The reason Harry doesn't keep the Elder Wand is explained a bit more clearly in the book. Basically throughout history the Elder Wand has attracted huge amounts of violence and murder. The wand usually changes hands because of another person killing the former master, or at least duelling them and incapacitating them. It's a highly dangerous thing to own because if people know you have it you suddenly become at huge risk of attack - it brings trouble, quite basically, and Harry feels that he's had enough trouble in his life and just wants a quiet, normal life from now on, which is fair enough when you consider everything he's been through in the book since he was a baby.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
Just seen the movie. On the whole, I felt it was a bit disjointed; I suppose they had a lot to pack in and couldn't really manage it. I wish they had focussed a bit more on some of the deaths too.
Yeah this movie was only 2 hours long whereas the first one was 2 hours 30 minutes.
Not entirely true, and it doesn't make sense. The point of the 'Elder Wand' is that you cannot be defeated in a duel when you have it (and by have it I mean when it answers to you).
There's no way you would die in a duel when wielding the wand. That's it's very point, you just can't lose. Being murdered or disarmed, or whatever constitutes a 'duel' are entirely different matters all-together.
If you disarm your opponent, who has the elder wand, it still counts. Remember Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore in the tower in the 6th book and he became the master of the wand even though he did not know?
^
I know, which is why I said/think it doesn't entirely make sense (the whole theory of the wand) and that what constitutes a 'duel' is another matter.
I know, which is why I said/think it doesn't entirely make sense (the whole theory of the wand) and that what constitutes a 'duel' is another matter.
I know this is naughty, but could anyone PM me a stream for the film?
Having the Elder Wand makes you a target because someone else wants it. It can't stop someone from killing you in your sleep, poisoning you, or killing you without you knowing. It doesn't inherently make you impossible to defeat/kill. You would assume that the wielder would be massively powerful since he won it, but if some first year disarms the wielder when he's walking by, he's then the master of the wand. If the former master uses another wand against him, most likely he'd defeat the new owner.
It makes you more powerful but it doesn't make you unstoppable. You need the ability to go with it.
We're huge dorks, btw.
I know this. Like I said in my previous posts it only makes you undefeatable in 'duels,' but what constitutes a duel is another matter all together.
I thought it was just the most powerful wand around, and the 'undefeatable' part was just the myth that surrounded it. I mean didn't Dumbledore win it from Grindelwald? I think that certainly constituted a duel.
But it doesn't. It changes hands when the wielder loses duels and other things. It just gives you an advantage.
didnt like the film at all.
.
One thing that annoys me in harry potter is that he seems to know what to do and where it is. For no reason at all for thinking it. A bit like scooby doo..
And this happend 4-5 times in the latest movie.
over an hour of the film was pointless, two scenes basically ended the movie, and this was in the space of 30 seconds... Killing the snake, and then voldemort dying.
The movie can be summed up in the scene at the end when all three were walking along the bride, no music, no noise. Just emptyness.
and it just made me go "oh right"
And this happend 4-5 times in the latest movie.
over an hour of the film was pointless, two scenes basically ended the movie, and this was in the space of 30 seconds... Killing the snake, and then voldemort dying.
The movie can be summed up in the scene at the end when all three were walking along the bride, no music, no noise. Just emptyness.
and it just made me go "oh right"
But what about the wand UnitedBoy?
Is it an undefeatable baton of bewitchment or merely a placebo for a confused conjurer?
Is it an undefeatable baton of bewitchment or merely a placebo for a confused conjurer?
Dumbledore won it after slipping a couple of roufies into Grindelwalds pumpkin juice and having his way with him. Due to the fact it Grindelwald had Dumbledores wand up his arse, the elder wand figured that it was no longer needed and thus became free. Dumbledore being the sly cnut that he was, pocketed it on the way out and used it on the kiddies in his rape dungeon 'slytherin house'
Pretty sure the book and the movie explains that the wand makes you undefeatable in a duel, at least that's what I remember about it anyway.
