BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2

Subject: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 05:23 AM

Saw it last night - Very enjoyable indeed and certainly not a kids film. I wonder if there are any other instances of the actors growing with the characters?

Anyone else seen it yet?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 05:35 AM

Do not wish to piss on anyone's parade, de gustibus, tastes vary, no accounting & all that ~~

but I thought I was the only person in the entire History Of The Universe to regard the Harry Potter thing as nothing but a perfectly agreeable but by no means exceptional bit of kiddy whimsy - not in same league as e.g. Phillippa Pearce's Tom's Midnight Garden; till I found a couple of people expressing similar opinions in the current Spectator.

Sorry. I have done. Carry on from where you were...

~Michael~

*A pic in The Times of J K Rowling a few days ago, BTW, bears a strong resemblance to my wife Emma. Oh for resources to match!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: alanabit
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 06:09 AM

I have enjoyed the books and films from the start. The books progressed into something darker and more mature over the years, as did the characters and the actors who portrayed them. The films stayed essentially true to Rowling's vision and will last because of it. I enjoyed the final film as much as any of them, although it did not convey the same amount of suffering and grief to me as the books did. Maybe that would have been impossible. Another criticism, which is likely to be made of the film, is that the plot only really works for those who know the whole story. That did not bother me at all - and neither will it trouble most viewers, who have been following it from the start.
The actors will now be able to get on with the rest of their lives. As for Rowling, who knows. She will never create a world as complete as that again, but she may well go on to spin a few more entertaining stories yet. I bet they won't have spells and magicians in them though!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 06:17 AM

No, not at all, Michael. There are plenty of people who don't particularly like it. As you say, different tastes etc. Funny thing I have found though is that the people who seem most vociferous about it have not read the books or seen the films! Not saying that is so in your case but it does surprise me how many I have come across like that!

Such is life as they say,

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 06:23 AM

Saw it last night. Great fun - but it is kid's film lacking as it is in anything so much as resembling character and development, much less story. The acting, as ever, was atrocious - apart from Tom Felton, always under used as Draco Malfoy. The smug sense of Messianic Righteousness ruins it; the only point it became in anyway real for me was Snape's back story which would have made a far more interesting film. But great fun as I say.

Plot spoiler: it was the hat's fault all along!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 07:20 AM

Well, Dave ~~ must admit only read first book & saw first film & was so disappointed after all the hype that I lost interest in keeping up with the cycle ~~ as indeed one would. But comments recently from others, like the Speccie people & Suibhne above, convince me that I was right and they were not for me.

I react similarly, for what it's worth, provoking the same pitying looks from aficionadi, to the Tolkein stuff ~~ not, I feel, a million miles between the two cycles, magic-realism-genre-wise.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Silas
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 08:43 AM

Yep, saw it last night too. Brilliant. Loved the books and the films were about as good an adaption as I reckon it possible to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 02:11 PM

You have done very well to have read/seen the first, Michael. I think it is fine when someone says 'Not for me' after at least trying it. Personaly I think the overall concept can't be seem from that first glimpse but at least you tried - A damn site more that some! I would no more push my views onto anyone than I would let them push theirs so I completely accept your views on ot.

Funny you should mention LOTR. I have started to read 'The Hobbit' to my grandson recently (he is too young yet but I am enjoying it :-) ) and I realised that a lot of people would have been put off by the first glimpse into that world.

In a hole, in the ground there lived a Hobbit.

Childish? Possibly. Childlike. Almost certainly. The prelude to, arguably, the most influential work in English fantasy? Who would have thought it :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM

Like them or not - thousands upon thousands of children have lined up at bookstores to buy the books. Sometimes at midnight to be first in line. Name any other { perhaps more worthy } series of books that have managed to do that. Now it's the job of parents and librarians the world over to connect kids with all of the other books that do meet with your approval.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 03:50 PM

I too have read/seen only the first Harry Potter. Not that I have anything against them- perhaps one day I'll get caught up.

