-jumping.

*** The camerawork, and the way she was stumbling, suggest otherwise. Besides, the (rather tight) costume still fit after the Thief's Downfall, as mentioned below.

*** They've seen it a fair few times by this point; I don't think it's out of the question that Hermione could've conjured up a reasonable duplicate.
**** Surely there are laws against that? Otherwise, how are there clothing stores like Madam Malkin's?
**** Most material evidence from the books seems to indicate that conjured objects don't last a very long time. While it very well may be possible to conjure one's own clothing in a desired shape or style, the potential for it to suddenly disappear in a day or two would do a fairly good job at preventing abuse.
**** [[{{Fanservice}} This troper just had the mental image of Hermione as Bellatrix with all her clothes suddenly vanishing]].

*** It wasn't. I noticed a distinct lack of the corset actually corsetting after the downfall. I can wear a lot of my big brother's clothes, and they look like they fit reasonably well despite the height and weight difference, but they're not the same. It's kinda hard to judge the fit in clothes that are soaking wet.

* This one will probably be answered in the next film, but for now it's a bugs me mixed in with a good dollop of FridgeLogic; how the ''hell'' did [[spoiler:Snape know where to find Harry and Hermione? It wasn't as if they'd grabbed a certain snide portrait from Grimmauld Place that could listen in on where they were and tell Snape they were in the Forest of Dean. If the other Death Eaters couldn't find them, how did he manage it this time without Phineas's help?]]

*** The fireplaces took them to the toilets they entered the Ministry from, from which they Apparated to Grimmauld Place and then a forest in quick succession. Apparation into/out of the Ministry is impossible for security reasons, otherwise the trio would've just apparated to Umbitch's office.

*** So it probably makes more sense in hindsight for him to destroy it. Although repairing a powerful wand could be a good thing for most wizards, better to be safe than sorry in case someone evil comes along and attempts to use its godlike power.
*** What I would like to know is why they decided to not include the scene where Harry repairs his old wand in the movie at all, since the scene where it's broken WAS included in the previous part. So, what, Harry spent the rest of his days using Draco's wand?
**** And why wouldn't he? It's working just fine for him. Besides, repairing the old Holly wand would have broken up the flow of the scene, IMHO.
*** HARRY: "Hermione, give me my my wand. (recieves wand), "If this doesn't work, nothing will. ''reparo.'' (Tests and finds that it works again.) There. That could easily have been put in without breaking the flow.
***** True...so they should have rewritten the scene. Even if Harry decided Draco's wand worked just fine for him, he should have returned it to Draco, since he's still alive. A wand is an extension of a wizard's body, like an extra limb--stealing someone else's wand is like stealing a limb. Justified in times of crisis, but now that Harry has the means to repair his own, it's just a courtesy to give Draco's wand back. It's actually a big moral issue, if you think about it. For me, it was the one moment from the film that didn't feel like it captured the book.
***** Maybe he couldn't just "give it back". Since SUDDENLY all the wands adopted the "switch allegiance to one who defeated your previous master", and not just the Elder Wand, it is possible, that Draco's former wand wouldn't obey him until he honestly won it back without Harry giving away, and it was hardly an option. Besides, I think you dramatize the situation a bit. Wands are important but not irreplaceable. Ron was bought a new wand, so I don't see why Draco couldn't.
**** No. Though a wand will ''work'' for someone who has defeated its owner it won't work ''as well'' as it did for the original and if given back it will still work the same for them. JKR confirmed this.
***** In [=PoA=], the trio were disarmed by Sirius and Lupin (all three by Sirius, then Harry got his wand back and Hermione took hers and Ron's. Lupin then disarmed the two of them). Lupin gave the wands back and they all worked fine.
***** May sound a bit cold, but with so many people dead, there are now lots of second-hand wands Harry can take instead if he has to give Draco his wand back. (At least temporarily, until, like mentioned above, he has bought a brand-new wand.) Also, he should still have Bellatrix' wand. (Although granted, Ollivander did warn him not to use it.)
****** When disarming already changes a wands allegiance Draco and Harry would just have to duel each other. One disarming spell from Draco and allegiance problem solved.
***** I actually considered it an improvement over the book's version (his actions there caused a verbal "WTF" from me. [[spoiler: The first time I read it, I actually said "Wait, why doesn't he just destroy it?!?"]]). Placing it back with Dumbledore was touching and all, but what was to stop someone going after Harry in the future so they could claim ownership of the wand? After all, it doesn't take death to switch allegiance; Disarming is enough. [[spoiler:Destroying it]] solved the problem permanently, and showed Harry's complete rejection of ultimate power. It fixed a much bigger plot hole than it caused.
****** facedesk* Is it not obvious?! In the book, Dumbledore's entire plan revolved around destroying the power of the Elder Wand! If he could just break it he would've done! It's implied the Wand is unbreakable when Harry realises his wand couldn't be the Elder wand because Hermione had accidentally broken it. This is the (nearly) ''unbeatable wand'', people! Made by Death himself! [[UnstoppableRage YOU CAN'T JUST SNAP IT!!!!!]] See below for more on the end scene illogic.
***** Nope. Dumbledore, despite his wise old grandfatherly attitude, still likes to have power. Aberforth even tells Harry that Dumbledore preferred power over his little sister, and is still angry with him after all these years. There's a good chance that Dumbledore simply didn't want to give up the power of the wand while he was alive, but also didn't want the power passed on when he died. Hence the assisted-suicide option.
***** Don't forget, you don't even need to ''physically'' defeat the wand's owner to possess it: Grendelwald became its master simply by stealing it from its previous owner. So if Harry placed it back in the tomb and someone took it from there, the wand would probably view that as a defeat and accept that person as its master. As for Harry letting Draco disarm him and give him his wand back, the wand chooses the wizard and it'd probably want a bit more than Harry taking a dive to transfer its allegiance. Otherwise all of Dumbledore's Army would have been swapping wands during duelling practise.
****** That is the problem with the film. Grindelwald hit Gregorovich with a spell before leaving in the book. That counted as a defeat.
****** I think JK said somewhere that a wand can tell the difference between a real duel and just practising and so wouldn't have switched allegiance during duelling practice.

