Team Experience: Harry Potter Goodbyes
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 10:03AM 
Hey all. I asked the team here at The Film Experience to say their goodbyes to Hogwarts and the Potter franchise now that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two has been viewed by everyone and their werewolf uncle. Y'all know how I feel about it but a huge scale of opinions and emotions swirling about out there. Each wand is unique and chooses its wizard or some such; we're all beautiful unique snowflakes!
1. WHO WAS YOUR FAVORITE CHARACTER?
JA: I always gravitate towards the nerdy girls so my first thought was Hermione, but then she was swallowed whole by a tidal wave of Luna Lovegood affection. The casting people worked magic pretty much across the board but Evanna Lynch was an amazing find.
Andreas: Bellatrix, at least as portrayed by HBC. Cackling, sadistic, sexy -- I'd take her delightfully evil turn any day over her Oscar-nominated cheerleading in The King's Speech.
Kurt: Minerva McGonagall, and she gets two of the best lines in the new movie! Maggie Smith, ready to bring the thunder. Great.
Michael: Neville, Neville, Neville. The same weight of tragedy and depth of character as Harry without the cushy celebrity status or the unfortunate bouts of "woe is me" whining. All I care about in the last movie is his big moment with the Sword of Gryffindor. It should be the cinematic "Hell, yes!" equivalent of Viggo Mortenson jumping off that ship with the army of the dead at his back.
Jose: Snape of course!
2. WHICH PROFESSOR OF MAGIC WOULD YOU LOVE TO BE SCHOOLED BY?
oh baby, talk dirty Rickman to me!
Jose: Snape of course! The Dark Arts sound like fun!
Michael: Snape, no contest. I don't care if he does nothing but heap abuse on me. I could still listen to Alan Rickman all day.
JA: Love Maggie Smith but Professor McGonagall would've made me cry with all those withering glances. Professor Flitwick would've been fun! I could've quotedWillow to him. "Some day, Burglekutt! Some day!!!"
Kurt: My first impulse is to say Dumbledore (he seems so cuddly), but he's technically not a teacher, so I'll go with McGonagall. To quote Larry Crowne (and I swear it's the one and ONLY time I'll quote Larry Crowne), she's tough but fair.
Andreas: I've always liked Remus Lupin. He's so mild-mannered and knowledgeable about all kinds of magic. He marries one of the other coolest people in the series, Tonks. And he's a conflicted werewolf, which is pretty badass. Definitely my prof of choice if I went to Hogwarts; I'm just disappointed that he got so little screen time before his sad off-screen death!
3. IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING ABOUT THE SERIES, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
Andreas: I know it's crazy, but why not make it all animated? I feel like Studio Ghibli could do wonders with a complex magical fantasy like this. At the very least, they would've made the characters in the epilogue look convincingly older.
Kurt: That it could better balance its romances with its driving action. The juxtaposition of raging teen hormones and grave danger has usually been very effective, but the couplings have always felt like inauthentic footnotes. I really liked the final film, but I'd have been more invested had I given a hoot about Ron & Hermione, Harry & Ginny, and Luna & Neville "Never Met a Comic Relief Moment He Couldn't Fumble" Longbottom.
Jose: Have actual auteurs doing the directing work, other than Cuarón's film, none had any sense of real artistry and intention. They embodied the dullness that is adapting something just for the sake of it.
JA: Eight more movies!
Michael: Harry Potter and the Missed Opportunity
4. IN WHAT SORT OF OBJECTS WOULD WE BE LIKELY TO FIND YOUR HORCRUXES?
via
JA: My soul and all its pieces belongs to Victor Krum's underwear drawer.
Kurt: GREAT question. Mine would be: My "Lord of the Rings" Extended Edition boxed set, my grandfather's military pendant, my latest peanut butter jar (I, very unfortunately, LOVE peanut butter), a framed photo of Brandon from when we first started dating, my journal from 2003-2007, my first writing award, and my father's father's pocket watch.
Jose: My Blu-ray and DVD library, my Kindle, white CK briefs and bad dates.
Michael: Ticket stubs. I doubt I would present much of a challenge to Harry and friends. They would have me finished off by page 50 and spend the other 750 pages playing quidditch and making out in the room of requirement.
5. WILL YOU BE HAPPY TO SEE RALPH FIENNES'S NOSE AGAIN?
JA: Are we sure he hasn't carved it off for method thespian purposes? Has anyone seen it lately? Maybe in real life he's actually wearing a prosthetic nose now and the Voldemort nose look is him without make-up. Nobody will ever know unless somebody jumps him on a red carpet and yanks at his ears! I think I speak for us all when I say that you have the permission of the Film Experience establishment to do this now, everyone.
Kurt: Yes. I like my Fiennes brothers au naturale ...and take from that what you will.
Michael: Kudos to Ralph Fiennes to playing the most iconic villain of modern pop culture. I refer of course to "Harry" from In Bruges. I found his Voldemort to be kind of a one note sinister ghoul to be honest.
Whenever I see Brendan Gleeson show up as Mad Eye Moody I am overcome with the desire to see him confront Voldemort at the Hog’s Head In Bruges-style over some butter beers.
Moody: Voldemort, let’s face it. And I’m not being funny. I mean no disrespect, but you’re a cunt. You’re a cunt now. You’ve always been a cunt. And you’ll always be a cunt. Maybe make some more cunt horcruxes.
Voldemort: Leave my horcruxes fucking out of it! What have they ever done? You retract that bit about my cunt fucking horcruxes!
Moody: I retract that bit about your cunt fucking horcruxes.
Voldemort: insult my fucking horcruxes? That’s going overboard, mate!
Want more?
Reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two from Jose and Nathaniel, a teary goodbye from JA who loved the series the most of any TFE contributor, a series lament from Michael in which he posits that the films shouldn't have started production until very recently. (Interesting!)
Your turn!
Talking about its box office is boring which seems to be the convo du jour. (The franchise continues to fill JK Rowling's endless vault at Gringotts. The end.) You know you want to answer those five questions in the comments! Or just a couple of them. Your choice.
Reader Comments (61)
It is so ridiculous that an actor who was known for his beautiful profile (the posters for "The English Patient") should be known to a new generation as a noseless wraith.
1. It's all about Luna Lovegood, but I also loved Lavender Brown's portrayal in HP 6.
2. Lupin. I rewatched HP 3 this week, and David Thewlis is really quite good in that movie, and the character in the books is definitely one of the more appealing teachers.
3. I think it's obvious to even super fans that sometimes the series could have done a much better job of explaining itself to non fans. Also, I would have made HP and the Deathly Hallows one epic length movie (which might be released on DVD anyway).
4. My Versace shoes and my Grandfathers' army coats from WW2.
5. Ralph Fiennes collects a paycheck like no one else. He was having a blast.
HP forever.
1. Well, my favorite characters in the books are Harry and Hermione. For the movies, my favorites are probably any characters that, when I reread the books, I depict in my mind as the actors/actresses who played them on screen. The only three who really fit that bill are McGonagall, Luna, and Professor Trelawney. All three are just so lovable in their own ways. I'd also would like to have seen more Richard Harris as Dumbledore. (RIP)
2. Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney. I'm the guy in the back of the class sniggering at how above Divination I am.
3. I completely agree with Michael that the series should have waited and had a master plan incorporating all seven parts. Calling on JK as a consultant every so often was just not cutting it... If I had had to make one change to these eight movies, I'd have rewritten Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 to have the same tone as Part 1. Maybe it was my attitude on the day I saw 7.2, but I feel that when watched in succession, viewers will note a drastic lighten-ing of tone in 7.2, which is odd considering the dark, dark material it contains.
Evan -- but how can you snigger at Emma! She is awesome.
RJ -- i never quite got the appeal of Lupin OR Snapes but they do tend to be *the* fan favorites. I like the Minerva and the Dumbledore and the whatshisname (jim broadbent)
Owen -- omg. i'd never even thought about that in terms of generational awareness. Fiennes profile is so distinct and beautiful so it never occurred to me that younger viewers wouldn't know what they were missing.
RJ -- also: jealous of Versace shoes!
1. I've only seen parts of the first three films and the entirety of Hallows 1.
2. I've had a TA who looked and taught like Professor Trelawny.
3. Big ups to Michael for mentioning Harry from In Bruges. Ralph Fiennes will always be the one with the 'cant facking keeds' to me, too.
1. Tough question! I've grown to love Harry as the series progressed and Snape and McGonagall just bring a lot of badassitude. But then Luna made her appearance and suddenly there she is... my favorite character.
2. Oliver Wood isn't an acceptable answer, but I'd love to have been schooled by him. But really, it's got to be Lupin. As I said above, Snape and McGonagall are great, but I don't think I can actually handle being in their class. I'd be way too intimidated.
3. More Luna Lovegood! More Oliver Wood! A better understanding on the Malfoys! More on Harry's relationship with Sirius! Openly gay characters! Er... you said one thing, right? Probably more McGonagall. I hear she's way more involved in the books than she was in the films, but I think part of that was Maggie Smith recovering from chemotherapy. So basically I wanted Maggie Smith to be healthy and do more in the films. Was damn happy she was nicely featured in the last one though.
4. My TV, my computer, my phone, and a bucket of fried chicken.
5. Nose? I'd be happy just to see his hair again to be honest. Or not wearing that cloak. I do love how he says "Avada Kedavra." I'm weird.
"Oliver Wood isn't an acceptable answer, but I'd love to have been schooled by him."
Oh yes.
I think I may be the only TFE reader who hasn't read the books (actually, I read three and then had enough of that) or seen the films, and doesn't give a damn one way or another.
I assume Kurt hasn't read the books. Not only Neville-Luna dont exist in the books, but Ron-Hermione is beautifully done. They are amazing in the books. The blossom and development of their relationship begins in the very first book and continually grows and develops up untill the very last. Its beautiful, moving, touching, sweet, honest, realistic, intense, full of misunderstandings, mistakes from both parts, growth, expectations and fears. Its well balanced, raw and fitting as it is not only a tale of their love in particular, but a tale of the discoery of the feeling of love itself. Ron and Hermione are madly in love with each other, but for a while they do not know what it is that they feel. Later on they understand, but it takes them a while to pick uo the courage and act on their feelings. To watch the development of the relationship is one of the greatest pleasures the series can offer its readers.
In the movies it is not as good, for some reasons: The screenwriter Steve Kloves os madly obsessed with Hermione and has turned the original character from the novels into a flawless, perfect, godess-like super hero. Movie hermione has no flaws whatsoever and makes no mistakes. Her role has been considerably increased, she has been given lines and actions that belonged to others in the books - if you kill harry you will have to kill us too, was Ron's in the books, for example. God, she was given some of Dumbledore's best lines- DUMBLEDORE, the greatest and wisest wizard of all times. Book Hermione was also a socially awkward tomboy, a nerd, not the glamed up version the movie delivers. And Hermione was never the school's most popular gir, she was never some it girl or Hogwarts "Blair Waldorf/Serena Van der Woodsen/Cher Horowitz".
Ron, on the other hand, has been, from the second movie on, cruelly reduced to a silly comic relief and the heroe's goofy sidekick. While Book Ron is occasionally goofy and is very funny, he is never silly, easily scared or idiotic. Book Ron is very loyal, unbelievably brave, quick witted, sarcastic, iconoclastic, ironic, smart, has a funny acid sharp tongue, thinks fast, strategically and outside the box, is fun and utterly protective of his loved ones.
