Final Harry Potter movie about to enter theaters -- The end of an era?

End of an Era? I doubt it, that would be kind of exaggerating things. Honestly as far as being part of pop culture Zeitgeist, HP franchise is already getting a little long in the tooth and I think fans are just grateful that Daniel Radcliffe doesn't look 40 years old playing HP in the last movie, but he and the rest of the cast have already gotten too old. I'm just glad the movie series has ended so I can buy the series in a box set that actually includes all 7 films.
 
I've seen the final movie yesterday (in "glorious" 3D) and thought it was an OK finale of the series. I haven't read the books so some parts of the previous movies didn't make much sense to me, but it all wrapped up well in this last one.

Fun thing:
When the final scene begun and the 19-year-older main characters started to appear, many people in the cinema (including me) were laughing. I mean, were they so lazy to mask or CGIfy the actors thoroughly or are the wizards supposed to age slowly? Botoxum maximum on self?
 
RaptorJesus said:
Gots me some tickets to a 9pm reshowing of part 1 and then the midnight showing of part 2. Fuck yeah!
Click to expand...

Better than the Part 1.
400x.jpg
 
gt1750 said:
When the final scene begun and the 19-year-older main characters started to appear, many people in the cinema (including me) were laughing. I mean, were they so lazy to mask or CGIfy the actors thoroughly or are the wizards supposed to age slowly? Botoxum maximum on self?
Click to expand...
Same with mine. Perhaps they're too used to making people (read: the Sex and the City cast) look much younger!
 
The other problem I have with the last movie is the actors/actresses playing eccentric and excellent characters such as Bellatrix, Snape, Voldemort, etc all felt under utilised. Greats such as Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon, and even the main trio of Radcliffe, Watson and Grint all seemed to have simply phoned in their performances (maybe Radcliffe was pretty decent, but he had to be). I guess it's the same sort of problem as when you condense the awesomely long and detailed book into a 130 minute film. Though as I said I've only seen movies 1, 4 and now this last one so perhaps other movies devoted more time to these characters.


gt1750 said:
Fun thing:
When the final scene begun and the 19-year-older main characters started to appear, many people in the cinema (including me) were laughing. I mean, were they so lazy to mask or CGIfy the actors thoroughly or are the wizards supposed to age slowly? Botoxum maximum on self?
Click to expand...

Yeah, no-one bought it in the cinema I went to either.

I think it would've been hilarious if Ron's child was wearing glasses and Ron just shooting dark looks in Harry's direction through-out the scene :p
 
Last edited:
Saw it on Friday - it should be seen together with the previous film really, you have to pick the threads up again. Still a decent film with excellent special effects IMHO.
 
laxmax613 said:
The part where snape caresses dead lily was cringe-worthy. especially for alan rickman.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that at all. I was totally absorbed at that point and got all misty eyed, mostly because I hadn't read the book and avoided all spoilers so it was a total surprise. Alan Rickman was excellent.

I saw it in an IMAX theatre and it was totally worth the extra ?3, none of the problems that digital 3d has (too dark, blurry, ect) and it didn't look like converted 3d, they really put some effort into it (unlike rush-job 3d conversions).
 
Last edited:
I haven't been a huge fan of the Potter series, never read the books but I have seen all the films.

At first it was "let's see what the fuss is about".

Then it was "well OK I suppose I'll rent it on DVD but I refuse to see it in theaters".

Eventually that turned to actually going to see it in theaters and somewhat looking forward to the next installment.

Having seen the final film mere hours ago, I was very disappointed with the epilogue, although the main bulk of the film itself was good. We're told for 8 films that Harry Potter is some kind of chosen one, a wizard messiah, a Merlin in the making, the only one who can take down Voldemort. We see the great Dumbledore take him under his wing, seemingly grooming him as a replacement.

Only to see traveling salesman-esque 40 year old Harry sending his children off to Hogwarts.

As the climax was approaching, my mind was wandering ahead. Will we see Hogwarts rebuilt? Will we see Harry take his place as a teacher and then headmaster of the school? Could we see a fifth house, Potter House, added to the school? Will we see Ron and Hermione as teachers? After all aren't they the best of their generation and now Hogwarts has been decimated, who will be left to teach?

No, instead the most important wizard in hundreds of years is just some average parent with a day job sending his kid off. Boo!

Some other little niggles with the film:

Once the horcruxs were destroyed, what I expected was that Harry and Voldemort would be on equal footing and it would be a fair fight -- the battle we've all been waiting for. Instead Harry overpowered his foe in seconds and vaporized him into ash. Perhaps they were trying to show the Elder Wand's power but I don't like it.

I also thought since Harry was supposed to be so powerful, perhaps he could actually do battle with no wand at all. That would have been cool.

People were mortally injured and died with little acknowledgement or story time devoted to it.

