Pardon? I never loved him and i never hated him, i'm just not someone like everyone else on here who thinks that he is some sort of a saint!
Lord Stafford.
No one was saying he is a saint, that would be calling him the world's best director, which we aren't. We're saying he is a very good director who has the best Potter films.
Many filmmakers are visionaries; they have to be, it's their job. Yates is clearly a visionary, along with Alfonso. Just because Alfonso made a more gothic, artsier Hogwarts with great cinematography doesn't make him more of a visionary than David Yates or Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kubrick. Yates' films are stockpiled with visionary moments and wonderful cinematography just the same as Prisoner of Azkaban was. I'm also pretty certain that Half-Blood Prince was nominated for best cinematography; rather difficult for a non-visionary filmmaker to pull something like that off. Yes; Delbonnel was the DP, but he was under Yates' direction as all DP's are. It was Yates' direction and Bruno's skills with the camera that resulted in HBP to get that nomination. I would argue that Half-Blood was just as artistic as Azkaban, but the difference with that and Deathly Hallows is that Hallows is a much more grim, darker and desperate film; it was trying to be gritty rather than pretty. And in that instance, it did "gritty" in a very artful fashion. I can't even count how many moments of cinematic splendor and visionary touches comprise both Hallows films.
So yeah, let's not pretend that Cuaron is the only visionary director alive or the only visionary director that came onto Harry Potter because that's just simply a genuine potato sack full of bullshit.
Many filmmakers are visionaries; they have to be, it's their job. Yates is clearly a visionary, along with Alfonso. Just because Alfonso made a more gothic, artsier Hogwarts with great cinematography doesn't make him more of a visionary than David Yates or Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kubrick. Yates' films are stockpiled with visionary moments and wonderful cinematography just the same as Prisoner of Azkaban was. I'm also pretty certain that Half-Blood Prince was nominated for best cinematography; rather difficult for a non-visionary filmmaker to pull something like that off. Yes; Delbonnel was the DP, but he was under Yates' direction as all DP's are. It was Yates' direction and Bruno's skills with the camera that resulted in HBP to get that nomination. I would argue that Half-Blood was just as artistic as Azkaban, but the difference with that and Deathly Hallows is that Hallows is a much more grim, darker and desperate film; it was trying to be gritty rather than pretty. And in that instance, it did "gritty" in a very artful fashion. I can't even count how many moments of cinematic splendor and visionary touches comprise both Hallows films.
So yeah, let's not pretend that Cuaron is the only visionary director alive or the only visionary director that came onto Harry Potter because that's just simply a genuine potato sack full of bullshit.
The entire forest chase scene is beautifully shot in Part 1. There's also the transition to the Tale of the Three Brothers. The video I linked to for Prince is beautifully shot as well. Hell, Yates has a few homages to Cuaron.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Many filmmakers are visionaries; they have to be, it's their job. Yates is clearly a visionary, along with Alfonso. Just because Alfonso made a more gothic, artsier Hogwarts with great cinematography doesn't make him more of a visionary than David Yates or Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kubrick. Yates' films are stockpiled with visionary moments and wonderful cinematography just the same as Prisoner of Azkaban was. I'm also pretty certain that Half-Blood Prince was nominated for best cinematography; rather difficult for a non-visionary filmmaker to pull something like that off. Yes; Delbonnel was the DP, but he was under Yates' direction as all DP's are. It was Yates' direction and Bruno's skills with the camera that resulted in HBP to get that nomination. I would argue that Half-Blood was just as artistic as Azkaban, but the difference with that and Deathly Hallows is that Hallows is a much more grim, darker and desperate film; it was trying to be gritty rather than pretty. And in that instance, it did "gritty" in a very artful fashion. I can't even count how many moments of cinematic splendor and visionary touches comprise both Hallows films.
So yeah, let's not pretend that Cuaron is the only visionary director alive or the only visionary director that came onto Harry Potter because that's just simply a genuine potato sack full of bullshit.
I wasn't talking about Potter, i was talking about film overall. Have you watched any of Cuaron's other films? Because i have, and as far as i'm aware Yates hasn't had any other films!