And Book Hermione, on the other hand, unlike Movie Hermione, is far from perfect. She is bossy, narrow minded, looses her mind easily in times of distress, can be overly emotional, annoying, strict, judgemental, and easily bothers her friends, harry included.
What is amazing about them as a couple is the way the complete and balance each other out, achieving a perfectly balanced unity. Each has something the other lacks, while both share the same core values and strenght of character. Each learns from the other, grows from the other, teaches the other.
Hermione is far from perfect and Ron is far from the idiot the movies show- he is a chess genius, has a good head on his shoulders and is a great strategical thinker-he has an eye for diferent angles comes up with the greatest and most unexpected ideas. He and Hermione are equaqlly important in the books, while the movies make her a co-lead (sometims she upstages harry himself) and Ron a third wheel. In the book, Harry is actually a third wheel in a way, since he is the lonely hero and Hermione and Ron are sidekicks who can only go so far! Both are equally important, and Hermione is not the heroine - there's ony one hero and his name is Harry!
1) Favorite character: hum, I have a few. Luna, obviously. Lupin. Minerva. Helena's Bellatrix is even better that book Bellatrix, but not one of my faves. I like the Weasley family in general.
2) Lupin and Minerva.
3) Hermione and Ron would have been portrayed right. They would have explained Neville's involvement in the prophecy and properly deal with Dumbledore's past. Harry and Ginny's relationship, which is not the main romance in the books, could have been a little more explored, as it is non-existant in the movies. They would have explained the horcruxes. The movies wouldn't be so rushed. Better and more bold and artistically deep directors.
4) My two dogs, my (many many) books, my notebook, my ballet shoes, my master thesis, my wedding ring, my grandmother's trinity cartier ring.
5) YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Loooooooooooooooooove Fiennes. Major school girl crush on him. And lots of artistic admiration as well.
Ron and Harry's amazing bromance could have been better translated as well. In the movies, harry and hermione are made to have this amazing, otherworldly, transcendent, spiritual relationship and Ron is sort of tagging along. Which, again, is a result of Kloves' sick obsession with Hermione - Emma Watson should be a bit scared and consider a restraining order.
In the books, Ron is Harry's best friend. Hermione is an amazing friend as well, but she easily bores and annoys Harry. When Ron and Harry have a fall out on book 4, harry says that as much as he liked Hermione, it was not the same as being with Ron. And when Ron leaces the camping on DH, Harry and Hermione barely speak to each other.
Ron is, in many ways, the glue that sticks them together and, being from an old and large family of wizards, Harry's first guide through that new world. They are each other's very best pals, and this is fairly portrayed in the first two movies, but later sacrificed so Kloves could worship at Hermione's altar.
You do not like Snape, Nate? Yes, he is an all time fan favorite. There was recently a Harry Potter world cup to celebrate the last movie, and Snape won, beating Ron in the final. Harry was eliminated in the quarter finals- I think he lost to Sirius, not sure!
Evan, Hermione did that!! She hated Divination, mocked it and complained about. Lavender and the indian twins loved it, though.
Since In Bruges was mentioned, I just feel the need to express my dislike for it. A self-satisfied-to-the-max "cool" "comedy" about Catholic assassins? No thanks. What's worse, there are some unbelievably stupid moments near the end of the movie. The pregnant hotelowner risking her and her baby's life for Farrell's character, i.e. someone she doesn't even know, but is obviously some sort of criminal? Gleeson's character not just living, but *talking* after jumping down the tower, at which point he was already almost dead? Plus, I could swear there was a "splash" sound the moment he hit the ground.
Also, though they were obviously counting on it, swearing doesn't automatically equal funny.
1. In the films, it would almost assuredly be Hermione-in the books, I waver between Lupin, McGonagall, and Luna.
2. McGonagall-I totally would have studied until all hours just to get 10 points for Gryffindor. And I echo several others here-Oliver Wood would have made me want to be good at sports.
3. I wanted Luna to do her play-by-play of the Quidditch game in movie six like she did the book-one of the funniest bits in the films. Oh, and I would have loved for them to reincarnate David Lean so he could have done the seventh film (what good is the Resurrection Stone if you don't use it?)
4. I finally have a reason to win an EGOT. :) If that doesn't work, I'll take Ja's answer, but substitute in Cedric Diggory for Viktor Krum.
5. I'm dying to see Ralph Fiennes' nose again-perhaps he could play another tortured Hungarian count? :)
1. Not Ron.
2. Professor Sybil Trelawney
3. My Diary of Ideas, my high-school graduation's ring (because I sold it, in a need for money) a 1/8 of bottle of Indita (a very cheap liquor in my country) a book of Kubrick's entire filmography, a picture of Marlon Brando, in a song (but I'm not going to tell you in which one) and in Meryl Streep's third Oscar, just because that seems impossible to get.
4. I am with Jose here, that was my initial though when I read the question.
5. Just If I see it in front of my face ;)
Luiserghio -- LOL on the third Oscar. that is true and well hidden, you're right. You'll live forever!
Amanda -- my goodness. do you have the books memorizeds? That said i had NO idea that the books were that differnet. I've read i think 4 of them (scattered... i read books 1 & 2 and then books 6 & 7) but i couldn't have told you this.
Yes, they are vastly diferente, way better and immensely superior to the movies, which are ok, but not even close to the books.
I remember them fairly well, that's true. But I have good memory for the written words and I can easily remember what I've read, partly because I've always been this major bookworm but mainly because I have trained myself to do so- I got a master's degree and now I'm in the middle of a four year long PHD, thefore I HAVE to read a lot and it is required that I remember lots of texts and books that I dont always have the time to re-read, but I need to remember the most important parts or main ideas. Many years reading a given number (a high number) of pages a week you eventually learn how to store useful information.
