open/close all folders
- 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.
- Perhaps it wasn't so much the heels that she was having trouble with, but rather Bellatrix's radically different height and weight? Which she would, presumably, have gotten used to after a few minutes.
- 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.
- For that matter, where did they get that costume?
- 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.
- And how did it still fit perfectly - including the corset - after the Thief's Downfall?
- 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.
- I always figured that as Hermione simply over-acting in her attempt to imitate Bellatrix' mannerisms. Bellatrix is a crazy bitch, why not give her a crazy gait?
- I had just assumed that she was nervous and uncomfortable. Nerves can do a number on your ability to walk a straight line and balance properly, and when you're in heels, which demands a better sence of balance, you're more likely to trip and stumble a little bit if you're nervous than completely confindent.
- She was probably a bit uncomfortable in the body. I think you'd be a bit uncomfortable in the body of someone who tortured you only a few hours or so before.
- Wasn't The Burrow friggin' BURNED at the sixth movie?
- Probably repaired by magic, but you're right - They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.
- If you payed too much attention, you would've noticed that a part of the building was painted differently from the rest. It was repaired off-screen.
- ...Then what was the point of the scene where The Burrow gets destroyed in the sixth film?
- The point wasn't to show them living in a destroyed house in the next movie while there is a wedding just next anyhow. It probably was to have an action scene in the middle of the movie, maybe as replacement for cutting most of the battle against the DE after Dumbledore's death. The producers have also stated that it was put in to show that there was no safe place left. In the book Hermione mentions other students being affected by Death Eater attacks. The producers felt it would work better on film if it happened to Harry and company and it was seen rather than just referred to.
- Also, it gave another reason for Mrs. Weasley to kill Bellatrix.
- For starters, films are a very visual medium. In a film it's always better to show than tell. In the book, countless people Harry knows are suffering tragedy. The film doesn't have time to try and make us feel empathy for throwaway side characters so they added the scene in to get that feeling across. For more superficial reasons, it gives Bellatrix and Greyback more screen time and also develops Harry and Ginny's attraction (the Almost Kiss, she runs off to help him). Also, the Burrow was burned at Christmas. The wedding takes place in June. A normal house could be rebuilt in that time. Or did you expect the Weasleys to camp in the back garden for six months?
Snape finding them
- How the hell did 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?
- Possible answer: Since the bit about the mirror being originally given to Harry by Sirius got cut, the writers might want to swing the cheap excuse of Snape having the other end before passing it on to Aberforth or something along those lines. That way, while Harry and Hermione were talking in the Forest of Dean, Snape might have overheard them at the other side of the mirror when she said she'd gone there camping with her parents before.
- Alternatively, perhaps Dumbledore had set up the Deluminator to alert Severus when Ron used it to find his way back -The two of them finding Harry at the same time seems like quite a Contrived Coincidence (though admittedly, it was one in the book). Either way, the second film doesn't explain it, so we're left with Wild Mass Guessing.
- I think Snape's Patronus was able to home in on them. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned elsewhere that Death Eaters specifically are unable to produce Patronuses (Patronii?) so they wouldn't have been able to use that same trick to locate them.
- This seems like the most likely explanation - remember how Mr. Weasley's Patronus found them after they'd left the wedding and were hiding out in Grimmauld Place in the book? He couldn't have known where they'd be hiding either.
- In the Ministry of Magic, what was the deal with the fireplace-esque things? I thought they were fireplaces for the Floo Network, but Ron, followed by Harry, Hermione, and Yaxley, manage to get transportation out (to Grimmauld Place) without giving a destination and immediately apparated into the forest. Were they apparition zones, put there as a safety measure or to allow people to apparate in and out of the Ministry with, for some reasons, a green smoky-flame effect?
- They are part of the Floo network. That doesn't prevent the trio from tossing some floo powder and apparating out under cover of the green flame it produces.
- 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.
Elder Wand at the end
- So, in Deathly Hallows Part 2, we see Harry simply break the Elder Wand in half and toss it off the bridge completely casually. We've seen spells that repair wands before, so this seems like an absolutely horrible idea. In addition, that's how you treat the worlds most powerful wand, and an artifact that was used by Dumbledore? That's cold, Harry. Very cold.
