Harry Potter 7 (probable spoilers)

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Twilight is now selling more than Potter, which is inevitable considering the last book came out 3 years ago or so, and it will of course go into decline given the fact that the story has a clear and definite ending, but I'm not sure you should write it off just yet.  There is definitely great anticipation for the last films, and its also worth remembering the last films will be pretty adult.  Potter was designed to grow up with its readership, so the core Potter audience will be about 19 now.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Hmm - that's interesting. If it's not getting many new fans then presumably it'll become something just a certain generation goes on about and nobody else remembers and when they die Rowling will be almost entirely forgotten - like Edgar Wallace.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I think it's more likely to be like Star Wars would have been if the prequels had not been made.  Or like Monty Python today.  Well remembered and loved by its generation, known about by the generation after and with its fair share of fans, but gradually fading away.  Or it could well go the way of Lord of the Rings, and become a steady seller.  But yes, it'll be interesting to see how or indeed if it is remembered. 

Being outsold by Twilight doesn't mean it's not getting new fans though - just not at the speed it was.  Overall it has still outsold the Twilight series by over three hundred million books.  :-)

[Mister Six]

I do wonder whether the 'growing up with its fans' thing might harm its longevity, though. It's not like the kids of the future will have to wait a year between books, so how many 12-year-olds will make it to the fourth and fifth books before finding the overblown grimness a bit much, or the increasingly mature characters a bit alienating?

Not that I have a lot invested in this - I only read the first four books, and of those the third one is the only one that made me think it was anything more than a fairly well-written kiddies' adventure series.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I do wonder whether the 'growing up with its fans' thing might harm its longevity, though.

Yes, it's certainly possible.  It's one of the unique things about the books though, one of the reasons I find them so interesting.  It was a reaction to the fact that the Famous Five had something like 26 adventures (always in the school holidays, so 1 or 2 per year) without ever growing up, something which Rowling found extremely disturbing.  I don't think it's a marketing strategy, rather something that Rowling herself wanted to do.

Perhaps I've said this before, but I think I have an attachment to this series because I read the whole series back to back just after my mum died.  Being in a bit of a fragile state I went on to read a series that started light and easy, and gradually got darker and tougher until by the last couple of books it was surprisingly tough going.  (Other adults have agreed with me that the final book is really quite harrowing.)  The series is ultimately about death, its acceptance, its tragedy but also its importance in life.  So as you can probably imagine it had quite an effect on me at that time.  Perhaps it can't have the same effect on others as it did on me.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

That's not true about the Famous Five though - they do get older through the books, though at a decelerated rate.  Julian (the oldest) starts off aged 12 in the first book, and is 17 by the last book.

[CaledonianGonzo]

That's not true about the Famous Five though - they do get older through the books, though at a decelerated rate.  Julian (the oldest) starts off aged 12 in the first book, and is 17 by the last book.

Are you quite sure about that?

[Mister Six]

Yes, it's certainly possible.  It's one of the unique things about the books though, one of the reasons I find them so interesting.  It was a reaction to the fact that the Famous Five had something like 26 adventures (always in the school holidays, so 1 or 2 per year) without ever growing up, something which Rowling found extremely disturbing.  I don't think it's a marketing strategy, rather something that Rowling herself wanted to do.

Oh, sure, I can totally respect that. It's her artistic decision and I couldn't possibly argue with it. I was just wondering, based on the previous speculation in the thread, how the books would fare in the future.

I do think, though, that there will be a bit of a resurgence in 20-30 years' time as the people who read the books as kids will buy them for their children. I could see them becoming like Narnia in that regard.

Perhaps I've said this before, but I think I have an attachment to this series because I read the whole series back to back just after my mum died.  Being in a bit of a fragile state I went on to read a series that started light and easy, and gradually got darker and tougher until by the last couple of books it was surprisingly tough going.  (Other adults have agreed with me that the final book is really quite harrowing.)  The series is ultimately about death, its acceptance, its tragedy but also its importance in life.  So as you can probably imagine it had quite an effect on me at that time.  Perhaps it can't have the same effect on others as it did on me.