And I really like those Potter books, which makes it easy for me to remember them. I remember parts of lots of my fave books- The great gatsby, wuthering heights (all time fave), the outsider, catcher in the rye, franny and zooey, madame bovary, the beautiful and damned.
Actually, Rowling got me for good when I saw an interview in which she said "Wuthering Heights", "Pride and Prejudice" and "Much ado about nothing" were er inspiration for the Ron and Hermione dinamic. There's even a Ron and Hermione scene that's a tribute to "Wuthering Heights".
I'm obsessed with "Wuthering Heights" and caught the tribute before she even said it was such.
1. Hermione. You have no idea what a revelation Hermione was to 7-year-old me. How much I adored her and identified with her. Here was a girl (with one of the best character names EVER) clever and goody two-shoes to the point of alienating others (like the exchange in the third book when Lavendar Brown’s bunny dies and Hermione proceeds to analyze the bunny’s death, only to piss off everyone and devastate Lavendar further is honestly SO priceless), always walking around with her nose in a book, always correct, and yet defiant, petulant, and easily outraged. And bit by bit she drops the social insensitivities and becomes the most emotionally expressive character in the books, while retaining her ridiculous cleverness and unique tics. So yeah, Hermione. Second would have to be Neville – everything that Michael said.
2. Lupin. He’s just the ideal teacher, isn’t he? Intuitive, endlessly kind, tolerant, a great sense of humor (the Snape boggart!). This is sacrilegious, but I was never quite convinced by the Sirius-Harry thing – I thought Lupin was a more authentic surrogate figure to Harry in the third book.
3. The screenplays were messes, and the scenes always felt exhaustively slapped together. Sometimes non-significant details from the books would be inserted as a wink to the fans, or they would COMPLETELY alter a scene or character as to lose all their nuances. The earlier movies were beyond silly, which used to offend me as a kid, because I always thought that the books were tongue-in-cheek or self-denigrating, but never silly. Or iconic moments from the books that fans truly gave a damn about wouldn’t make the cut. And overall, the movies were often incoherent and inconsistent and I sincerely don’t understand how non-readers ever kept up with them. Annoying as hell.
4. Grains of sand so that no one would ever find them. Stupid sentimental Voldy.
5. Dear god yes. On tumblr, everyone is referring to RF as “the Voldemort actor” which just devastates me. I’ve already been pushing The English Patient on a friend who knows not the tornado of talent and tormented sexiness that is Ralph Fiennes. Y’all can keep Michael Fassbender.
Caroline, I agree! Loved loved loved Harry- Lupin.
Lavender and Hermioned have always been sort of antagonists, foreshadowing I believe the Ron situation in "Half Blood Prince". I loved Jessie Cave as Lavender "Oh, my Won-Won", just like I imagined while reading the books.
There was also some Luna-Hermione tension when Luna was first introduced. Luna was, in many ways, smarter than Hermione.....Or wiser, maybe. A diferent kind of knowledge. Luna rocks!
Its been two years since Half Blood Prince hit the screens and up untill this day I dont accept and haven't come to terms with the fact that they cut Dumbledore's funeral.
I agree that Fiennes is one of the sexiest men alive. He was a great Heathcliff. The end of the affair, The English Patient......
One thing that truly annoyed me in this last movie was the idiotic scene in which Jarry goes to Ron and Hermione to tell them that he will go to the Forest to die. In the book, he wears the invisibility cloack and leaves without saying goodbye to anyone. The last two people he sees are Neville and Ginny.
Ron and Hermione wouldn't act the way they did in the scene- which was another way Kloves found to make Hermione stand out and shine- they would never let harry sacrifice himself like that, and neither would Harry go and tell people about it, because he knows they wouldn't let him do it and he needs to do it alone.
Why he tells NEVILLE to kill the effing snake. NEVILLE. NOT Hermione. The whole "killing the snake" is a major thing for Neville in the book, and Hermione has nothing to do with it.
Nathaniel-- Oh, I'd be sniggering at tea leaves and crystal balls, NEVER at Emma Thompson. :)
Oh, i pretty much have to do this. Ooh, fun!
1) "WHO WAS YOUR FAVORITE CHARACTER?"
Hmm. I would have to go with HBC's Bellatrix or Professor McGonagall. HBC as Bella was a massive delight and McGonagall, (even though there really wasn't enough of her in the movies) was like Dumbledore in how they were secret badasses. Plus, i smiled every time when her stern exterior dropped to reveal some sort of hidden awesomeness.
2) "WHICH PROFESSOR OF MAGIC WOULD YOU LOVE TO BE SCHOOLED BY?"
Not Snape because i'm way too mouthy for my own good which would lead to soooo much problems in his class and not McGonagall because i'd probably be a bundle of nerves in her class. I'll have to go with with Lockhart (eye candy), Trelawney (for laughs), and Lupin (because his classes always seemed like fun)
3) "IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING ABOUT THE SERIES, WHAT WOULD IT BE?"
That's a hard question. I honestly can't think of anything. Books: Less about Hermione's efftorts with house-elves. Movies: Gambon's Dumbledore. He improved as the movies went on, but i loved Harris' 'lovable old kook' more. Harris' kookiness + Gambon's intensity = perfect Dumbledore.
4) IN WHAT SORT OF OBJECTS WOULD WE BE LIKELY TO FIND YOUR HORCRUXES?
Some of my favorite novels and DVD's, but i can't imagine splitting up my soul just to live forever and end up looking like a shell of my former self. I'll pass. I'll just take some potion from the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone.