Aaah yes good point, you guys are right.
Thought it was alright, pretty entertaining but a poor representation of the book.
Snape was very good and im glad they didnt change any of the princes tale.
The 19 year later ending was poor and so was the final harry v voldemort fight which they simplified too much, so they could add some odd visuals and crap.
Think I will read them again soon.
Snape was very good and im glad they didnt change any of the princes tale.
The 19 year later ending was poor and so was the final harry v voldemort fight which they simplified too much, so they could add some odd visuals and crap.
Think I will read them again soon.
I've read the books but still didn't really understand parts of the film. I thought it was a bit crap, like the rest of them but still slightly entertaining. Grint is an alright actor but the other two make it awkward to watch at times. The ending isn't good.
Ah so this is what it's all about is it....
Harry Potter ewok actor flashed girl on train
BBC News - Harry Potter ewok actor flashed girl on train
Harry Potter ewok actor flashed girl on train
BBC News - Harry Potter ewok actor flashed girl on train
So that's why Goblin's weren't allowed wands.
That was AGESSSSSSSSS ago.
What was he doing with a jugglers hat I want to know.
Are they sure it wasn't the sorting hat? That woulda made more sense
".....................Griffindor!"
Are they sure it wasn't the sorting hat? That woulda made more sense
".....................Griffindor!"
What parts did you not understand? And Harry is the worst actor out of the trio but I think Emma is the best. I agree Rupert is funny and all but still.
I don't rate Grint at all. His character in the films is completely uninteresting to me. I'd put Emma as the best actor as well.
Yeah baby I was right! It has officially crossed the $1 Billion mark. It has reached the mark in 17 days of release. feck yeah!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) - Box Office Mojo
In the first part of the last movie, instead of making everyone look like Harry, why didn't they just change Harry?
I think its because the death eaters had to know Harry was going to be moved in order for Snape to be trusted, so he could provide the right info to Voldemort. It was all Dumbledore's plan. If Snape provided the right info about Harry, Voldemort would completely trust Snape and think he was a death eater.
They'd still have known Harry had been moved though, wouldn't they?
Rewatching the first one and it's very LOTR-ish - the last will and testament of Dumbledore not unlike the gifts of Galadriel.
And the second part was very Mount Doomish. Killing the snake = casting ring into the fire.
And at the Weasley wedding, we got, "They are coming..."
Rewatching the first one and it's very LOTR-ish - the last will and testament of Dumbledore not unlike the gifts of Galadriel.
And the second part was very Mount Doomish. Killing the snake = casting ring into the fire.
And at the Weasley wedding, we got, "They are coming..."
Thought Part II was abit meh and some of the romance in it had me passing for the sick bucket. Potter and Ginny.. don't get me started.
Snape dying was done pretty well but everything just felt rushed and without a sense of gravitas, I guess its down to the books themselves.. they're not epics which doesn't hamper the reading of them, but something doesn't quite translate on to the big screen. Then again its probably just Radcliffe's bad acting, I can't take him seriously as a hero and Voldemort as a villian also doesn't translate well onto the big screen too.
As for the Harry Potter films in order of which was the best.. I'd go
Prisoner of Azkaban (enjoyed it more than the book, which is probably my least favourite)
Chamber of Secrets
Philosophers Stone
First three were faithful to the books, and as the main actors were just kids at the time, their acting performances or lack of them were disguised by their age.
Snape dying was done pretty well but everything just felt rushed and without a sense of gravitas, I guess its down to the books themselves.. they're not epics which doesn't hamper the reading of them, but something doesn't quite translate on to the big screen. Then again its probably just Radcliffe's bad acting, I can't take him seriously as a hero and Voldemort as a villian also doesn't translate well onto the big screen too.