Pardon? I never loved him and i never hated him, i'm just not someone like everyone else on here who thinks that he is some sort of a saint!
Lord Stafford.
No one was saying he is a saint, that would be calling him the world's best director, which we aren't. We're saying he is a very good director who has the best Potter films.
*cough* 'He's the best thing to ever happen to Potter' *cough*
*cough* 'He's the best thing to ever happen to Potter' *cough*
Strawman. That's not remotely implying that he's the world's best director.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I wasn't talking about Potter, i was talking about film overall. Have you watched any of Cuaron's other films? Because i have, and as far as i'm aware Yates hasn't had any other films!
Lord Stafford.
Of course he hasn't. He was a TV director first, and now a film director.
I want you to point out every shot in his Potter films that lack "vision" and I'll do the same for Cuaron. I'll start: Cuaron's atrocious decision to accept the poor emoting abilities on Radcliffe's part with the faux-crying and screaming; the slapstick shrunken heads nonsense; the slapstick Knight Bus nonsense; the laugh-out-loud worthy freeze frame at the end; and destroying a rule set by Chamber to make an arty opening.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I wasn't talking about Potter, i was talking about film overall. Have you watched any of Cuaron's other films? Because i have, and as far as i'm aware Yates hasn't had any other films!
Which makes Yates' work on Potter that much more spectacular, considering that he literally went from a television director to... this. And yes I'm aware of Cuaron's filmography, Children of Men is one of the very best films I've ever seen, but that has nothing to do with Yates' talents.
I never even muttered those words, i said the individual word 'saint' :-q
Strawman. L-)
Lord Stafford.
That's irrelevant.. You responded to someone who said calling him a saint is akin to saying he's the world's best director. If at first you don't succeed. dust yourself off and try again.
All I'm hearing is bleating that Yates is a shit director, yet you have not demonstrated or backed up your opinion except for throwing out names for people who are "visionaries."
I have another complaint about Cuaron, but this one makes no sense in the film: going through the clock in the tower and down to the Hogwarts grounds, where Harry and Hermione must have been riding broomsticks or walked through walls to make it down there so quickly. The same is said for when the two go back up to the hospital wing. This is what happens when you try to make arty shots without thinking things through.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I wasn't talking about Potter, i was talking about film overall. Have you watched any of Cuaron's other films? Because i have, and as far as i'm aware Yates hasn't had any other films!
Lord Stafford.
Of course he hasn't. He was a TV director first, and now a film director.
I want you to point out every shot in his Potter films that lack "vision" and I'll do the same for Cuaron. I'll start: Cuaron's atrocious decision to accept the poor emoting abilities on Radcliffe's part with the faux-crying and screaming; the slapstick shrunken heads nonsense; the slapstick Knight Bus nonsense; the laugh-out-loud worthy freeze frame at the end; and destroying a rule set by Chamber to make an arty opening.
Pretty much everything from OOTP warrant what you ask from me, and so does all the pathetic 'slapstick' HBP Rom/Com, as you say. You know... one of the reasons why they had a silent scream and cry from Dan in OOTP is because it was said to be 'too over the top' that evens up with POA, he was young. People that are young tend to turn hysterical when they've just heard something devastating. What did JK say? Oh yes, that she enjoyed the shrunken heads. It may not be canon, but it was inspired. Name anything from this last movie that was inspiring whilst not being canon. There isn't anything, so, i win! There was literally nothing wrong with the Knight Bus, as it was actually what people call 'funny' not something that only an American would find to be.
Even if it isn't the exact end... Malfoy Manor was cringworthy and far worse than POA's ending. It's called excitement and Harry is 'young' like i say. I'm afraid that you lose all ends up when you talk about rules being broken. Because you are supposed to die immediately when you get hit by the killing curse, and yet... Pius doesn't, and neither does Voldy.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
No, but it means it's a damned great one. There is no best movie ever. When people ask me what I think the best movie ever is, I have to start cycling through my opinions-- and that's where I say "I don't know" because it's all opinionated. But one thing is clear, Part 2 is a fucking great movie.
In my opinion, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as whole is my favorite movie of all time. The best? I don't know about that, but it's definitely my favorite.