- Er, we've NEVER seen spells that repair wands. The only time in the entire series a wand is repaired is when Harry repairs his own...WITH the Elder Wand.
- 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.
- Maybe he repaired it himself, offscreen. And that was how he knew he was the Elder Wand's master in his final speech.
- 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. 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. 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.
- 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! 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.
- If the wand could be broken that easily, why didn't Dumbledore do it while he was alive?
- It was a phallic object. Which belonged to his best friend. Who was a guy. Whom he was in love with.
- I guess he just couldn't resist the temptation. In the book, Dumbledore said that power was his weakness and that Harry was a much more selfless person than him. This ties into Dumbledore's Back Story, which was cut from the film.
- Harry was willing to Imperio the goblin at Gringotts several times. Why didn't he just cast the charm on Griphook to make him give back the sword and let them out?
- Possibly it wouldn't work on Griphook because the goblin would be expecting it thus he could resist it like Harry did. That or Harry was determined to keep his word/promise.
- 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.
- Why did they go off the book for the ending of Part 2? I don't recall an epic cliff jump or there being much difficulty in killing the snake. It just seemed like padding.
- 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.
- So V can now feel when Horcruxes are being destroyed, huh? Well, in that case I guess he should've felt it when DD destroyed the ring in HBP, and Ron destroyed the locket, shouldn't he?
- Perhaps it's a case of proximity? When the Cup, Diadem, and Snake were killed, he was less than a mile away, so it would make sense that it would "hurt" quite a bit more deeply.
- Could also be due to him being aware that there being actively hunted thus causing him to pay more attention.
- It seemed to get stronger as more and more horcruxes got destroyed. When they killed the cup he felt woozy for a minute. When he "killed" Harry it knocked him flat on his ass.
- How do we know he didn't feel it?
- Because if he did, he'd obviously took steps to rehide them?
- Didn't it explain in the book that he didn't feel them originally because he was so far disconnected with those pieces of his soul and his remaining soul was so mangled that it just didn't register, but once so many had been destroyed and he became aware that they were being hunted down, he became more atuned to them? Maybe not. I might just be making that up...
- In the book he didn't feel it all. Voldermort thought he should be able to tell what his Horcruxes were up to but he had divided his soul so much that he had to check on them manually. The only exceptions were his "living Horcruxes" for who knows why. Maybe because they had perfectly intact living minds so his soul being in eight different places didn't matter?
- So Harry can now hear Horcruxes whispering to him, huh? Well, in that case I guess he should've heard the diary whisper to him in Chamber of Secrets, shouldn't he? (I don't remember if the locket whispered to him in DH_1)
- What do you mean the Diary didn't whisper to him? It gloated, explained backstory and summoned a bloody basilisk!
- It was necessary for the films, but an in universe explanation for why Harry couldn't hear the diary was because he was unaware of the existence of horcruxes and wasn't actively trying to find one.
- It's also mentioned in the books that the bond between Harry and Voldemort got stronger when he got a new body - Harry wasn't able to see his dreams etc. before then. Possibly he wasn't as receptive to the horcruxes when he was twelve.
Harry freeing himself
- When V and Harry fight, V FINALLY shows imagination and produces some cool-looking straps out of his cloak to ensnare and strangle the scarhead. Then the camera switches to some other scene, then switches back...and Harry is free. What the hell? How did he free himself?!
- Maybe 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?
- Voldemort was playing with him. He let Harry go.
- 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.
- Diffindo. Problem solved.
- Again. Would've been nice to see that!
- 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 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 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.
- In Gringotts' vault why didn't the cup multiply when they grabbed it with bare hands?
- I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe it does in the book. In the film, well, things were confusing enough.
- Horcruxes resist magic, especially curses, especially curses not cast by their owner. Hermione's Summoning Charm didn't work on it either.
- But it's not a curse, it's a defensive charm. And if it is because V didn't cast it, okay, why didn't he?
