What bothered me most about DH: Part 2

Pumpkinjuice

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

[Deleted User]

Martin1

No, this isn't a "here we go again" because I believe most people on the forum agree with this.

Martin1

HARRY DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING HEAR THE HORCRUXES, for those dumbasses, it's a sense. He senses them. But how do you convey that to the viewer? The sound.

XDMorsmordreXD

Pro-Movie Thread.
Let's go.

yonythemoony

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

THIS. What most of the ungrateful purists doesn't know it's that they would have butchered the whole plot line if they made a single movie, not two.

Martin1

Pro-Movie Thread.
Let's go.

This isn't a pro movie thread, Jesus Christ. It's saying that people say dumb things that make no sense because they can't take the books out of their ass.

This isn't saying: "oh wow the book sucks, movies all the way."

This is saying: "we can not see Harry's thoughts, it's a movie not a book. So to convey how he can find the horcruxes, let's add this sound to work as a sense for Harry so the audience can understand."

This isn't at all a pro movie thread. Every time we talk about ungrateful purists you bring that up, which isn't true. We are saying something that is fact: a change like this is necessary for the film. Saying it is dumb because the book didn't have it is being an ungrateful purist. If you have an actual reason for not liking it, I'd like to hear it, but I doubt any of those brainless purists do.

XDMorsmordreXD

Pro-Movie Thread.
Let's go.

I'd like to hear it, but I doubt any of those brainless purists do.

What? I never said I didn't like it. I actually like that change. When I do dislike a change, I always explain.

Martin1

Pro-Movie Thread.
Let's go.

I'd like to hear it, but I doubt any of those brainless purists do.

What? I never said I didn't like it. I actually like that change. When I do dislike a change, I always explain.

I wasn't referring to you with that. I was just saying how I didn't like you calling this a pro-movie thread when we aren't being anti-book. We're just using common sense here, something purists don't use. I don't mean you. I don't think anyone here is a purist, because I think we all understand what cinema is and what literature is and how very different they are.

Hess

These threads.

Pumpkinjuice

http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5955863&postcount=619

Facepalm.

XDMorsmordreXD

Don't bend Canon like a pretzel. Your point will break.
Oh geez.

Martin1

Looking at COS, I love you guys more.

XDMorsmordreXD

Looking at COS, I love you guys more.

Well, yeah. :P
We've truly become like a close family here - some of us.

Darth Ledger

Great the movie was. Honestly I thought the only complaint with merit was the whole Voldy/Draco hug thing... Not so much te hug as the look on Deans face... Oh well who gives a phuck.

Isn't it ironic that the final duel between Luke/Vader has the good guy wielding GREEN and the bad guy RED?

And in Harry Potter the good guy wielded RED and the bad guy GREEN. Interesting comParison.

Wolf_Potter

Isn't it ironic that the final duel between Luke/Vader has the good guy wielding GREEN and the bad guy RED?

And in Harry Potter the good guy wielded RED and the bad guy GREEN. Interesting comParison.

Never thought that.

And I have nothing against
the movie, really. It was very
well done, and the ones who
didn't like it (purists) can stay
with the effing book. It was - and
always have been - an adaptation.
So they have to stop bitching
about everything they changed/moved.

Toini01

Well I'm ok with all the DH2 changes (except as usual Tonks and Lupin), but the Horcruxe feeling Harry has is just great !
This makes the entire story easier. No need tohave 50 minutes of Harry in the RoR, no need to have 50 minutes in Gringotts either. I also the think the use they made of it is great especialy right before Voldemort "kills him". Sound getting closer and closer while Nagini is mouving until Harry closes his eyes -dead silence - Avada Kedavra ! This scene was just soo great.

Now for the other changes, there's always a time (not enough time/too long), dynamic (talking about a few things in the book would've destroyed the movie's dynamic rythm) and editing (a scene needs to flow well. You can't just put everything you shot in the movie) reason.

Great post !

XDMorsmordreXD

Most the changes were justified and made purely to make the book more cinematic.
The purist need to realize that.

Toini01

When I watch this movie again, of course there were a few issues but I notice how most of the changes/adds were better than in all the other HP's (imo).
-Great Hall scene : Awesome Snape speech, dramatic Harry entrance, great battle...
-Statue scene : Epic, mouving, great.
-More battle than in the book : This had to be done.
-Harry who feels the Horcruxes.
-Prince's Tale editing (a lot of cuts as if Snape's memory was damaged).
-The focud we got on Snape.
-The use of the Courtyard.
-...

Toini01

Most the changes were justified and made purely to make the book more cinematic.
The purist need to realize that.

Exactly. And what you said isn't only right with DH2 but alos with all the other HP, the LotR, all the books adaptations ...

[Deleted User]

No, this isn't a "here we go again" because I believe most people on the forum agree with this.

I'm just tired of threads always discussing the SAME thing. Just that lol

[Deleted User]

I mean, I agree with the post. But do we need another thread about purists? Let everyone enjoy the movie how they want to.