*** It was a phallic object. Which belonged to his best friend. Who was a guy. Whom he was in love with.

*** They could've at least sought the one goblin they'd enslaved on him.
**** Using the Imperio curse was kind of a last resort. It is one of the unforgivable curses. It's the same in the books, the use it because their ruse with Bellatrix wasn't enough.
*** Because Harry ''wanted'' to give the sword to Griphook eventually. He was just planning on saying that they needed it to destroy Horcruxes first. Harry's a little too honest for his own good to double cross someone like that.

*** Because if he did, he'd obviously took steps to rehide them?

** This troper thinks it's because The Elder Wand resists V and won't let the ropes kill Harry.
*** Well, it would be nice to see. Besides, from the wand's backstory I got an impression that it was a treacherous thing that would abandon its master in favor of a stronger wizard. Wouldn't the fact that V was strangling Harry entitle him as such?

*** By that point? Unlikely. He'd dropped all that "toying with your enemy" bullshit back in [=OotP=].
**** No, that ''is'' what happened. Look closely at the first few frames after the scene switches back. Voldemort's robe-tentacle-thingies are still there, and he's pulling them back to himself. Why would he do this? Eh, he probably thought beating the crap out of Harry was a bit more satisfying than simply strangling him to death. One would have to reckon he was pretty damn pissed off at this point, after all.

*** Again. Would've been nice to see that!

*** Because he did so with the Ring and the Locket and therefore obviously understood the merit of placing offensive charms directly on Horcruxes. And how could he possibly believe himself to be the only one clever enough to come up with the idea, when ''there were books on Horcruxes'' that he'd read?
*** He believed that he was the only one clever enough to come up with the idea of Horcrux'''es''', plural. He figured that he would be safe if someone found out about one of the less-protected Horcruxes (like the Diary) because no one would realize that, unlike every other Horcrux-maker in history, he had actually created more than one.
*** The point is that he ''still'' put offensive charms on some of the horcruxes, so I don't see why not place them on all. For consistency, you know. And, although I'm not fond of that kind of reasoning, in the book the cup ''did'' multiply when they grabbed it.
*** Well, it's worth noting that ''he'' never actually placed the Cup in the vault; he just handed it to Bellatrix and told her, "Hey bitch, this thing is the most important thing EVAR...so hide it well, ya dig?" So if he had placed a debilitating curse on it like he had the Ring, it might've been too much of a risk that it would go off on Bellatrix or some random goblin, instead of an actual thief. And as Voldemort doesn't want to draw any more attention than is strictly necessary to the fact that the Cup is more than just a valuable artifact...