- Well why should he, he's already made the thing practically indestructible and placed it in a place where it's protected by a dragon, amongst a ton of stuff that any potential thief might have taken instead. Don't forget that Voldemort never thought someone would find out about his horcruxes, as he thought he was the only one clever enough to come up with the idea
- 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 Horcruxes, 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...
After the final battle
- What's wrong with those people in the end? Harry's just entered the hall after killing V, and everybody's like "Hey dude, long time no see, what's up?" Ok, sure, they are exhausted, they grieve over their casualties, but they've just won the freaking war, and this is their goddamned hero! Doesn't he deserve some cheers or applause or pat on the shoulder? Doesn't anybody want to ask him whether the bastard is really, really dead this time or at least to check if he's not wounded?
- I was bothered by this, too. Especially Hagrid, who had been holding what he honestly believed was Harry's lifeless body, only for Harry to suddenly reveal that he's alive, fall out of his arms, and run off to fight. And then next time Hagrid sees him, he hugs him and walks away. They couldn't have had him say "You scared the hell out of me! I thought you were dead!" or something?
- That part where Hagrid walks away was so hilariously awkward.
- The answer is in the OP: they were all exhausted from an all night battle, and were grieving over the deaths of their friends (most of them children, don't forget) and families, combined with being overcome by the fact that Voldemort is, at long last, dead. Later will come the celebrations, the cheering, and the partying. For now, they are still in shock over the events of the previous 24 hours that caused so much pain and so many long-lasting changes to the world they live in.
- 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.
- Short answer: they're British.
Reason for leaving Snape
- Why did they edit out the reason Lily ditched Snape? He called her a mudblood and started hanging out with Death Eaters! They made her look heartless for choosing James, who was still a bully as far as the movie showed. Surely they could've cut down on the melodramatic close-ups and found the space to show Lily's story?
- It's an adaptation. In this story, Snape didn't do any of that stuff.
- Of course, even if he didn't, the movie series does still establish the fact that he eventually became a Death Eater of his own accord, so even without the "Mudblood" incident it should be fairly clear to a careful viewer just why their relationship went south.
- 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 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 turn to evil because Lily married James; no one becomes a full-on Nazi overnight, after all.
- Even without her ever really ditching him the tragedy of the situation still remains, heck it could even make it worse if they were still friends and he had to see the woman he loved happily married to someone he thought of as a jerk.
- Keep in mind, these are Snape's memories; he could have repressed that memory, or even altered it as Slughorn did in HBP. Also, the reason Snape is sharing these memories to Harry is to fulfill the promise he made to Dumbledore to reveal Harry's fate to him when the time was right. That particular detail isn't really crucial in this regard.
Ron and Parseltongue
- The scene where Ron opens the Chamber. His explanation for knowing Parseltongue is "Harry talks in his sleep." This Is Wrong on So Many Levels. First of all, why is he explaining it then? Least we forget, they had to first open the door to the passage in the bathroom, so certainly he'd explain it there, wouldn't he? Second, whaaaaaa? In the book the explanation was at least somewhat plausible - Ron recited the word Harry had used to open that very door in CoS, so he knew it was the right word, and even then it took him many tries. But learning it from listening Harry dream-speak, are you kidding me? Even if we assume that Harry'd been dream-speaking in Parseltongue, which is unlikely, since he always needed a snake for that, why would he say the word "open" and even if he did, how the hell could Ron discern it among others? But the most mind-boggling is what was wrong with the initial explanation and why change it at all?
- It is very common for people to relive traumatic memories in their sleep - Harry might repeat that incident and part of it is him saying "open" is parseltongue.
- 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.
- 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...
- I'm inclined to think the explanation is actually the same as in the book - that he's reciting the same word that Harry had used relatively recently in order to open the Locket. But then, why mention that "Harry talks in his sleep" at all? Simple: that was how he learned to distinguish Parseltongue as individual words rather than an indistinct hissing sound, which is how most people tend to hear it the first few times 'round. That made it a lot easier for him to discern and repeat the "open" phrase verbatim.
- That's the best explanation I've heard yet.