5) WILL YOU BE HAPPY TO SEE RALPH FIENNES'S NOSE AGAIN?
Maybe. I was just extremely happy when he was cast as Voldemort, so i'm going to miss him in that part. I swear, the casting in the movie was absolutely perfect. I still can remember the pleasure when i heard the casting news on Bellatrix, Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy and Snape. YES.
Never cared for Harry Potter. Watched two of the films. Very boring. Good riddance.
Derreck -- mashup dumbledore eh? I've always felt he was too hand-me-down Gandalf to care which is why i think I preferred Harris too. Didn't feel like as much of a copy.
I can't remember LOckhart??? Or Oliver Wood for that matter. What the hell are y'all talking about?
@ Amanda
"One thing that truly annoyed me in this last movie was the idiotic scene in which Jarry goes to Ron and Hermione to tell them that he will go to the Forest to die."
I loved that! It would've been just as awful for Harry to walk towards his death by himself, but i thought that scene where he told them of his plans was quite poignant. Especially Hermione's "I want to go with you", so he won't have to die alone. Plus, there was that silent, knowing look between Ron and Harry that was pretty heartbreaking. I feel like after everything they have been through together, he pretty much had to say something...and he does explain to them why he has to do it.
It was a great buildup towards Harry's march towards death. I think telling them works much better in the movie and probably wouldn't be as necessary in the books.
Derreck, in the book we are inside Harry's head and therefore there's a long explanation on why he feels he needs to do this alone nad how he knows Ron/Hermione wouldnt let him do it and he HAS to and cant let their friendship get in the way, Its all about his choice and his selflessness at this moment. He doesnt want to cause anymore pain to his friends and loved ones, and doesnt want anyone to get in anymore trouble, and accepts that he has to do it on his own.
Plus, I didnt like the whole "please hermione kill the snake" thing because it looked as yet another attempt to make hermione shine at the expense of other characters. The whole "kill the snake" subplot is major for Neville and I didnt like that it was another excuse to highlight Harry and Hermione's relationship and put her on the spotlight once again.
But I did love the look between Ron and Harry, Heartbreaking indeed.
Lockhart was Kenneth Branagh in the second movie, the celebrity DADA teacher.
Oliver Wood was gryffindor's quidditch team in the beginning.
My favorite was Snape because he hated those damn kids just as much as I did.
^@Amanda It wasn't a scene of antagonism between Lavendar and Hermione - it was just a very classic "clueless Hermione" scene where she's trying to prove a theory (ughhh, such an HP geek but I remember it exactly, having reread those books a billion times - she was trying to prove that Trelawney didn't prophesize the bunny's death accurately) and doesn't realize that she's upsetting someone else in the process. It's hilarious.
I'm curious - what scene in Harry Potter was supposed to be reminiscent of Wuthering Heights?
I remember this bunny situation and hermione's boredom and distaste for divination classes and how she would complain about it, try to prove it wrong and put it down. What I saída about hermione and lavender as antagonists is that they were very diferent from each other and usually saw things with distinctive perspectives and hardly ever agreed on anything! Which was fitting with the ron situation later on!
The wuthering heights scene was on deathly hallows. Right after ron and harry argue and ron leaves, hermione runs off in the rain after him, sobbing and screaming his mame while soaking wet, but he was already gone! Its a tribute to the scene when heathcliff leaves after hearing cathy tell nelly that she is marrying Edgar and cathy goes after him in the heavy rain desperatly screaming his name but he was already gone!
Favourite character: Hermione. Without her, it would have been just a boy's adventure story. Snape, because of the last book and his childhood and great and enduring love. Neville - I often wished he was the hero (especially when the prophecy looked like that might be possible). The Fred and George Weasley of the movies - delightful- couldn't get enough of them.
Preferred teacher: Lupin was the best teacher. McGonagal was the most consistently excellent teacher over time and had the best subject. That's what I'd like to learn.
Change in the series: Hermione should not end up with Ron. That's just wrong. They are more like brother and sister. We understand that Harry ends up with Ginny Weasley because he needs a family, a big wizarding family. But Hermione - what a waste of intelligence, wizarding talent, and passion, to end up as another generation's Mrs. Weasley.
Change in the movies: I think Daniel Radcliffe worked very hard, and I do respect him, but I would have preferred someone else as Harry. I would have liked someone like the young Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun. Someone more brilliant and unpredictable. (although I understand why they wanted to cast someone predictable, not someone who would implode as they grew older).
Horcrux: I totally agree with Derrick. If you have all that power, why waste it by splitting yourself up into horcruxes? Make a Philosopher's Stone, or some other cheerful magic that makes you more complete.
Ralph Fiennes nose: No, I never want to see his nose again. Noseless Voldy perfectly captures the inner Ralph Fiennes. Why go backward?
Caroline, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agreed with every single one of your answers to the 5 questions. Whoever you are - WORD. Especially on the Lupin-Harry > Sirius-Harry issue: there was way too much hype and focus on Sirius-Harry, when really, they barely had any time together; on the other hand Lupin's calm, mentoring presence during Harry's third year shaped so much. He was by far the most adult, mature character introduced to the series at that point (and that last goodbye moment in his office at the end of the book? heartbreaking). Nathaniel, consider reading Book 3, if anything; besides the time-turny business it's a lot of people's favorite. I think it sets up a significant portion of the series's emotional core.
Another minor character that fascinated me was Mr. Ollivander (of the wand shop). If I was part of the wizarding world and had to choose a career, I'd want to be Mr. Ollivander's apprentice. And John Hurt in the part was another example of HP's great casting. You can see immediately that Hurt would understand the nature of the magic and art hidden in objects, and also the ambivalence of magic.