*** That part where Hagrid walks away was so hilariously awkward.

*** This troper does not find the explanation to be satisfying. We can clearly see Hogwarts students laughing and smiling while having conversations, so the cheering had already started for some people. Not everyone is going to react the same way. Shock or not, it is astounding and simply illogical that everyone should see Harry - the one who destroyed the most dangerous wizard of all times and the cause of all this damage - walk by and that NO ONE reacted AT ALL. In the book, he has to hide under the cloak, fearing that everyone will jump on him - and lots of people indeed would've. And Hagrid simply giving a quick hug and walking away mere hours after effin' ''holding Harry's dead body'' (or so he thought) in his arms ? COME ON.

*** Actually, without the context it could easily be inferred that he became a death eater because she dumped him. All we really see is James being a dick to Snape and Lily ultimately falling for him.
*** Even then, becoming a Death Eater - whether motivated by a broken heart or not - isn't just a mild case of falling in with the wrong crowd. It involves joining up with [[ThoseWackyNazis Wizard!Hitler]] and his inner circle of bastards, whose stated agenda is the complete and total genocide of a third or so of the wizarding population...including the person who was the focus of the aforementioned heartbreak. Even without further context, that would seem to belie the notion that Snape could just suddenly [[LoveMakesYouEvil turn to evil]] because Lily married James; no one becomes a full-on Nazi overnight, after all.

*** Sleeping Harry: "*Snore...Nhh... save... Ginny... Chamber... *Parseltongue*"
*** Except that it wasn't his most traumatic memory ''by far''. Him reliving Sirius'or Cedric's death in his sleep made much more sense. And anyway other questions still stand.
*** I don't see why it is "wrong on so many levels". Ron and Harry must have spent countless times sleeping in the same dormatory or tent. Ron (being Ron) presumably just wasn't thinking, and forgot that this wouldn't apply to Hermione. Hermione, on the other hand, ''did'' realize what the implication of her hearing Harry talking in his sleep would be, hence her indignant denial.
*** [[ShipTease Indignant or embarrassed?]] She has just spent an awful lot of time with Harry in a small tent, plus being perfectly happy to walk into his and Ron's room while they're asleep in Goblet of Fire, so there ''could'' be an innocent reason for her knowing...

*** That's the best explanation I've heard yet.

*** I agree with the troper above: it seemed to be for a bit of a laugh, though Hermione's reaction kind of fell flat to me; but it didn't bother me really either - what annoyed me was Ron's line a bit later: "That's my girlfriend you numpty." Seemed so ... unnatural and unfunny. I think only younger kids would enjoy that line and frankly this is a movie that, apart from the first forty minutes or so is ALL a war, so they shouldn't really be watching anyway, especially considering that line comes after a 17 year old just tried to KILL a girl!

*** What? So that Gryffindor would hold on to that cup for ALL TIME?

** And ''break their legs''?!
*** They could do a levitation spell when they land like they did in [=OotP=] when they fell from a high height in the Death Chamber however they are flying on a dragon so I doubt they would think fast. But from a movie director's perspective, spells are too cheap and since there is a war going on, this troper would like to maintain the mood that these three need to do real hard work to defeat Voldemort which means the journey needs to be uncomfortable such as being soaking wet from dropping into the lake instead of cheaply landing on land with a levitation spell.
**** Erm... in the film, Hermione had just done such a spell at Gringotts after being dumped from the trolley, with almost no time to think about it. From the dragon she could have planned.
*** Oh, sure, because the ensuing massacre in Hogwarts was ''such'' a walk in the park.
*** True, they could have been hurt if they landed on the ground. But they had no control over the dragon (like trying to get it to land), correct? Plus, that premonition Harry had about Voldemort happened once they landed in the water, so I guess it's part of the plot.

*** I always assumed she just hit her with a Stunner straight in the heart. Now that I think of, despite the cartoonish look, the scene turned out ''more'' brutal than in the book. There Molly just had a lucky shot with a non-lethal spell. Here she explicitly ''finished a helpless opponent off''! Ok, I withdraw my complaint to this scene - it was badass, alright!
**** This troper found the Bellatrix/Molly fight to be /not enough/ in the movie. Especially when compared to the book scene where the death eater fights Luna, Hermione, and Ginny all at once, and then has a long epic fight with Molly.