- And I always figured that, in the movie-verse, Harry was whispering in Parseltongue whenever he was having dreams connecting him to Voldemort, who is a natural Parselmouth and who does use it pretty much all the time. Especially in this film, where his Occlumency is weakening because of his obsession with the Elder Wand and the two are mind-sharing more often.
- Ruleof Funny? At least that was my impression. Since they cut Harry's infamous "is this the moment?" line, they probably felt like they had some humor to compensate for. Besides, if my memory is correct, shit gets way more serious after the Chamber scene. Consider it a breather moment, it didn't bug me that much, personally.
- Yeah, 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's interesting with this explanation is that it was established in the film PoA that Ron talked in his sleep.
- It's minor, but immediately afterward...the kiss...so hilariously sudden and out of place...Again, in the book it looked natural for Hermie to kiss Ron after he expressed concern for house-elves, but here...why? Because he thought of a way to kill the horcrux? Fine, but then it'd make more sense if she kissed him right after he had that brilliant idea.
- They had just enacted a major accomplishment (killing a Horcrux mere hours after stealing it, whereas the last one had taken months) and from their perspective, nearly died for it. The relief they felt over both getting one step closer to their goal and NOT getting drowned in watery graves manifested in them finally letting down their guard and seizing their long-overdue Relationship Upgrade. While its timing made more sense in the book, I think it still works just fine in the film.
- It's a Smooch of Victory. They just destroyed the Horcrux, and survived nearly drowning. I would call it PG-Rated Glad-to-Be-Alive Sex
- I think somebody pointed this out elsewhere on this page, but there's also the fact that the scene consists of Ron (a blood traitor) and Hermione (a Muggle-born) having their Smooch of Victory in the Chamber of Secrets, the place built for the Heir of Slytherin (who they've just brought one step closer to having his ass kicked for good) to wipe out all the Muggle-borns in Hogwarts. It's the ultimate fuck you to Voldemort, Salazar Slytherin and their whole racist ideology.
- And it makes more sense to do it there than randomly start making out in front of Harry coughing, looking at his watch and going "Only two hours to save the world here, guys..."
Burning the Quidditch pitch
- For what purpose did the Death Eaters set the Quidditch pitch at Hogwarts on fire? Just For the Evulz? You'd think that they of all people should be in favor of a sport that exclusively people with magical abilities are capable of playing.
- These are the same people who blew up tents at the Quidditch World Cup. For the Evulz is probably on their business cards.
- Plus, Muggleborns CAN play Quidditch, so I don't think the official "Death Eater position" on the sport is as unambiguously positive as you might think.
- As of Book 6, the last season, Gryffindor held the Quidditch cup. BURN that stadium, they said.
- What? So that Gryffindor would hold on to that cup for ALL TIME?
Jumping in the water
- When Harry, Ron and Hermione were riding on the dragon, why couldn't they have waited until they were above ground and not water to jump?
- 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, they tried 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.
Family friendly deaths
- Why the sudden pussification? Snape killed off-screen, Bellatrix killed kiddy-cartoon style, Nagini turned into smoke, a werewolf kills a girl without giving her any wounds. Hell, I'm surprised Crabbe's death in flame was left in! I understand ratings and Bloodless Carnage, but when the first movies have more graphic deaths (Quirell getting burned and crumbling apart, Basilisk getting stabbed) than the seventh one, this is ridiculous.
- Frankly, showing the full graphic-ness of Snape's death would've been pushing the PG-13 rating to its absolute limit, especially given that the filmmakers know that, rating or no rating, there are tons of children in the audience. I also thought it was a little more effective at evoking pathos (since the portion of the audience that hasn't read the book has no reason to feel sympathy for Snape at this point) to merely hear his muffled gasps and the sound of his body striking the wall as an increasing amount of blood covers it.
- I can't really think of many reasons for Bellatrix, except that they probably didn't want to outright visually depict Molly Weasley as casting the Killing Curse. What she used in the book was ambiguous, though as it was instantly lethal it's generally assumed to be "Avada Kedavra"...but that spell's image in the film series is, without exception, associated solely with the villains. So instead she got Petrified and then Reducted (is that a word?) - which, if the cheers of both theater audiences I saw it with are any indication, packed a sufficient amount of visual punch.