Bane

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

It's a fantastic, cinematic touch. It's a way to convey to the audience how Harry senses each Horcrux in a massive environment where the tiny objects would be otherwise impossible to find.

But, you know. People are fucking retarded, especially when it comes to anything related to the movies.

Braveheart

I've never seen a complaint regarding the Horcrux sensing before. Actually I have, something about Harry's "spidey sense". PFFT I have complaints about the movie, but the sensing thing is a plus if you ask me. Saves lots of unnecessary redundant speculative dialogue about where the Horcrux might concealed in rooms full of objects. The people who bemoan this are probably also the ones who didn't like that Voldemort felt his Horcruxes being destroyed.

Lord Stafford

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

Nick

Don't bend Canon like a pretzel. Your point will break.
Oh geez.

thats hilarious!!!

Isaiah

I got to admit, I have complaints about the movie, but nothing that major. I thought Bellatrix's Death was awesome, got a cheer from me in the theater, and Voldys death was very artsy and unexpected, I loved it. Purists need to get over it, the movies cant be the book. GOF should have opened there eyes.

Pensieve Seeker

One of the most asinine gripes I've read someone make regarding DH 1 was that Hermione said she had taken them to Shaftesbury Avenue instead of Tottenham Court Road.

RyGuy

No, this isn't a "here we go again" because I believe most people on the forum agree with this.

I'm just tired of threads always discussing the SAME thing. Just that lol

Well Rick there really isn't anything else to talk about besides OT stuff lol HP news is bare these days so I don't mind this one bit.


I. Despise. Purists.

The one thing that I had to genuinely laugh about was people bitching about Hermione's Yule Ball Dress back in the day lmao. -_- From that moment on...I knew never to take purists seriously...I mean who the fuck actually cares if the dress was Periwinkle or not...ITS A FUCKING DRESS!!! -_- hahahaha god...

Darth Ledger

It's ok the American remakes will cover some stuff the originals didn't.

yonythemoony

And again. Readapt a book it's not a remake.

Firefly

It's ok the American remakes will cover some stuff the originals didn't.

Darth Ledger

And again. Readapt a book it's not a remake.

Its my galaxy... I can use whatever wording I please.

Pumpkinjuice

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

You are joking, right? I have never been a purist. All my objections towards the films have always been from a cinematic or adaptation point of view. That's something entirely different than blindly wanting everything in canon put in the film without any consideration of it being a different medium.

alec96

Most the changes were justified and made purely to make the book more cinematic.
The purist need to realize that.

I agree with this. I love the movie, but of course it can't be exactly like the book. There was one small think though that bothered me. In the deleted scenes of DH2 there was a scene where they show Tonks and Lupin before the battle. Not the one where they hold hands, I mean the one where they actually say something. It was a good short one they should have put in the movie. It was emotional, and they mention there son as well.

Lord Stafford

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

You are joking, right? I have never been a purist. All my objections towards the films have always been from a cinematic or adaptation point of view. That's something entirely different than blindly wanting everything in canon put in the film without any consideration of it being a different medium.

Well, the word 'purist' is overused. It is used whenever someone prefers Jo's work over the filmmakers. I was merely showing that.

Lord Stafford.

TheDoctor

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

You are joking, right? I have never been a purist. All my objections towards the films have always been from a cinematic or adaptation point of view. That's something entirely different than blindly wanting everything in canon put in the film without any consideration of it being a different medium.

Well, the word 'purist' is overused. It is used whenever someone prefers Jo's work over the filmmakers. I was merely showing that.

Lord Stafford.

Yeah no one means that when they say purist.

Lord Stafford

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

You are joking, right? I have never been a purist. All my objections towards the films have always been from a cinematic or adaptation point of view. That's something entirely different than blindly wanting everything in canon put in the film without any consideration of it being a different medium.

Well, the word 'purist' is overused. It is used whenever someone prefers Jo's work over the filmmakers. I was merely showing that.

Lord Stafford.

Yeah no one means that when they say purist.

It's very similar to what i see.

Lord Stafford.

NumberEight

No, Lord Stafford, a purist is someone who balks at the idea of changes being made to fit the films, trivial changes that don't alter the overall story. Hell, they even get pissed when any type of change occurs. What was mentioned at the start of this thread is a perfect example of someone being so wrapped up in the source material that they couldn't think straight about what they were complaining about.

Martin1

...is ungrateful purists bitching about minor changes made out to be such a big deal to the point that Harry "hearing" the horcruxes made someone's heart sink.

Well, that 'purist' was you, once.

Lord Stafford.

You are joking, right? I have never been a purist. All my objections towards the films have always been from a cinematic or adaptation point of view. That's something entirely different than blindly wanting everything in canon put in the film without any consideration of it being a different medium.

Well, the word 'purist' is overused. It is used whenever someone prefers Jo's work over the filmmakers. I was merely showing that.

Lord Stafford.