As for the Harry Potter films in order of which was the best.. I'd go
Prisoner of Azkaban (enjoyed it more than the book, which is probably my least favourite)
Chamber of Secrets
Philosophers Stone
First three were faithful to the books, and as the main actors were just kids at the time, their acting performances or lack of them were disguised by their age.
I don't dislike Daniel Radcliffe and he's not a bad actor. He's done well in other things, but there's something lacking in his performance as the older Harry. As the younger Harry, he was spot on imo.
Prisoner of Azkaban is my favourite of the films, and probably of the books too.
Rupert Grint shone in all of them. Maybe his lines were better.
I have to admit, I always assumed the HP movies were probably rubbish but I hadn't seen any of them so didn't really have a leg to stand on. So, I've spent the last few weeks catching up on all 8 and have to say, yup, kinda rubbish.
I take it you are not a big Harry Potter fan.
Well, I didn't read the books. And I lied slightly. I actually started with film number four. I doubt I missed much in the early days. But it was oddly compelling as I did feel the need to see it through to the end.
They just weren't very well written, I thought. Most of it seemed nicked from mythlology or other recognisable films and what wasn't was quite lazily done. I.e. Harry always just knew stuff or knew where to find someone who knew stuff and they were usually just some new character lurking at Hogwarts that we'd never heard of before suddenly thrown in the mix so that they could spout some wisdom that nobody really had to work out themselves.
Plus, wasn't Harry Potter the kid from the 1986 movie Troll?
Oh yeah, and all the fighting with wands was a bit like watching people fencing at a great distance. I lol'ed a lot, I'm afraid.
Ugh, I feel bad now. They're clearly very popular and I've seen a lot, lot worse (everyone involved in Wild Target should be ashamed of themselves, by the way). Just not for me, I guess.
Ugh, I feel bad now. They're clearly very popular and I've seen a lot, lot worse (everyone involved in Wild Target should be ashamed of themselves, by the way). Just not for me, I guess.
Was a good film, probably the best one, but they missed out so much from the book that was important. Why not show Harry repairing his proper wand with the Elder Wand?!
Personally I would've liked to have seen more from the death scene of Bellatrix and Voldy. Why have them both crumble to dust? In fact, why have Voldy's death separated from everyone? It would've been epic to have him killed in front of everyone in the Great Hall, and then have huge celebrations with everyone like there was in the books. Would've been a great way to end the series.
Personally I would've liked to have seen more from the death scene of Bellatrix and Voldy. Why have them both crumble to dust? In fact, why have Voldy's death separated from everyone? It would've been epic to have him killed in front of everyone in the Great Hall, and then have huge celebrations with everyone like there was in the books. Would've been a great way to end the series.
I don't think he was born at that time. He was the kid from David Copperfield.
No, there was a movie made in the eighties called Troll about this young boy who has to battle all these mythological creatures and his character's name was Harry Potter.
The actor was that guy from The Neverending Story.
Oh okay. Sorry. I misread your post.
Out of all these shitty movies, only the first two and the 2nd last were of any real quality. the first two simply because they replicated the books as closely as possible. The last because it was written superbly. The only downside was the lack luster scene where Voldemort went after Harry at Godrics hollow.
I just watched the 7th and I must say up until the fight scene, it was pretty well done, but feck me did they ever feck up the Potter/Voldemort fight. It was written so to give the indication that voldemort was mortal. Hence the reason in the book it states he was laid alongside the other victims.
They also fecked up the elderwand ending. Harry fixes his original wand with it and the elder wand goes back into dumbledores tomb. Doesn't just fecking snap it and throw it off a cliff.
I just watched the 7th and I must say up until the fight scene, it was pretty well done, but feck me did they ever feck up the Potter/Voldemort fight. It was written so to give the indication that voldemort was mortal. Hence the reason in the book it states he was laid alongside the other victims.
They also fecked up the elderwand ending. Harry fixes his original wand with it and the elder wand goes back into dumbledores tomb. Doesn't just fecking snap it and throw it off a cliff.