- 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!
- Some people 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.
- Nagini's death scene matched the destruction of all the other Horcruxes well enough, and really, was it that much less graphic than the headless corpse of a snake falling to the ground for half-a-second of screentime?
- I got the impression that Greyback was biting Lavender on the back of the neck, which the full-frontal shot of her body did not show. The scene gets across what it needs to get across (the blood splattered all around his mouth doesn't exactly scream "subtle"), so what's the pressing need for picking a shot that shows slightly more gore?
- 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.
- Why would they leave all the reinforcements out? The centaurs, the house-elves, the wizards from Hogsmeade - these were some of best moments in the story, when the wizarding population FINALLY got their heads out of their asses and started fighting the proper war, and we didn't get to see it?
- Because The House-Elves in the kitchens were never seen or mentioned in the movies (due to the S.P.E.W. sub-plot being removed altogether from the movies), the centaurs were barely featured (Hell, Firenze didn't even appear ONCE after the first movie), we barely saw much of the village of Hogsmeade (population-wise), and Charlie Weasley, who led the reinforcements, was Demoted to Extra for the films, that is when he DID appear! So it would have made NO sense for them all to appear now. If you didn't read the book, you'd be utterly confused by the sudden reinforcements, and wonder what was happening at all.
- 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.
- How did the Basilisk completely decay like that in less than five years?
- Well, it isn't exactly a natural creature; it's a massive, thousand-year-old serpent born from a chicken's egg that was hatched under a toad, with the ability to kill things just by looking them in the eye. Given the sheer amount of magic that must be inherent in its body, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that it would decay at a much faster rate than a normal animal.
- 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...
- Why was Lily Evans sorted after James Potter?
- I don't recall the students being called in alphabetical order in the movies.
- Hell, when they're being sorted in the first film, the names are all over the shop. They sort Ron Weasley before Susan Bones, 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 James Potter then Lily 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.
Cho at Hogwarts
- Why is Cho still at Hogwarts? Did she get held back, or did she sneak in to help La Résistance?
- In the book, she snuck back. In the movies, they never actually specified what year she was in, so it's not something they really need to waste time explaining. She could well be a year younger than Harry in the films, for all we know.
- And on a related note, why was Luna at Hogwarts? 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"?
- Apparently, there was a deleted scene where Harry says goodbye to Luna and she basically tells him she's going to do exactly that. Weird.
- Cho is in the same year as Harry in the films' continuity. In the fifth film, Hermione says something about Cho being worried about failing her OWL exams because of all the stress she's under. So that means she's in their year.
- 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.
- Yeah, even the first and second years. 'Cause they are already EVIL.
- But isn't that where their dorms are, anyway? I thought it was more of a "send them to their rooms!" command.
- Either way, that's pretty disturbing, especially for a teacher, locking everyone in Slytherin away because one person wanted to hand Harry over. They could have been trapped there or killed if the Death Eaters got in.
- 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.
- I'm more than a little surprised that most of the previously commenting Potter fans seen to have forgotten that the entrance to Slytherin House is located in the dungeons (Harry Goes there in Chamber of Secrets). They've been confined to quarters, folks.
- 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.
- Why, after all the stuff about Harry having his mother's eyes, did they cast a child actress for Lily who had completely different-coloured eyes? There were several close-ups of her face where her eyes were clearly visible, followed, after the flashback, by a close-up on Harry's where his are too.
- They can't get anyone with red hair and green eyes?
- 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 convenient.
- From an in-universe point of view, my guess is that Snape's memories were actually modified, in a sense...The only time we see Lily as a child was in his own memories, and her eyes seemed to be one of the most notable things about her, so...I am going out on a limb here, but maybe he modified his memories of her eyes by changing their color, so he wouldn't have to be constantly reminded of them...or something. If that makes sense. (Which could explain why he doesn't really "see" any of her in Harry, who supposedly has those same eyes, until his death.)
- Why is it that, during the final battle, Harry is affected when Nagini is killed? The connection between Harry and Voldemort had been severed in the woods, so why did Harry feel it too?