As for the Hobbit. That's a different story, no pun intended.

I had a co-worker who kept telling me that I needed to read The Hobbit. From the way he described it and the fact that I read very little fiction I didn't get around to it until one day in exasperation co-worker bought the first volume and presented it to me.

By the second page I was hooked and on occasion still hark back to that world.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM

I have just remembered having a conversation with a co-worker many years ago, discussing 'the Hobbit'. She insisted that it was irrelevent and fantasy was not a good medium to read. Her favourite book, I asked.

Watership Down.

I am sure she didn't understand irony or why it took me 10 minutes to get my breath back.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 05:38 PM

I would probably retort that Watership Down is not fantasy, per se, but metaphor using fantasy.

I like 'em both.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 05:57 PM

I find Watership Down the most superb piece of work in the epic-saga tradition ~~ I remember devoting one of my monthly Folk Review columns to it. I don't dislike all fantasy, by any means, or all magic realism. It's just that JKR & JRRT don't happen to do it for me.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Naemanson
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 07:16 PM

I would never call the Potter series great literature. Anything that appeals to a broad swath of humanity cannot, by definition, be considered great literature. But they are good for a range of reasons.

For me one of their claims is that they are a connection between me and my kids. If you have ever despaired of having a topic of conversation with one of your children just start reading their books and drop little bombshells into the silence of the dinner table.

The movies, because movies are made by committee, are made to appeal to the broadest range of people possible. They are made, tested to see if someone has a problem with any scenes, remade and retested until finally they are released. In the case of something like the Potter books (and the Tolkien books) they have to conform to the mental image of the readers.

These still allow a parent to grow closer to the kids. In the last 10 years some of the more animated conversations I've had with my kids have included speculation on the next movie, when it will come out, how they will handle this scene or that one, why does Snape have it in for Harry, who will Hermione choose, etc.

I will miss those conversations which were ongoing from my kids in grade school (with the books) to now when they are parents and living on the other side of the world from me.

Thank you, J. K.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: bbc
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 07:59 PM

I loved Watership Down. What? You mean those rabbits aren't real? LOL

Barbara

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 17 Jul 11 - 08:12 PM

You'll be telling me next that Harvey isn't real!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 02:17 AM

Oh, Dave MacKenzie, Harvey is real for sure. I saw him in a play myself. Kind of tall though.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 04:52 AM

I loved Watership Down.
Now eat the pie

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 07:20 AM

Rather watch polo!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 07:52 AM

Box office record

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 08:28 AM

I am planning to see it and I am curious to see how the film handles Harry Potter's demise whether it be in a over sentimental way or not, I would be disappointed if it was. It was genius I thought for the story to be told through a child's eyes as Harry was at the time, through an adults eye the Dark Arts would be told in a completely different way.

The great thing about Harry Potter is that it encourages children or young adults from all social backgrounds to get away from the TV and sit down, read and follow it through. Lord of the Rings is a completely different thing but people who have read through the Potter books might be more likely to give that a go.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 11:15 AM

I have always viewed the Harry Potter series to be less about a boy coming of age and battling the evil that destroyed his parents,
and more about Hogwarts being a microcosm representation of a nation slowly falling prey to fascism.

It shows how key appointments undermine the institution and how a corrupted press makes it possible despite the magority of people seeing the opposite of what is reported.

False flag terrorist attacks and targeted attacks on individuals is instrumental in weakening a nation enough to fall prey to insidious forces out to enrich themselves.

Seeing the series from such a perspective while being entertained by both joyous and threateningly fearful magic is a masterful way to present the teachings.




Voldemort seeks a dynasty of himself within his own search for immortality. A thousand year Reich under one despot.

While we learn the problem could have been resolved easily along the way if only the Council or the newspaper did their job, it shows that supream sacrifice will result in battling the forces of greed and evil once they gain a foothold.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 11 - 04:00 PM

Donuel - Shhhhhhhhh!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: scouse
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 04:55 AM

An what about "Duncton Wood." and those lovely Moles???? Great book. Don't tell me them there moles aren't real!!
I'm out of hereeeeeee!
As Aye,

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 05:30 AM

Hopefully seeing this later. One of the things I felt the book could have done with was a serious cull by an editor, but I guess by that time JK had to write big books.