I also have a sneaking fondness for Narcissa Malfoy. She kind of parallels the mother love power that Harry's mother had. The thrill when Narcissa whispers to Harry, "Is Draco still alive?" Then without a second thought she turns to Voldemort and lies to him, to his face, about the thing that is most important to him, in the moment of his power.
Adri, I agreet face, 110% with you on Olivander and Narcissa. Lying to voldemort, with a straigh face in front of all the other death eaters in order for her to save her son, the only thing that still mattered to her, the only and last thing to make sense after everything that had happened. All she cared about was her son's safety and what a risk she took in order to keep him alive, safe and by her side. And the unbreakable vow with snape....she was great.
There''s no indication whatsoever that hermione became another mrs weasley, in a "stay at home mom of seven" way. She was not at all like molly on that way, or in any way whatsoever.Hermione had a careere at the ministry of magic, and Ron and her only had tel children, unlike molly and arthur who were like bunnies-they sure knew how to keep themselves busy and entertained those weasleys.
I see nothing in ron and hermione's relationship that resembles a sibling relationship in any way. There''s a passion, a fire, a tension, a restless-ness in their relationship that is anything but sibling-like.
Harry and hermione have a brother-sister relationship, and harry says it so himself in the last book. There was friendship, respect, mutual deep understanding, and both being only children who were raised as/with muggles, I always saw their bond as sibling-like. Very very platonic, while ron and hermione were anything but!
While I was reading order of the phoenix, the first luna book, I was so taken with her, so fascinated with her, that I imagined maybe she would be a good match for Harry. As I kept on reading, I changed my mind though-they were mismatched and I thought Luna was, in a way, too much for him.
Its interesting that while the movies have totally erased any flaw hermione had, turning her into a flawless creature that made no mistakes, was never wrong and was the very definition of perfection, a flawless and perfection humanidade being, they also downplayed ,any of harry's own flaws as well. His arrogance, stubborness, the fact that he was petulant, self-centered, egocentric, had temper tantruns and a short temper, could easily dismiss others and be a bit fill of himself, having. Ahero complex as well as, deep down, relishing on his fame....they were seriously downplayed, and they were fundamental and interesting part of his persona.
With no flaws, there''s no grow. No evolution. In the books, we see the characters evolve, grow and change. They learn and mature. In the movies, hermione never changed because she's got nothing to learn- she was perfection to begining with.
Rowling isnt afraid to show her own characters flaws. The movie crew was.
1) I'm one of the people who really loves Harry, but I think in the films, Emma Watson as Hermione surpassed the her literary counterpart. And I am a nerdy girl...so it makes all the difference.
2) Lupin. I think he's a pretty perfect teacher.
3) Like someone said above, the fact that the films should have tried to explain things to the non-fans. Especially with the HP8 ending...so much was not said or explained. I also like the idea of auteurs making the films. I don't mind Yates, but he should have been made to leave after 2 films.
4) My hairbrush, my cellphone, my Fight Club DVD, my Greece ring...can I use my brother? He never leaves me alone, so...
5) Ralph Fiennes is gorgeous...but moreso with a nose. Noone plays a baddie quite like him.
I'll miss Harry and everyone.
Amanda - you are a real fan of the books and I agree they are a wonderful achievement. You only have to read something like Lev Grossman's novel (The Magicians?) where he sets out to "improve" Harry Potter, to realize how many different and strong skills J.K. Rowling has.
And i agree that Harry of the movies is different from Harry of the books. By the end of the last book we know that Harry had a piece of Voldemort living inside him. But other characters like Dumbledore knew that much earlier on. So Harry was a forming personality who could go either way, to the good or the bad. That's why Dumbledore only trusted him with "need to know" information. because Harry is hovering on the edge, he's more brilliant and erratic (in the books).
And Harry's emotional inheritance from his arrogant exuberant father is the kind of makeup that can too easily fall into unthinkingly abetting evil. I think that's why other characters keep reassuring themselves that Harry has his mother's eyes (the window to the soul) that will help him choose the good. I like the way McGonagal handles that as a teacher. To help someone choose the good, she treats them with respect, affection, reassurance, and effective help.
I agree Adri. That's also why I believe Book Harry was more interesting- more explosive, more ambiguous, more intense. Moive Harry sometimes lacks personality in my opinion. He is sometimes too vanilla and bland.
Ginny was so watered down she is unrecognizable. Where is the confident, strong, opinionated, brave, bold and "take no crap" "wont put up with no bullshit" girl from the books? Movie Ginny is so empty we dont even know her. Book Ginny was though, feisty, self confident, strong and hard as nails. Movie Ginny is.....well, a big nothing. We dont know. They never cared to develop her or show us who she was.
Hermione was turned into the ultimate Mary Sue. And Ron was deliberatly made out to look weaker, less inteligent and less important than he really is.
1. Sirius, by so far. I don't agree at all by the ones that were saying that Lupin was the best and most mature father figure. He was the best teacher, that’s it (sure comparing to Snape it’s not difficult...). But for the emotional connection needed for Harry, he can’t compete with Sirius. I think he is somewhat overrated: sure he's great to Harry by teaching him the Patronus Charm in the 3, but he's also a moral coward and a little immature: by not saying to Dumbledore that Sirius is an animagus and therefore he endangered everyone (he said nothing even when it looks like Sirius almost killed Ron and maybe Harry in the dorm), because he would be afraid that he would disappoint Dumbledore as if he was still 12. I don’t get the “immature” thing about Sirius. If you ask me Snape is BY FAR the most immature character of HP; and Sirius actually has the best reasons if he’s not mature (having seen his life literally arrested at 21). The funniest thing is that Sirius probably is the only one character that never said at some point “you look like your father”. No need to say how countless times Snape said that. And then in book 4 it's like Lupin has never existed, he’s totally absent while Harry clearly needed help ; then he's just so distant and almost indifferent most of the time. While Sirius was always there for Harry, risking his life and even his soul for him like a real father would also do (while he obviously is by far in a much more difficult situation than Lupin being a fugitive always sought after by the Ministery, the aurors, and risking dementor’s kiss), whether by his presence, his passages in the fireplace, his letters, providing intelligent advices in book 4, affection, comforting, his useful presents (books 3-5), talking to him in a mature way by considering him as someone intelligent that can understand the war (unlike the rest of the Order that didn’t want to say anything to Harry, the end of book 5 proved Sirius was right all along), learning him about the first war and the Ministery, encouraging him to learn spells by himself (book 4) and to defend himself (book 5). Sirius is the only one to whom Harry want to confide (book 4), or the only person he ever really confided in at all, for that matter.