In my opinion, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as whole is my favorite movie of all time. The best? I don't know about that, but it's definitely my favorite.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
So what you're saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to consider something like, say, Saving Private Ryan the best all time, but even though DH2 got better reviews, just because it is Potter and has Yates name, means it can not be better? Bitch please.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
So what you're saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to consider something like, say, Saving Private Ryan the best all time, but even though DH2 got better reviews, just because it is Potter and has Yates name, means it can not be better? Bitch please.
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
No, but it means it's a damned great one. There is no best movie ever. When people ask me what I think the best movie ever is, I have to start cycling through my opinions-- and that's where I say "I don't know" because it's all opinionated. But one thing is clear, Part 2 is a fucking great movie.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
Lord Stafford.
I'm quite sure any Potter fan with half a brain, fuck that they don't even one, would say DH2 is better than GoF and that Yate's direction is better than Newell's.
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
No, but it means it's a damned great one. There is no best movie ever. When people ask me what I think the best movie ever is, I have to start cycling through my opinions-- and that's where I say "I don't know" because it's all opinionated. But one thing is clear, Part 2 is a fucking great movie.
Did i ever deny that? No, i did not, and you know it.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
So what you're saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to consider something like, say, Saving Private Ryan the best all time, but even though DH2 got better reviews, just because it is Potter and has Yates name, means it can not be better? Bitch please.
Wrong again.
Lord Stafford.
Then please elaborate. Why can't Deathly Hallows, or part 2, be the best movie of all time in someone's opinion? I'm not saying it is, but WHY can't it?
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
Lord Stafford.
I'm quite sure any Potter fan with half a brain, fuck that they don't even one, would say DH2 is better than GoF and that Yate's direction is better than Newell's.
Oh, of course... now GOF and Part 2 are the main focus. I was under the impression that Yates was.
Did i ever deny that? No, i did not, and you know it.
Oh I know. But you said that ratings mean fuck-all, and while even though movie reviews are still just opinions, albeit from people who know a lot about movies, the general consensus for this one was pretty wild and tried-and-true film critics gave it their praise and in huge numbers. The reason why I'm wearing that score on my signature is because I'm simply proud of it.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
Lord Stafford.
I'm quite sure any Potter fan with half a brain, fuck that they don't even one, would say DH2 is better than GoF and that Yate's direction is better than Newell's.
Oh, of course... now GOF and Part 2 are the main focus. I was under the impression that Yates was.
Lord Stafford.
So if you agree Yates has better direction, why have you multiple times said Newell is better...?
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
So what you're saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to consider something like, say, Saving Private Ryan the best all time, but even though DH2 got better reviews, just because it is Potter and has Yates name, means it can not be better? Bitch please.
Wrong again.
Lord Stafford.
Then please elaborate. Why can't Deathly Hallows, or part 2, be the best movie of all time in someone's opinion? I'm not saying it is, but WHY can't it?
An opinion cannot be wrong, that is unless it is comepletely stupid, but... i never was directing 'wrong again' at that. I was merely responding to what you said i thought. Which was 'wrong'
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
So what you're saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to consider something like, say, Saving Private Ryan the best all time, but even though DH2 got better reviews, just because it is Potter and has Yates name, means it can not be better? Bitch please.
Wrong again.
Lord Stafford.
Then please elaborate. Why can't Deathly Hallows, or part 2, be the best movie of all time in someone's opinion? I'm not saying it is, but WHY can't it?
An opinion cannot be wrong, that is unless it is comepletely stupid, but... i never was directing 'wrong again' at that. I was merely responding to what you said i thought. Which was 'wrong'
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
Lord Stafford.
I'm quite sure any Potter fan with half a brain, fuck that they don't even one, would say DH2 is better than GoF and that Yate's direction is better than Newell's.
Oh, of course... now GOF and Part 2 are the main focus. I was under the impression that Yates was.
Lord Stafford.
So if you agree Yates has better direction, why have you multiple times said Newell is better...?
Clearly sarcasm doesn't come across well over a keyboard.
How we all take a look at Darth's sig and shut the fuck up, eh?
Rating's mean fuck all. If they were true, then that would mean that Part 2 is the best movie ever made.