BEWARE *SPOILERS*:

The first half of the story lacks any sense of plot direction and meanders aimlessly through wadges of pages. I suppose it does create a bleak empty feeling which differs from the typical drive of the other adventures, which may have been intended to help add a note of seriousness to the final installment, but I just found it a dull waste of words.

Also deeply annoying was the complete irrationality of that entire sequence: the characters have one lead and one lead only in their hunt for horcruxes, but despite Harry's protestations, the group simply refuse to pursue their lone lead in favour of drifting aimlessly around the UK all Summer long in a tent (all the while becoming increasingly frustrated by their own aimlessness) *until* they then randomly change their minds and decide to follow their lone lead - enter part II of the story where stuff actually happens. (OK SOME stuff happens, Ron gets annoyed and effs off and the comes back again and Harry gets the sword mysteriously delivered to him, but that's entirely beside the point.)

Ironic therefore somewhat that they decided to make two films from this work, when in my mind it could easily have been one film like the rest, without compromising any of the plot.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:13 AM

The later JK books read like overly indulgent author's drafts without any editorial advice at all; I dare say by this point she could call her own shots - which isn't good in literature. The last two HP films were like this too, just a load a crappy DVD extras lacking any real sense of narrative cohension or causal energy. It reminded me of The Directors Cut (Redux) of Apocalyspe Now which turned one of the best films ever made into one of the worst. I reckon you could cut one half-decent film from the last two films, at a push. The only bit the film really touched me was in the Snape flashback - which was nicely told too. More of that approach would have been lovely.

Still great fun though, but once I've shelled out God knows how much to see the film (plus £4 for popcorn) then I'm prepared to enjoy pretty much anything in the name of entertainment!

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:36 AM

Snape was the most complex of all the characters, and also the bravest, most loyal and the strongest.

One of the changes they made for film, which entirely undermind his role in the story, was Harry breaking into Snapes mind to witness his memories, rather than sneaking a furtive peek in the bowl, as he in fact did.

Snape's key role as secret agent was entirely predicated on his exceptional skill at defending his secrets from Volly (V being heralded as the most powerful legilimens in existence, if memory serves) of course!

It also pissed me off that the film team chose to edit out Harry's entirely human furtive spying episode, in favour of making him even more heroic and brilliant at Snape's expense.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 11:18 AM

All part of the Messianic simplicity of the thing really. One thing I hate about JK's storytelling is that you get though a whole book to be told the story in the last few pages (not unique to JK I grant). That story is always being better than the cliche-ridden public-school jolly-broomsticks bollox we've waded through to get there. On the other hand I remember talking to a young lad once who all he wanted from a Harry Potter novel was no story at all, just a load of wizzarding stuff set in Hogwarts that he could escape into. 1,000 points to Gryfindor and let's lock those beastly Slytherins in the dungeon!

Shame David Bradley wasn't featured as Stemroach, I reckon he could have sorted Voldamort out no bother. On the plus side, I normally don't like HBC, but her Bellatrix in these last few films has been a real treat; a Steampunk icon perhaps? In the fashion sense certainly. And there's Warrick Davis getting his second HP role, but neither quite as compelling as The Leprechaun...

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 11:34 AM

..."jolly quidditch-sticks" surely Sweeney?

LoL

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 11:35 AM

[More SPOILERS]

"All part of the Messianic simplicity of the thing really. One thing I hate about JK's storytelling is that you get though a whole book to be told the story in the last few pages (not unique to JK I grant). That story is always being better than the cliche-ridden public-school jolly-broomsticks bollox"

As for "Messianic" why are we never told *why* Harry gets resurrected at the end? It just IS and we are expected to accept it simply because wise old Dumbledore tells Harry he can go home now, no questions asked.