I also love Neville, Barty Crouch Jr (he’s so sick, love it), Snape before his emo characterisation (the Prince’s Tale is SO MUCH better handled in the movie), Lupin is very sweet too. Always loved Ron & Hermione.
2. Lupin. By far. He’s the best teacher. Snape knows his subject but he can’t teach. Most of the rest are a bunch of weirdos though a lot are great (McGonagall, Flitwick). Slughorn makes the Potions look fun and he’s good, but, really, Lupin all the way.
3. Having more attention payed to details, relationships, etc. What makes HP a good read and not a bunch of actions scenes like it’s sometimes the case in the movies.
(lurking on this thread creepily because it's the only interesting HP conversation I've seen in the longest time - none of my friends like the books or movies) I'm totally going to have to disagree with you, zn3v6. Lupin's character feels shafted later because his role is marginalized in the later books, but it feels inconsistent with his characterization in the third book and Rowling never pays him much attention because she latches onto Sirius-Harry instead. As for Sirius, he's the counterpoint to Snape - both on fixated on Harry in unhealthy ways and perceive him mostly as James reborn. Snape makes Harry's life miserably purely because he is the product of a relationship that broke his emo little heart, and loathes him from the second they lay eyes on each other simply because he physically resembles James. Sirius, on the other hand, is obsessed with Harry to the point that he considers Harry a step-in for his dead best friend. Mrs. Weasley yells at him for talking about Harry as if he were James, Sirius criticizes Harry at one point for not having the same attitude "as his father would have", and the movie even has Sirius mistakenly call Harry "James" at one point. Lupin is the only one who helps Harry achieve growth on his own, and does so without dragging his parents into it.
And are you kidding about the Prince's Tale in the movie? They romanticized it almost beyond recognition. Snape doesn't see Lily's body or clutch it hysterically in the books. They leave out the parts that paint Snape as ambiguous and flawed - when he insults Lily to her face, lets their friendship disintegrate, was madly jealous of James, asks Dumbledore to protect Lily's life but not the lives of her husband and child (much to Dumbledore's disgust), informed Voldemort of the prophecy and ahem, used to be a Death Eater. His love for Lily is all-consuming but also remains unreciprocated, selfish, and twisted, which in my mind makes more hi m interesting than being a perfect, misunderstood romantic hero. Only I didn't mind so much because Alan Rickman acted the shit out of that one.
Caroline, yes, they forgot to mention that snape and lilly's friendship was forever shattered after he called her a mudblood, the worst possible insult in the wizarding world. We usually think of hermione when someone mentions mudblood, because of the moments when draco referred to her as such- back to book two, when ron defended her from him, cast a spell which backfired and vomited slugs (rowling was droping clues about those two from book one) or when ron attacked kreacher for doing the same! And when bellatrix carved it on hermione's arm at the malfoy manor-again, something created for the movie, never happened in the book!
But snape did call lilly a mudblood, even being half blood himself. In fact, the sixth movie did a terrible job explaining snape as the half blood prince!!!
I agree, this thread is wonderful! This thread can never die! Long live the thread!
[quote] As for Sirius, he's the counterpoint to Snape - both on fixated on Harry in unhealthy ways and perceive him mostly as James reborn.[/quote]
See I disagree because I’ve never seen much evidence of this actually. Snape clearly: he never saw Harry for himself, but just as a “reincarnation” of James, “arrogant like your father”, “all your father”: he said this countless times and he hates him just because he looks like his father, which is the most childish behaviour of the book. Then you have Dumbledore, McGonagall, Lupin, Pettigrew and Kingsley (and probably others I don’t remember) that all said at least one time (or several times) how Harry looks like his father. Sirius is the only one that said “actually, you’re not like your father” and he’s the one singled out for not being able to differentiate both? Unfair, if you ask me. Does not compute for me. He said one time a annoyed remark to Harry and people bash him for that (while he was right by the way when you replace it in context: it would have been much more logic for Harry to talk to him in hidden places in Hogsmeade like he did in GoF, than in the now dangerous fireplaces under Umbridge direction). Before he met him at the end of PoA and therefore before seeing he looks like James, he goes to incredible lenghts to try to protect him and to buy him a present that is exactly what Harry would desire (the Fireblot). I don’t see how Sirius is “obsessed” by Harry, I think he behaved the most like a father would do and did (or try to do since he’s in the most difficult situation) the most for him. Had he not done this, people would say he don’t care about Harry because he’s not James or that he’s a bad father figure. Either way, he can’t win.
[quote] Mrs. Weasley yells at him for talking about Harry as if he were James,[/quote]
First, I think she’s jealous because Harry constantly prefer him to her, while she wants Harry to consider her like his mother, which he’s not comfortable at all to do.