- Remember that V and Harry are in a Beam-O-War situation. In a real-life tug-of-war, when Player A is winning the tug-of-war but suddenly loses control of the rope, odds are Player B will be knocked back once Player A lets go of the rope. Same analogy applies to Beam-O-War. But yes, Harry doesn't feel anything anymore when Nagini was killed.
- Beam-O-War =/= tug of war. In the Beam war, the two sides are pushing inward, trying to force their spell through to their opponent. Logically, Harry's spell should have slammed into V at Mach 2 when Nagini died and V lost his bearing. And yes, Harry was knocked flat by the effects of Nagini's death, despite not having any connection to V anymore.
- 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?
- It is most certainly not in Bellatrix's vault at the time of Chamber of Secrets. It was presumably in Dumbledore's office, and just like in the book, it appeared out of the Sorting Hat upon the plea for help of a worthy Gryffindor. The scene is rather obvious with half of the sword being seen materializing out of thin air (probably due to lack of special effects creativity or resources on the part of the filmmakers). And in the final movie, I can't quite clearly recall if the sword ever does get placed inside the Lestranges' vault, but I do remember rather clearly Neville's Rousing Speech and his pulling the sword once again out of the Sorting Hat, keeping in tune with the "tradition" of sorts behind such a legendary magical artifact — that it might "present itself to any worthy Gryffindor" as stated in the book. Why is this a Headscratcher anyway? The scenes in question are rather clear about where and how the sword is showing up.
- 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 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.
- In the film, the replica is put into the Lestranges' vault after Ginny, Luna, and Neville try to steal it from Snape's office. Snape then sends a Patronus to guide Harry to the real sword in the frozen pond, which Harry keeps with him until he's forced to give it to Griphook during the break-in to get the Horcrux out of the vault. The film explicitly shows the sword fading away and disappearing afterwards, in the scene where Voldemort slaughters the goblins who reported the Gringotts theft to him - it goes on to reappear later when Neville pulls it out of the Sorting Hat.
Ron chasing the goons
- Whilst Hermione's face is priceless when Ron goes chasing after Malfoy and his goons, it's always struck me as a bit odd that Hermione is perfectly content to let Ron pursue the evil wizards who not five seconds ago fired a killing curse at her. If someone fired a bullet at me, I wouldn't be content to let the love of my life go running after my assailants alone. Even if Hermione thought that Harry needed help finding the Horcrux, her first instinct should surely be to help Ron keep the Death Eaters at bay, since it would be unlikely he would survive long against the three Death Eaters.
- She was probably just stunned momentarily. The girl doesn't have the highest self esteem and she's probably just that flattered Ron defended her honour like that - also yelling out "that's my girlfriend". Ron came running back too quickly for her to pull herself together and go after him.
- Didn't the Grangers get suspicious that they have a bunch of framed portraits with no person in them all over their house after Hermoine magics herself out of all the family photos?
- Presumably Hermione magicked those photos or hid them or something before casting the spell. In the book she mentions that she effectively set them up with entirely new identities somewhere else, but since the movies have always coddled Hermione they probably wanted to leave her an easier reset button where she could just undo the Obliviate spell once Voldemort was defeated.
- Except that her image is seen quite clearly fading from photographs that are still on display, then she leaves without doing anything to them. This isn't super apparent in family photos— now they just look like a happy childless couple— but it includes portraits of her and her alone, which are now just pictures of blank backgrounds hanging on the wall.
- With no knowledge that they had a kid or of wizards, they're just going to assume they're terrible at taking pictures. It's improbably they'd think something huge like someone editing all of them without the couple knowing.
- They're going to think that they took a picture of a blank portrait background, framed it, and hung it up on the wall? They probably won't jump to the conclusion that they've got a daughter who's a witch who erased their memories of her, but they're going to know that SOMETHING screwy is going on and be suspicious enough to look into it, and if she was sloppy enough to leave the blank pictures up, presumably she left other clues as well. Ontological Mystery stories have started with the protagonists having fewer clues than that.