JK's writing is great for the vivid creation of the whole Hogarts world - it's terribly easy to visualise and the action sequences are dynamic and can be easily depicted - all great stuff for kids. But I think both quite a bit of the plot and the structuring of the story is weak - lots of "and then, and then, and then" which gets explained at the end (as you say). You get the feeling JK is just making most of it up as she goes along - which is not so good for adults but probably of less concern to kids (we were taught not to do precisely that in junior school oddly enough.)

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 12:22 PM

One of the changes they made for film, which entirely undermind his role in the story, was Harry breaking into Snapes mind to witness his memories

I don't remember that bit! In the film he took some tears from the dying Snape and dropped then into the bowl to see the full story surely? I read the book too long ago to remember!

What am I missing?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 01:04 PM

Sorry DtG, I'm referring to a prior film/book. Can't recall which one, but it's where Dumbley asks Snape to give Harry lessons in protecting his mind from 'legelimens' invasion by Voldey (the reasoning being if Harry can read Voldey's thoughts then the door will work both ways, and Voldey may figure that out - as such Harry must learn to defend himself from Voldey what with Voldey being the most powerful mind invader/reader/controller of all time).

In the scene in the book, Harry enters his private lesson with Snape to witness Snape in the act of syphoning off some of his memories into the Pensieve (why is unexplained, but we already know that Dumbley often does this to help him concentrate clearly on a task at hand). Later Harry is piqued with curiosity and he snoops on Snapes memories held in the Pensieve, this is the flashback scene where he sees Snape being tormented and bullied by his father's gang of chums (thus explaining Snapes' hatred for his father).

In the film however, the flashback is provoked by Harry getting angry with Snape during his lesson and casting a Legilimens spell at Snape. He spirals into Snape's mind where the scene is revealed.

As I said above, such a rewriting of the scene makes a nonsense of Snapes role as Dumbley's secret agent working next to Voldey - his powerful ability to protect his mind from invasion being the very reason he's able to risk doing such a dangerous job. As we also know that Harry is supposed to be lazy and crap at such magic, it's a doubly nonsensical rewrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 03:45 PM

Ahhhh - OK. Wish I had a memor-thingy like I used to have in the old errr whassits...

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Brian May
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:24 PM

It was wonderful entertainment and frankly I've had more than my money's worth in fun.

I read the books, I watched the films and loved it. Sheer escapism and God knows we could do with some of that.

Well done JKR, when do you fill in those 19 years . . . ?

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Sooz
Date: 20 Jul 11 - 03:59 AM

I've read the books and watched the films when they were old enough to be on TV but I wouldn't say I was a fan. However, I have recently discovered the audio-books read by Stephen Fry. His range of voices and expression brought the stories to life far better than the films (IMHO!)

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jul 11 - 10:04 AM

I read them [the early books] to my son when he was learning to read. After that, he got the books as they came out and we read them together. We concentrated on the words and their flow. Quite enjoyable that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 11 - 11:04 AM

The film was crap. I saw it in 3D IMAX 70mm but the left eye projector quivered the entire film with micro second black outs.

The movie however was wonderful suspensful memorable nostalgic and emotional. With tight lips and and a tear, we said goodbye to an era of delightful fiction of importance.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 20 Jul 11 - 11:58 AM

I saw the film last night, and was annoyed at a couple of the scenes where they changed from the book. Then my son (who's 20 and has seen the film twice now) pointed out that this, the last film, was shot for 3-D, and many of the changes were made to take advantage of the 3-D effect. So when Neville Longbottom kills the snake, Nagini, it's done when the snake is attacking Hermione and Ron, not while Voldemort is belittling Neville in front of the school. In the book, that was the satisfying part of Neville's change from klutz to Gryffindor hero; in the film, it's just more action.