Lord Stafford.
You know you constantly contradict yourself. You talk about how Newell's GoF is rated so well and better than Yates, then say ratings mean squat. Hard to take you seriously when you do that...
Why won't you bugger off? You know i said that, yes you did, but... don't take me so literally. Reviewed amongst Potter fans and fans of film as a whole, not movie critics!
Lord Stafford.
I'm quite sure any Potter fan with half a brain, fuck that they don't even one, would say DH2 is better than GoF and that Yate's direction is better than Newell's.
Oh, of course... now GOF and Part 2 are the main focus. I was under the impression that Yates was.
Lord Stafford.
So if you agree Yates has better direction, why have you multiple times said Newell is better...?
Clearly sarcasm doesn't come across well over a keyboard.
I want specifics. Pulling a vague "the entire film lol!" out of your ass isn't specific.
You know... one of the reasons why they had a silent scream and cry from Dan in OOTP is because it was said to be 'too over the top' that evens up with POA, he was young.
A source for this please. I've seen hysterical young kids before, and they are convincing. Daniel wasn't in Prisoner.
What did JK say? Oh yes, that she enjoyed the shrunken heads. It may not be canon, but it was inspired.
What Rowling thinks is irrelevant to me and irrelevant to this discussion.
Name anything from this last movie that was inspiring whilst not being canon. There isn't anything, so, i win!
You really are a child, aren't you?
Voldemort snapping and killing someone after feeling the horcrux being destroyed isn't canon but actually inspired and improves upon the novel. So does the locket horcrux scene in Part 1, where Harry and Hermione are passionately kissing, intensifying Ron's insecurities. The final duel between Voldemort and Harry improves upon the novel because we don't have to sit through insufferable exposition that's cliche as all hell. Voldemort finally biting the dust while having a confused look on his face is excellent and better than him knowing every detail that is spewed from Harry's mouth in the novel.
Even if it isn't the exact end... Malfoy Manor was cringworthy and far worse than POA's ending. It's called excitement and Harry is 'young' like i say.
Which Malfoy manner scene was cringe-worthy? The torture scene, where Emma Watson gives her finest performance in the series, where her screams of agony are convincing? Or perhaps the Manor scene where Burbage drops to a thud after being killed by Voldemort?
I'm afraid that you lose all ends up when you talk about rules being broken. Because you are supposed to die immediately when you get hit by the killing curse, and yet... Pius doesn't, and neither does Voldy.
The killing curse wasn't thrown at them. The filmmakers chose familiar colors for the spells and have them perform different effects. If someone dies, the killing curse was used. Silent incantations aren't delved into in the film series, and neither are the colors of spells, so pulling the "green means killing curse" isn't a valid argument.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Also, Harry breaking the Elder Wand gives more finality than what's presented in the book. Anyone could beat Harry in the book universe while he's an auror, gaining allegiance to the Elder Wand. Word will get out where it has been placed, so someone will get their hands on it.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I want specifics. Pulling a vague "the entire film lol!" out of your ass isn't specific.
You know, some people have lives that consist of more than Potter. Ask me when i have the time.
You know... one of the reasons why they had a silent scream and cry from Dan in OOTP is because it was said to be 'too over the top' that evens up with POA, he was young.
A source for this please. I've seen hysterical young kids before, and they are convincing. Daniel wasn't in Prisoner.
And apparently i'm a 'child' i don't save everything into my favourites to provide reference for you. I read an interview and easily pick up on it, remembering the basics.
What did JK say? Oh yes, that she enjoyed the shrunken heads. It may not be canon, but it was inspired.
What Rowling thinks is irrelevant to me and irrelevant to this discussion.
That proves my point. She is the reason why we are here, not Yates.
Name anything from this last movie that was inspiring whilst not being canon. There isn't anything, so, i win!
You really are a child, aren't you?
Voldemort snapping and killing someone after feeling the horcrux being destroyed isn't canon but actually inspired and improves upon the novel. So does the locket horcrux scene in Part 1, where Harry and Hermione are passionately kissing, intensifying Ron's insecurities. The final duel between Voldemort and Harry improves upon the novel because we don't have to sit through insufferable exposition that's cliche as all hell. Voldemort finally biting the dust while having a confused look on his face is excellent and better than him knowing every detail that is spewed from Harry's mouth in the novel.