*** Yes.

*** [[http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j76/Zeldamaniac/8-HarryPotterandtheDeathlyHallows-Part2mp4_snapshot_010631_20111227_233103.jpg One can actually see a pretty clear bite-mark on her neck in an earlier shot]], so yeah, the only reason she didn't appear to have any wounds in that last shot was because it wasn't visible from that angle.

*** Oliver Wood shows up at one point on a broom with what is likely several other members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, so we can probably assume the reinforcements arrived off-screen. The battle was packed already, bringing in the reinforcements would've pushed it even longer.
*** In the book, Oliver and his Quidditch chums aren't with the reinforcements, they arrive after Neville sends out the summons. So they may have turned up at the same time as the Order.

*** Maybe the young acromantulas ate it? Nothing says that spiders flee before its corpse, and once they finished it and the rats off, they would probably have returned to the forest.
**** Remember in "Chamber of Secrets", how after they enter the chamber the floor is littered with countless bones of small animals, most likely rats and stuff that wandered in by accident? I'm sure there were plenty of rats attracted by the stench of the giant corpse that fed on it until there was nothing left but the bones. Also, the place was really damp, so anything would rot quickly; it would be a different story if it was a very dry place in which case the basilisk could've become mummified...

*** Hell, when they're being sorted in the first film, the names are all over the shop. They sort Ron '''W'''easley before Susan '''B'''ones, for lordy's sake! I suppose it ups the tension, since the kids don't know when they'll be called up.
*** It could be '''J'''ames Potter then '''L'''ily Evans. That would explain it.
*** Given Harry is one of the youngest in the year and one of the last to be sorted, maybe in the films they do it in age order?
*** Or they do it in the order in which the students acknowledged their letters, which would make sense... Ron, being from a large and old (albeit poor) wizarding family, his parents would have been watching for the letter and answered pretty much immediately, while Harry was kept from replying to his letter until barely a day or so before the start of the term.

** And on a related note, why was ''Luna'' at Hogwarts? This troper seems to recall that she only came back in the book ''after'' the news that Harry had returned, yet in the movie she was already there. So what, did she just randomly decide after Harry went off to Gringots that "Oh yeah, going back to the school that's run by the people who held me prisoner not a day ago ''totally'' seems like the best thing to do right now"?

* Why. Did. Bellatrix. Explode?
** Because Molly turned her to stone, and that's what happens when you fire a magical blast at stone?
** But why the hell would the filmmakers kill her that way? I mean Jesus, blowing her up?! That's just all kinds of stupid.
*** I don't know, blowing someone up always struck me as a smart way to kill someone...
**** HELL YES! Cleaning up the evidence is easy, all you need is a broom and a pan. ^_^
***** I just got a hilarious mental image of Filch using a vacuum cleaner in the Great Hall after the battle and sucking up Bellatrix's dusty remains.
****** But being as she was such a big villan throughout the movies, such a cheap, quick death was very lacklustre and unsatisfying.
******* Considering the alternatives basically boil down to *spell strikes Bellatrix*, *Bellatrix is dead*? They wanted to differentiate between 'Yay! Bellatrix is dead!' and 'Um, so is Bellatrix dead or Stunned?'.
****** With the PG-13 rating theres only so much they can get away with anyway, especially while also remembering that the movie was already really long and a slow agonizing BodyHorror heavy death would have taken up time and destroyed the pacing of the scene.
** She exploded for the same reason Voldy disintegrated. The 3D audience needed more effects.

* [=McGonagall=] throwing ALL of Slytherin house in the dungeons because one (Pansy Parkinson) wanted to hand harry over. And everyone cheers. And Slughorn's ok with that. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

*** Well, others didn't rush to smack her on the side of her head or object to being locked, did they?
*** Bystander effect? And in any case, neither did the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, or Ravenclaws.
*** Scarlett Byrne said there was a deleted scene where the Slytherins broke out of the dungeons to join the fight.
*** {{FridgeLogic}} sets in when you remember that most, if not all, of the Death Eaters came from Slytherin House, and it is likely that their children are also in Slytherin. This keeps the kids from being caught in the crossfire and, in the worst case scenario, gives the Hogwarts defenders hostages.
**** It also stops them from helping their parents which is another good reason for this.
**** Actually there are death eaters from every house, im sure, not every Slytherin is a deatheater, and in the deleted scene Argus locks them down there behind an iron and very strong gate and it's only because of a misfired spell that broke the lock, were they able to get out. If it wasnt for that spell, when the castle was collapsing, then many, many, young and old Slytherins could have been crushed to death. I for one found the scene disgusting and I think there is no excuse for doing that to a whole house of students, some as young as 11.