And we actually never seen evidence of this Molly’s scolding in the books, it comes out of nowhere at the beginning of book 5, and I’ve never really buy that. Sirius never confused Harry for James actually. Of course the movies did that, but the movies simplified and changed everything: if I trust them you could also say that Snape is Harry’s father, that Ron is mildy retarded, that Ginny has no personality at all, that Harry is in love with Hermione, etc. But it made no sense in book 5 to try to make Sirius unbalanced, because Rowling spent book 3 & 4 at insisting how incredibly sane and reliable he was. Even Fudge noticed it, which says a lot (the man is the champion of blindness). In GoF, Sirius was always saying to Harry to be careful and to no put himself in troubles (to the point that Harry was annoyed he sounded so “fatherly” and compared him to constant vigilance!Moody).
Sirius encouraged Harry to learn to defend himself and tried to inform him about Voldemort’s plans, but he was immediately shutting up because everyone else thought Harry didn’t need to know that (which was wrong seeing Harry went straight into Voldemort’s trap at the end). Molly treated Harry like a frail baby that can’t understand serious things, that needed to be oblivious of all what’s going on outside, which doesn’t work since Harry is the first in line in Voldemort’s kill list and NEEDED to know (it’s not a healthy attitude at all if you ask me, and Dumbledore himself admitted it at the end of the book, what Sirius had seen right since the beginning: it was wrong to hide to Harry crucial informations, which makes me think that everyone should have listen to HIM actually). Harry needed to be prepared, he didn’t need to be kept in the dark, he needed to be answered his legitimate questions, etc. Sirius doesn’t treat him like James (or I’ve never seen enough evidence for that), he treated him with maturity like the independant and intelligent teenager Harry is, that already seen/been through a lot, that has every right to know what's going on with Voldemort. He wants Harry to take its responsibilities, because he can’t be really there to protect him “normally”. Had he could, I think he would have behaved like his cousin Narcissa, that would do anything to protect Draco, that would put himself/herself in front of Voldemort to save him.
[quote]Lupin is the only one who helps Harry achieve growth on his own, and does so without dragging his parents into it.[/quote]
And I could also argue that Lupin “favored” Harry in book 3 by giving him private lessons because he was friend with his father... If any other kid would have asked him to learn a spell that is way beyond his capacities and not at all for his age, would he have accepted? We don’t know, but I doubt it: he even was a bit reluctant at first to do it for Harry. People forget how Lupin can be immature: he runs away when he can’t handle things: at the end of PoA he doesn’t try to defend himself when Snape said his secret (even Dumbledore tries to reasoned him a bit), he just fled, which makes him appear a bit weak. In GoF he’s totally absent (even Harry regretted at a time he doesn’t write him at least once) while he knew Harry could have needed help seeing his weird involvement in the Triwizard Tournament. And he again tried to escape his responsibilities in the last book when he wants to leave his pregnant wife. He set himself in a unhappy mariage he didn’t want in the first place but agreed to it under peer pressure (looks like that for me since I’ve never seen him happy with Tonks). Not to mention he always had trouble to stand up to people and let them do what they want (Snape Sirius, James, Molly, Tonks, etc). He never showed much maturity beyond his teacher’s role.
[quote]And are you kidding about the Prince's Tale in the movie? They romanticized it almost beyond recognition.[/quote]
I don’t know, I felt that Lily/Snape thing was much more intense and believable in the movie. I think what Rowling did in the book would have been basically unfilmable since the public would have thought: “but it looks like they hated each other”, “why is Snape so obsessed by her, they were hardly even real friends”, etc. I was necessary to “romanticize” it otherwise the public would have been lost for the “big” revelation if you keep the arguing, the insults, the the creepy one-sided obsession: people wouldn’t have rooted for Snape in the movie with that. It wouldn’t have worked in screen.
I think they could have done "The prince's tale" in a way that would have been more similar to how it is in the book. The way it was done in the movie took a lot of the conflict away and turned snape into a less ambiguous and more digestible character.
I do think Lupin loved tonks, but I do believe he was Held back due to his own insecurities and a bit of self-hatred. He didnt want to Make others miserable or inflict pain on people due to his condition. He was worried about her and later about their son! At first he didnt want to engage in the relationship, much to her frustration and sadness, because he thought his own condition would Make it impossible for him to be in a healthy, constructive relationship and made him think he could never Make someone else happy!
I think the movies always had dificulty dealing with three leads. It seems to me they got confused, didnt know how to Make time to develop three characters, never fully understood that that was the story of a lone hero and his two equally important helpers, so they decided to go for the more traditional and easily recognizable hero + heroine formula. If one watches the movies without any prior knowledge about the story and that universe, onde would think that its harry and hermione's story, with ron sort of tagging along and it would be dificult to understand why does ginny even exist to begin with. They did not know how to Work with a triangular structure of one clear lead and two equally useful co-leads! They never understood the trio's dinamic and the nature of their relationship! I never took the time and trouble to count, but ron and hermione probably even have the same amount of limes- even só because in the few chapters in deathly hallows when ron is absent harry and hermione barely speak to each other!
I think if they had total freedom and could ignore rowling and have their way, the movie makers would have made harry and hermione a couple and would have then endinh up together, because its easier to have the hero ending up wiht the most proeminent, recognizable and present female character. It would follow a simple Hollywood formula (male lead + female lead) and it would save then the time and trouble to develop other characters. They have butchered ron and ginny to the point of making then unrecognizable at times. Movie ginny is not even a person because she has no inner life, no personality, she is a blank skate, we know nothing about her at all, which makes it hard for the viewer to engage in that relationship.
It all goes down to the fact that the movie makers, specially steven kloves, never understood that hermione is not the female lead or the heroine. Harry is the only hero. This is, at the end of the time, a classical tale of hero's journey. Its a one man story. Harry is the hero and the lead. The others are, in diferent degrees and each with his own importance, supporting players, and ron and hermione are equals, both the second most important characters after harry.