No, that is not a purist at all. A purist is someone who dislikes a change simply because it is a change without even thinking why it was done. They don't think is the reason.

Martin1

Exactly what numbereight said.

Lord Stafford

No, Lord Stafford, a purist is someone who balks at the idea of changes being made to fit the films, trivial changes that don't alter the overall story. Hell, they even get pissed when any type of change occurs. What was mentioned at the start of this thread is a perfect example of someone being so wrapped up in the source material that they couldn't think straight about what they were complaining about.

Well, maybe so. But i've seen (on this forum) people called a purist, simply because of the reason that i gave.

Lord Stafford.

Martin1

No, Lord Stafford, a purist is someone who balks at the idea of changes being made to fit the films, trivial changes that don't alter the overall story. Hell, they even get pissed when any type of change occurs. What was mentioned at the start of this thread is a perfect example of someone being so wrapped up in the source material that they couldn't think straight about what they were complaining about.

Well, maybe so. But i've seen (on this forum) people called a purist, simply because of the reason that i gave.

Lord Stafford.

I highly doubt that.

decarus

I actually think they stayed too close to the book in a lot of ways. They should have cut the conversation with Aberforth about his disappointment with Dumbledore and his desire to not take part in the battle. That shouldn't have been what that conversation was about. Ariana should never have been referred to even in passing in the film. They should have just had the mirror come from dumbledore in the will or some other way that was to the point and explained what it was.

And they should have cut out the grey lady scene and had Harry figure out the diadem another way. Maybe have him see the replica of the diadem in the ravenclaw room and then have a flash in his head of where it was or something. I don't know, but what they did didn't work there was no reason for cryptic comments from the grey lady about harry reminding her of voldemort and how voldemort didn't do what he said he would do and destroy the diadem. None of that was necessary to the plot of the movies.

yonythemoony

Luna would have been virtually absent of the movie if they cut the Grey Lady.

Lord Stafford

No, Lord Stafford, a purist is someone who balks at the idea of changes being made to fit the films, trivial changes that don't alter the overall story. Hell, they even get pissed when any type of change occurs. What was mentioned at the start of this thread is a perfect example of someone being so wrapped up in the source material that they couldn't think straight about what they were complaining about.

Well, maybe so. But i've seen (on this forum) people called a purist, simply because of the reason that i gave.

Lord Stafford.

I highly doubt that.

I've seen it. You guys have been brutal (in the past) when it comes to something such as this.

Lord Stafford.

Pumpkinjuice

They should have cut the conversation with Aberforth about his disappointment with Dumbledore and his desire to not take part in the battle. That shouldn't have been what that conversation was about.

I disagree. The film focused on the importance of not giving up. This is the key scene to understanding that considering Aberforth basically gives Harry a last chance of going back. Watch the focus point about this scene and hear what they have to say about it.

Pumpkinjuice

Ariana should never have been referred to even in passing in the film.

Personally I liked it because her presence made the scene sadder due to Aberforth hinting about something tragic in the past and his comments about how Albus sacrificed a great deal on his way to power and kept secrets. The latter could be seen as foreshadowing for Albus keeping it a secret from Harry that he has a part of Voldemort's soul within him.

Pumpkinjuice

They should have just had the mirror come from dumbledore in the will or some other way that was to the point and explained what it was.

Absolutely.

And they should have cut out the grey lady scene and had Harry figure out the diadem another way. Maybe have him see the replica of the diadem in the ravenclaw room and then have a flash in his head of where it was or something. I don't know, but what they did didn't work there was no reason for cryptic comments from the grey lady about harry reminding her of voldemort and how voldemort didn't do what he said he would do and destroy the diadem. None of that was necessary to the plot of the movies.

I can see where you are coming from, but I thought it was great cinema, having Harry take an active part in persuading information out of her coupled with the notion of time running out, as opposed to stumbling into Ginny which he did in the book. Your idea is certainly better than that, but still not on par with the cinematic wonders of the film version.

Martin1

No, Lord Stafford, a purist is someone who balks at the idea of changes being made to fit the films, trivial changes that don't alter the overall story. Hell, they even get pissed when any type of change occurs. What was mentioned at the start of this thread is a perfect example of someone being so wrapped up in the source material that they couldn't think straight about what they were complaining about.

Well, maybe so. But i've seen (on this forum) people called a purist, simply because of the reason that i gave.

Lord Stafford.

I highly doubt that.

I've seen it. You guys have been brutal (in the past) when it comes to something such as this.

Lord Stafford.

Yeah, no. Perhaps evidence before you make an accusation that isn't true like that.

Martin1

What do you mean it wasn't needed? It brought back the idea that Harry was connected an similar to the teenage Voldemort, this time by persuading the grey lady like Voldemort had done.

If you notice the last time the connection between the two was touched upon in this way, it was over an ancient relic of a hogwarts founder: Godric gryffindoor and his sword in COS. same deal, except this time it's Rowena ravenclaw and her diadem. It's an interesting connection.