*** Given that there's no sign of any students being evacuated before the battle, it seems likely ''everyone'' who was unwilling or too young to participate was confined to quarters. It makes more sense than letting them go and having some of them join Voldemort's army, as in the book. Don't forget, when Draco was a second year he was practically begging to be allowed in on a plan to kill all the Muggleborn students. Some of those young Slytherins are hardcore.

*** That's what wigs are for.
**** Most child actors (or child actor wannabes) are actually atrocious when it comes to acting, simply because of inexperience, so more often than not you'll end up casting a child that doesn´t necessarily look the part but at least is reasonably convincent.

* I can't believe this hasn't been asked by now, but The Sword is in Bellatrix's Vault, or it was supposed to be. How the hell did Harry get in in [=CoS=] if it was in her vault, and how did it get back in the vault after he kills Slytherin's Basilisk?

*** The sword was not in the Lestrange vault in [=CoS=], it had been long lost until Harry pulled it from the Sorting Hat and killed the Basilisk with it. The sword [[spoiler: a replica, really, the real thing was in Snape's possession]] was placed in the Lestrange vault at Voldemort's command sometime after Voldemort's takeover of the ministry, (Scrimgeour had kept the sword, when Dumbledore's will stated it was to pass to Harry)
**** The Sword of Gryffindor first appeared in the second book/movie from places unknown. It came to Harry through the Sorting Hat, which once belonged to Godric Gryffindor. After that, Dumbledore kept in in his office and at some point, either had made or somehow acquired an wizard-made replica. The replica eventually became the sword that was on display. In the final book, Ginny, Luna, and Neville tried to steal the sword (actually the replica) early in the school year. It was then that it was brought to Gringotts (and is presumably still in the Lestrange vailt). The real sword was still in the Headmaster's office.

*** "Which you had him do instead of just displelling the jinx or waiting until it fades? Goddamn you lot are stupid. I think I'm gonna kill you all anyway, just to avoid contamination to the Wizard gene pool."

*** Which is '''B'''arely '''S'''ensible, because it's the goddamn Harry Potter, whom every dog in England knows what he looks like, ''including Lucius''. Even if they all suddenly forgot, they could surely procure newspapers or something with his pictures, or, you know, one of those "Undesirable #1" posters plastered all around the country. If they couldn't recognise him from the appearence, then neither would've Draco.

* A major grip. When Harry is keeping watch while Hermione is sleeping, Snape's Patronus appears before him and lures him to Gryffindor's Sword. which is underwater in a frozen lake, the problem with this is that Harry is essentially saying "Snatchers, Hermione Granger is sleeping inside this tent! go kidnap her!" in addition, there is no way the protective enchantments work when the wand that they were cast with is away.
** First off, you yourself have admitted that this is just a gripe, not an actual headscratcher. Second, "there is no way the protective enchantments work when the wand that they were cast with is away?" How would you know that? Even if it were true, and I highly doubt that, no one said Harry was specifically right for abandoning Hermione like he did, and they also needed the sword of Gryffindor in order to destroy the Horcruxes

------
** A major grip. When Harry is keeping watch while Hermione is sleeping, Snape's Patronus appears before him and lures him to Gryffindor's Sword. which is underwater in a frozen lake, the problem with this is that Harry is essentially saying "Snatchers, Hermione Granger is sleeping inside this tent! go kidnap her!" in addition, there is no way the protective enchantments work when the wand that they were cast with is away.

*** Even then, becoming a Death Eater - whether motivated by a broken heart or not - isn't just a mild case of falling in with the wrong crowd. It involves joining up with [[ThoseWackyNazis Wizard!Hitler]] and his inner circle of [[CompleteMonster Complete Monsters]], whose stated agenda is the complete and total genocide of a third or so of the wizarding population...including the person who was the focus of the aforementioned heartbreak. Even without further context, that would seem to belie the notion that Snape could just suddenly [[LoveMakesYouEvil turn to evil]] because Lily married James; no one becomes a full-on Nazi overnight, after all.