- In the book, Hermione also got them to move and change their names. Probably she hid the pictures after wiping their memories. Even if they find them and suspect something, they have no other leads besides the pictures, have no knowledge of the wizarding world, and thus wouldn't be able to track down Hermione.
- There is a deleted scene where Yaxley enters Hermione's living room and it is completely empty, implying the Grangers moved like they did in the book. Hermione vanishing from the family photographs is just a visual clue for the audience what she's doing rather than having her explain it.
- It would have required weeks of family work to clean the house of seventeen years of evidence that they had a daughter, especailly dseeing as how Hermione left without carrying much.
- Again, visual clue. Hermione didn't leave immediately after that scene. And that shot specifically might not have been her leaving but just walking outside to clear her head after what she had just done. She could have convinced her parents that she was going to move with them to Australia up until she cast the spell.
- Like the person above said, her parents will possibly become suspicious about the empty frames, but then again, little things like that pop up all the time in a Muggle's everyday life - none of them (or at least, not many of them) are so quick to jump to the conclusion of literal "magic". If anything, I could imagine them checking to see if their doors and windows were locked and assuming someone broke in and played a prank on them. As long as they don't remember about Hermione being a witch and don't have any concrete evidence that she ever lived there, then they're safe. The shots of her vanishing from the different photos also took away things like the highchair she was sitting in, so it's safe to assume anything and everything identifiable was removed.
Scabior and Draco
- When Scabior brings Harry, Ron and Hermione to Malfoy Manor, why is it that they need Draco to confirm if it's actually Harry? All the wizards present have come face to face with Harry at one time or another, so they must know what he looks like. If the jinx Hermione casts on him renders him so unrecognizable, Draco would not have any more luck than they would identifying him, and even if no one recognizes him, they would (and do) recognize Ron and Hermione, as they are almost always with Harry when he encounters the Death Eaters.
- Draco needed a redeeming scene.
- Perhaps they meant through mannerisms etc. since they couldn't recognise him by his face? Draco has spent six years at school with him so he knows Harry's voice, personality, habits a lot better than the Death Eaters who have all seen him about once briefly. They wanted Draco to see if he was acting like the real Harry. They were pretty sure it was him but they wanted to be 100% sure. In the book they don't want to summon Voldemort if there's any chance it could be the wrong person.
- Give Draco a chance to redeem himself after fucking up his mission of killing Dumbledore the previous year? "My Lord, the boy identified Potter for us despite the tricks they used to hide who he was. See, he's really on our side!"
- "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."
- If they were wrong and summoned Voldy wrongly, they would have been in serious trouble. Draco was the only DE symapthizer in the room who knew Harry the most.
- The Malfoys are already on thin ice with Voldemort. Scabior didn't know Harry personally. Bellatrix had only met him about three times and ditto for Lucius and Narcissa. They only believe it's Harry because of who is with him. They want to be absolutely sure.
- Which is Barely Sensible, 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.
- To have a scapegoat. If Draco identifies Potter then they jump in to take the credit for capturing him. If Draco mis<identifies Potter then he takes the blame.
- I haven't seen the whole movie, but where the heck was Harry's scar in the epilogue?
- Scars fade with time, and it's symbolic of his having moved on from Voldemort-related troubles. In fact, the scar being magic and all, Voldemort being gone probably literally made it fade more rapidly.
Escaping the snatchers
- I don't remember the details from the book, so I'm just going by the movie that I just watched...After they Disapparate from the Lovegoods' house and get chased by snatchers, why don't Harry, Ron, and Hermione all just Apparate somewhere else to get away from them, instead of just running away on foot?
The missing sword
- The film adds in a comment by Scrimgeour (apologies if I mispelled that), that in addition to not being Dumbledore's to bequeath to Harry, the Sword of Gryffindor has gone missing and can't be located. How is that possible? The sword didn't get moved to the Lestranges' vault until after Neville and co. tried stealing it from Snape's (the Headmaster's) office, which was well after the Death Eaters had taken over the Ministry and killed Scrimgeour. Dumbledore couldn't have hidden the sword away before his death since his intention was for Harry to have it right away. Is this just a massive plot hole?