Dear god, it gets better and better for me. That has absolutely nothing to do with the word 'canon' Lavender dying in the film and not the book does. Neville fantasizing over Luna wasn't in the book, look where that leads us.
Even if it isn't the exact end... Malfoy Manor was cringworthy and far worse than POA's ending. It's called excitement and Harry is 'young' like i say.
Which Malfoy manner scene was cringe-worthy? The torture scene, where Emma Watson gives her finest performance in the series, where her screams of agony are convincing? Or perhaps the Manor scene where Burbage drops to a thud after being killed by Voldemort?
Your stupid and your insane. You want specifics? Then i'll give you some! Wormtail's slapstick fall. The pause whilst Dobby was undoing the chandelier. And, of course... his speech.
I'm afraid that you lose all ends up when you talk about rules being broken. Because you are supposed to die immediately when you get hit by the killing curse, and yet... Pius doesn't, and neither does Voldy.
The killing curse wasn't thrown at them. The filmmakers chose familiar colors for the spells and have them perform different effects. If someone dies, the killing curse was used. Silent incantations aren't delved into in the film series, and neither are the colors of spells, so pulling the "green means killing curse" isn't a valid argument.
Wrong. Avada Kedavra is the killing curse. He uses it against Pius. And he non verbally uses it against Harry.
Comments
G.G.
Lord Stafford.
So yeah, let's not pretend that Cuaron is the only visionary director alive or the only visionary director that came onto Harry Potter because that's just simply a genuine potato sack full of bullshit.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Strawman. L-)
Lord Stafford.
I want you to point out every shot in his Potter films that lack "vision" and I'll do the same for Cuaron. I'll start: Cuaron's atrocious decision to accept the poor emoting abilities on Radcliffe's part with the faux-crying and screaming; the slapstick shrunken heads nonsense; the slapstick Knight Bus nonsense; the laugh-out-loud worthy freeze frame at the end; and destroying a rule set by Chamber to make an arty opening.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
All I'm hearing is bleating that Yates is a shit director, yet you have not demonstrated or backed up your opinion except for throwing out names for people who are "visionaries."
I have another complaint about Cuaron, but this one makes no sense in the film: going through the clock in the tower and down to the Hogwarts grounds, where Harry and Hermione must have been riding broomsticks or walked through walls to make it down there so quickly. The same is said for when the two go back up to the hospital wing. This is what happens when you try to make arty shots without thinking things through.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
NOPE NO VISIONARY DIRECTORS UP IN THIS SHIZZOUSE
Even if it isn't the exact end... Malfoy Manor was cringworthy and far worse than POA's ending. It's called excitement and Harry is 'young' like i say. I'm afraid that you lose all ends up when you talk about rules being broken. Because you are supposed to die immediately when you get hit by the killing curse, and yet... Pius doesn't, and neither does Voldy.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
This image has been burned into my skull since opening day.
Lord Stafford.
P.S 500TH COMMENT!!
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Voldemort snapping and killing someone after feeling the horcrux being destroyed isn't canon but actually inspired and improves upon the novel. So does the locket horcrux scene in Part 1, where Harry and Hermione are passionately kissing, intensifying Ron's insecurities. The final duel between Voldemort and Harry improves upon the novel because we don't have to sit through insufferable exposition that's cliche as all hell. Voldemort finally biting the dust while having a confused look on his face is excellent and better than him knowing every detail that is spewed from Harry's mouth in the novel. Which Malfoy manner scene was cringe-worthy? The torture scene, where Emma Watson gives her finest performance in the series, where her screams of agony are convincing? Or perhaps the Manor scene where Burbage drops to a thud after being killed by Voldemort? The killing curse wasn't thrown at them. The filmmakers chose familiar colors for the spells and have them perform different effects. If someone dies, the killing curse was used. Silent incantations aren't delved into in the film series, and neither are the colors of spells, so pulling the "green means killing curse" isn't a valid argument.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Lord Stafford.