And we noted that Percy's change of heart is left out, too. Not good. Just as that they cut Dudley's change in the first half of the two-part "last book" film, they left out character development that is central to the complete book. Two different times, they take out character's growth and leave them hanging, in arrears, as it were, when it wouldn't have been that hard to keep them in. So Neville, Dudley, and Percy are all given short shrift, and the theme of change of heart and forgiveness or growth (in Neville's case) are just snipped from the stories.

And, to mention another missing person, where was Bill during the battle? There at shell cottage in the opening, missing in the climactic scenes at the end (where he lost a brother). Odd.

And how did Goyle (or Crabbe, I can't remember) change to an African student? All those movies where Malfoy's buddies are two bumbling white guys, and now one of 'em is black? Weird casting. The continuity department fell asleep on that one.

Okay, quibbles aside, it was a good film. I in particular liked the back-story on Snape, with his memories in the pensieve (having them come out in tears was hokey, though). At least they kept one of the character-growth themes of the books intact.

The show-down between Harry and Voldemort was not as tense as in the book, and Harry's demolition of Voldemort's "elder wand scheme" was too abbreviated. They could have made that much more forceful, as it shows Harry almost visibly becoming the stronger of the two as he goes through the 'master of the wand' chain that shows that Harry is the true master of the wand in Voldemort's hand. AND he didn't taunt you-know-who with Snape's role, another example of taking V down a notch that's in the book but not the film.

It looks like I'm kvetching, and I'm not, but then... Okay, it's a good film, but not a great film. It follows the book enough (and the book, of all the series, is the weakest, being all exposition and keep-the-action-going) and stands up. I'll surely see it again, and will also surely buy the DVD. But I will still see where they could have done it better.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jul 11 - 07:54 AM

I'm waiting until the 'Directors Cut' of all the DVDs are out and then having a Harry Pooterthon. In fancy dress. I am sure someone in the film dresses as a Nun...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jul 11 - 04:41 PM

As I recall, the horcruxes were each destroyed differently. The fire destroyed the diadem, not the snake's tooth, and I don't remember the goblet, but it seems to me they simplified the horcrux part of the book story for the benefit of the film story. And for all of the bigger name stars who were there for brief appearances as a reminder of their roles in the story before, I think they should have defaulted to some of the characters who were more important to this particular story. Also, I remember when Mrs. Weasley killed of Bellatrix, in the book she took on more the demeanor of a warrior, and wasn't just a pissed off mom. But maybe I'm elevating that - that family of characters were shaved way down in this last movie.

I'll have to reread the book.

I saw both the 2D and 3D (because I could - they were shown back to back in different rooms in the same theater) and I can't say that there was enough in the 3D version to cause a preference for the format.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: keberoxu
Date: 30 May 16 - 06:41 PM

Television marathons of the Harry Potter films over the holiday weekend. My first look at the very last of the films.

My instincts were good years ago, it seems, when I decided against going to any more of the films at the cinema. There were two films, not saying which ones, in the middle of the Harry Potter cycle, which I enjoyed in the cinema, they were entertaining there, and one of them -- again, not saying which one -- really was a work of art. Things changed, though, in the course of the film cycle.

The books I enjoyed regardless, and still do. It's different with the films somehow. Now that I've seen that last film, I won't go out of my way to view it again, in fact will probably steer away from it should I encounter it again.

I couldn't help recalling, in front of the broadcast on television last night, that Daniel Radcliffe, years after the fact, admitted that he got through the last two maybe three of the movies by drinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: mkebenn
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:45 AM

keberoxu, Prisoner and Goblet? Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:50 AM

We've got the Blu-ray boxset sitting on a shelf gathering dust.....

We already watched 4 or 5 of the movies when they were broadcast on TV, and I fell asleep through at least 2 of 'em..

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: keberoxu
Date: 31 May 16 - 09:32 AM

Got it in one, mikebenn. It's wussy to admit this, but in the Sorcerer's Stone, film One, that darned chess game was miserable to watch, I just wanted the slo-mo to stop and get the game overwith -- and it was supposed to be spectacular.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 31 May 16 - 12:11 PM

The stories became more sophisticated as the protagonists in the novels grew older. I, also, find watching the first couple of films less entertaining than some of the later ones. It helps to have read all of the books, to fill in gaps in the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:00 PM

I've no intention of ever reading the books, even though I inherited a boxload of hardbacks from clearing a relatives flat
when she passed away.