We've seen wands being waved and spells being cast for 7 films (and my eyes glaze over if we dive into detail on the spells) but all of a sudden NOW in the climax they get fatal. For example the mother who destroyed Lestrange, why NOW, what was special about that spell, at that moment, that suddenly made it a kill shot? And why was it held back for 7 movies?

And what was with Malfoy? Harry saves him then in Voldemort's gloating he switches sides and then walks away over the bridge and... what? Then we see him at the train station nodding to Harry 20 years later. Good? Evil? At least we got the answers with Snape; we didn't with the Malfoys.
 
Last edited:
janstett said:
I haven't been a huge fan of the Potter series, never read the books but I have seen all the films.

At first it was "let's see what the fuss is about".

Then it was "well OK I suppose I'll rent it on DVD but I refuse to see it in theaters".

Eventually that turned to actually going to see it in theaters and somewhat looking forward to the next installment.

Having seen the final film mere hours ago, I was very disappointed with the epilogue, although the main bulk of the film itself was good. We're told for 8 films that Harry Potter is some kind of chosen one, a wizard messiah, a Merlin in the making, the only one who can take down Voldemort. We see the great Dumbledore take him under his wing, seemingly grooming him as a replacement.

Only to see traveling salesman-esque 40 year old Harry sending his children off to Hogwarts.

As the climax was approaching, my mind was wandering ahead. Will we see Hogwarts rebuilt? Will we see Harry take his place as a teacher and then headmaster of the school? Could we see a fifth house, Potter House, added to the school? Will we see Ron and Hermione as teachers? After all aren't they the best of their generation and now Hogwarts has been decimated, who will be left to teach?

No, instead the most important wizard in hundreds of years is just some average parent with a day job sending his kid off. Boo!

Some other little niggles with the film:

Once the horcruxs were destroyed, what I expected was that Harry and Voldemort would be on equal footing and it would be a fair fight -- the battle we've all been waiting for. Instead Harry overpowered his foe in seconds and vaporized him into ash. Perhaps they were trying to show the Elder Wand's power but I don't like it.

I also thought since Harry was supposed to be so powerful, perhaps he could actually do battle with no wand at all. That would have been cool.

People were mortally injured and died with little acknowledgement or story time devoted to it.

We've seen wands being waved and spells being cast for 7 films (and my eyes glaze over if we dive into detail on the spells) but all of a sudden NOW in the climax they get fatal. For example the mother who destroyed Lestrange, why NOW, what was special about that spell, at that moment, that suddenly made it a kill shot? And why was it held back for 7 movies?

And what was with Malfoy? Harry saves him then in Voldemort's gloating he switches sides and then walks away over the bridge and... what? Then we see him at the train station nodding to Harry 20 years later. Good? Evil? At least we got the answers with Snape; we didn't with the Malfoys.
Click to expand...


You should read the books.

I never perceived Harry as being anything but an slightly above average wizard. He was never a new Dumbledore. I magic skill, Hermione was always the clever one of the group.

Harry was important because Voldemort had made him important, following his interpretation of the predictions. Obviously Harry grew with the challenge, but technically, as a wizard, he was never made out to be anything special.

The films leave out many details, and they thin out the backstory. To get a proper understanding of the story, reading the books is really the way to go.

I haven't seen the last film yet, and it's not something I can't wait to do. Never really been a huge fan of the movies, they just compare so poorly to the books. Though they are decent entertainment, I'll grant them that. And Emma Watson can easily persuade me to watch a film ;)
 
you really don't need to use spoiler tags

anyone who doesn't want spoiled will be avoiding the thread like the plague and most people have read the last book anyway.
 
Last edited:
I haven't watched the film yet, but my main problem with the epilogue was that it was too sterile and perfect. It felt like bad fanfiction.

"Harry becomes an auror and marries Ginny and becomes bffs with Draco and has 3 children called Albus, Severus, etc and Ron marries Hermione and they all lived happily ever after lololololololoiolol"

I felt like I was going to be sick. :sick:
 
Was the resurrection stone hidden in the quidditch ball supposed to be what enabled Harry to survive? But he dropped it on the forest floor before the battle.

I really didn't like the dead-but-not-dead escape hatch.
 
No he didn't need the resurrection stone, as his parents have always been with them. Turns out the Deathly Hallows aren't really powerful they just are shadows of what they are believed to be. Resurrection stone doesn't bring people back from the dead, all it does is put you in contact with the ghosts of the past. The Elder wand isn't all powerful as it lets its owners be killed. The only useful one is the Invisibility cape, but that's because of the three brothers only the last one wished for a proper gift from Death.
 
janstett said:
I haven't been a huge fan of the Potter series, never read the books but I have seen all the films.

At first it was "let's see what the fuss is about".