Of the first 4 or 5 movies I've seen so far, the only one I thought actually worked as decent cinema was the one with a very intelligent time travel twist.
But that was probably due to employing a skilled and talented director, [spanish, or mexican.. something like that... ???]
rather than the hack who took over for the latter part of the series...???

I think it was an underground cave scene in Phoenix that really put me into a deep slumber...

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 May 16 - 10:19 PM

Read the first book. It's a gem. The rest is not necessary, not the movies nor the other books. But that first one is a delight.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Brian May
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 07:27 AM

Have joined all the Kindle versions together to be one big volume. I'm mid sixties and love the books . . . still.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:07 AM

This had the most effective 3D treatment of any 3D film I've seen.
The demise of Voldemort was horrifically satisfying.

(a reprise post)

I am about to tell you the most brave and scary moment I have ever had at the cinema. Of course it happened at the Goblet of Fire episode when Voldemort, for the first time, finally achieved his full size and powerful form on screen.

I attended the film with my son Robert and had great aisle seats near the front but behind the aisle that separated us from all the ultra close seats to the screen. At 13 Robert is a big boy. He does not have photographic memory but has the closest thing to eidetic memory of anyone I know. The world for Robert is a very literal place. One Halloween when the ladies at the dead end arranged a scary house that ended with lunging yelling witches, he ran screaming, as they remarked, louder than anyone that night. testing showed he was on the autism spectrum and "suffered" from hyperlexia which meant that he was reading and writing on the computer since he was 2 but did not speak aloud until he was 6.

At the theatre I was nervously eating popcorn as I have just witnessed Roundtail slice off his own hand and stab Harry for the blood unwillingly given. Just as the reanimated Voldemort draws his wand to attack the boys, Suddenly Robert appears by the aisle in a fully extended rapier thrust and yells in a full throated roar EXPERIAMUS!

The audience for the first three seconds were pulled into and out of the film with a gasp. I flinched but could not move. No one else had attempted to help Harry.

I sat through to the end feeling a little embarrassed, but proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: keberoxu
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 01:06 PM

Yes, Brian May....the BOOKS rather than the films. I love all the books as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 04:13 PM

So how different are the adult & kids versions of the books ?
and which do you prefer ?

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: EBarnacle
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:41 PM

There is no question that the books are easier to deal with. On the other hand we are not the movies' target audience. Note the time of year they were each released. While they were not Oscar material but they gave the kids something they could enjoy and allowed plenty of cross marketing with the books and toys.
Great movies, no. Saga, yes. Will be watched for a long time and presented to the next generation in some form, probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 10:56 PM

The books were written for children and adults, but they aren't easy reading books for small children. I read the first five books out loud, because we always read at bedtime (until the kids were in high school - a great family tradition!) Most kids could probably read them on their own at 3rd or 4th grade level, at least the first couple of books. The books grow in sophistication and length as the protagonists get older.

The difference in this series of books and other series (for example, the Jean Auel series about early mammoth-hunting Homo sapiens), is that Janet Rowling had the entire story plotted out when she started the first book. It was intended to be this series with all of these parts of the story. The Auel books were written after the first one was a huge success, but they wandered around and after about three of them I gave up. You couldn't call books 2-7 sequels, they were part of the original intended story. That gives a continuity that one doesn't always find in sequels.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: Brian May
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 02:05 AM

As far as I know, the only difference with the kids/adults books were the covers.

They are excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Deathly Hallows Part 2
From: keberoxu
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 12:38 PM

I agree: J. K. Rowling made no changes in the books themselves, bless her, not that I noticed. It was only in the packaging, marketing, and distribution that changes were made to target different consumers.