Then it was "well OK I suppose I'll rent it on DVD but I refuse to see it in theaters".

Eventually that turned to actually going to see it in theaters and somewhat looking forward to the next installment.

lots of spoilers
Click to expand...

You definitely suffer from having never read the books.

But in one point you are right: Indeed the movies tell the story incompletely. But that's no surprise.

If they'd been trying to tell the full story in the movies, each movie would have had to be a 2-, 3- or even 4-parter. Even "Deathly Hallows 1 & 2" seem rushed. Very rushed.

The movies are an optical addition to the books, not more. I have always denied those movies the right of being an alternate way to tell the story, because they fail so greatly at that.

Honestly: If you're looking for answers, read the books. Or listen to Stephen Fry reading them to you. Everything makes sense then (although the epilogue of the final book still comes as a bit cheesy, no matter what).

I watched the final movie on Saturday and although the finale was great, I still think it lacked a lot of the drama that's unfolding in the book. I prefer the book-ending, where Harry and Voldemort circle each other like predators, talking stuff over.

Especially the part, where Harry reveals to him, that the only thing that could save Voldemort's soul, would be showing true remorse, because that is the only way to undo the soulsplitting by the horcruxes. Voldemort is shocked by that and understands in that very moment, that Harry has destroyed all horcruxes and that it will really be his death, if he loses the duel, because Voldemort is unable to show any remorse of course.

The whole thing of Harry being able to "hear" the horcruxes (while in the book he can't) or Voldemort actually feeling the destruction of his horcruxes (while in the book he doesn't) is introduced as a plot device in the movie to cut it all short and get rid of any necesssary explanations.

In the movie the objects, that have been turned into horcruxes seem random, while in the book there is a clear system behind it (all but the snake are artifacts, that had been owned by the 4 founders of Hogwarts).

I think drama was left out for effect in the end. If you want the full, gripping story, read the books. End of story :)
 
Last edited:
I've been listening to Stephen Fry and while his voice acting and storytelling are excellent, I run into an unusual problem. They're great for listening to in the car, journeys go by in an instant. But then I get home. And I want to keep "reading." Normally, when I read a book, I burn through it in a few days. But with an audiobook, it's just listening. And when I'm just sitting listening, I get restless. I need to be doing something with my hands and eyes. I find it hard to pay attention. But then if I try to multitask, I just stop listening....

Apart from my unique problem, the audiobooks are excellent. My solution is to play some mindless game on my cell phone since that's what I'm using for playback anyway.
 
thevictor390 said:
I've been listening to Stephen Fry and while his voice acting and storytelling are excellent, I run into an unusual problem. They're great for listening to in the car, journeys go by in an instant. But then I get home. And I want to keep "reading." Normally, when I read a book, I burn through it in a few days. But with an audiobook, it's just listening. And when I'm just sitting listening, I get restless. I need to be doing something with my hands and eyes. I find it hard to pay attention. But then if I try to multitask, I just stop listening....

Apart from my unique problem, the audiobooks are excellent. My solution is to play some mindless game on my cell phone since that's what I'm using for playback anyway.
Click to expand...

I never had that problem, I was always listening to the audiobook version during my long car commutes so I never had to worry about keeping myself preoccupied. And seeing as I drive everyday, Got thru the book in a couple weeks that way.

janstett said:
Was the resurrection stone hidden in the quidditch ball supposed to be what enabled Harry to survive? But he dropped it on the forest floor before the battle.

I really didn't like the dead-but-not-dead escape hatch.
Click to expand...

As mentioned before, the resurrection stone was just a means to communicate with his dead loved ones, it had nothing to do with him surviving Voldemort's attack. Basically the attack 'killed' the part of Voldy's soul bound to Harry but not himself.
 
Last edited:
One thought about Harry Potter: it obviously gets darker and darker by every book, and the movies - I don't think the last parts are made for children! My point is that I started reading it at 11, and I was 18 when the last book came out. I became a more grown up, more mature person so I could understand the books and follow the more and more complicated plot.
However, if today a 11-year-old starts to read the first book, becomes a fan, they'll definetely read all the books within a year or two (I know I would have done so). Are the last books really for 11 or 12-year-olds? Not just because of the violence (and the death of some nice characters), but the story becomes quite complex and I can imagine that some children find it hard to follow it - so they may give up reading it.
But probably it's just my concern, seeing how immensly popular it still is. :)
 
I don't think it is too complex or too violent for young children. I have been discussing this lots of times with different people.

It's a different thing, if you only read about something violent or brutal, or actually seeing it in a movie. My favourite example is always the fairytales of the brothers Grimm, which are being told to toddlers and very young ones for centuries and which sometimes are extremely violent and brutal.

For example the true ending of "Snow White and the seven dwarfs" contains the evil queen having to dance in red-hot iron shoes, until she dies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top