I'm sorry to hear that. Though I'm no fan of the series (aside from Azkaban, which I thought was great) I certainly understand how good literature can strike a chord with people. And yeah, it's good to have books that broach these subjects and give children a safe way to encounter these concepts before they have to go through them in life. I just wasn't sure how much the darker books would appeal to youngsters of the future, though I suppose if they've made it through the first four they'll be far enough in to see them through to the end.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Are you quite sure about that?

Yeah - I've been reading them to my child recently. There are 21 books over twenty years, and the kids age about five years over the course of them. So they age four times more slowly than real life.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I just wasn't sure how much the darker books would appeal to youngsters of the future, though I suppose if they've made it through the first four they'll be far enough in to see them through to the end.

Yeah, I think that by the time you've got through the first 4, you're either into it or you're not.  Book 4 is when Voldemort comes back and the first student is murdered. It's the point of no return, in effect, the point when the books (and the films) signal that this isn't going to be a cosy little world anymore, that things are going to get very nasty indeed.  The problem, if there is one, is that they are victims of their own marketing in that the growing readership issue isn't clearly stated (meaning people assume all the books are aimed at 11 year-olds), and that the later books are probably too tough for younger children.  If you're in your teens you're probably fine with them, but I've certainly heard cases of kids trying to read the later books and really getting quite traumatised by the events therein.  I think the reason is because Rowling makes it increasingly clear that no character is sacred, and will happily kill off anyone (including Harry himself) if the story requires it.  As a result you feel a real sense of jeapordy for the characters, but you also experience increasing mental trauma on the part of Harry himself, something that doesn't really come across in the films as well, but is very strongly felt in the books. 

Harry reaches the point of mental collapse more than once, and very keenly feels the deaths of those around him.  (This is of course very deliberate - Rowling is making the point that he is the antithesis of Voldemort, who feels nothing for those around him.  Harry's capacity for love is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness, one Voldemort ruthlessly exploits.  If he loves, if he cares for those around him, he can be hurt.  And he is.)

[Santa's Boyfriend]

BUMP!

Holy shit...  I've always had a thing for girls with short hair, but this is ridiculous...

[El Unicornio, mang]

"Can I have sex with this ten year old girl, now that she's 20?"

[mycroft]

She seems to have quite a keen Maori following, as well.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

"Can I have sex with this ten year old girl, now that she's 20?"

Ha ha!  Exactly!

The Empire review is in, and only gives it 3 stars, mainly complaining about its slow middle.  That bit was slow in the book, but then that was kind of the point - it's the point in which Harry is in hiding without a clue of what to do.

[hpmons]

Seriously? Its the best film.  I found most of the others utterly unmemorable, but I came away from this pretty impressed.  Its a messy, clumsy book and they dealt with it well.  Also the retelling of the Deathly Hallows tale is really nicely done.

Also, obvious lesbian scene with Bellatrix and Hermione.

[bitesize]

thought it was a bit bloody dull to be honest. but then, nothing much happens for most of the book either...

the animated deathly hallows bit was brilliant tho.

[jonno]

the animated deathly hallows bit was brilliant tho.

Highlight of the film for me, unfortunately. I did actually nod off a couple of times (it was an 11pm showing, in its defence).

[hpmons]

Eh, maybe I liked it because I barely remember the book?  So the information was almost new to me, and actually made sense.  I guess there is a lot of camping (like the first half of the book anyway), but that's much more tolerable on screen than in the book - the places they chose were lovely.  Also I guess the whole "Ron's insecurities" stuff was a little annoying, but that runs through all of the books, so its not something new (and that image of Harry and Hermione seemingly naked and kissing each others faces off was very amusing).  The trio's acting was (on the whole) much better than before, the music was gorgeous in some places (From what I recall, in some of the other films the music was somewhat jarring against the scene, even if it was nice).  The Ministry of Magic scenes were...a little predictable I guess (the "ooh, creepy totalitarian stuff"), but enjoyable.  So I think its a good version of a bad book.

The whole Dobby ending was really boring though.  Maybe because I had read comments of people who'd seen the film before me and were saying "zomg, Dobby dies! Its so sad!".

[VegaLA]

thought it was a bit bloody dull to be honest. but then, nothing much happens for most of the book either...

the animated deathly hallows bit was brilliant tho.

Yeah, that was the highlight for me too.
It, like the last HP film, was all too 'Twilight' for me, no different then sitting on the wall of any Highschool and listening to a bunch of kids yakking about what they did the night before, or last weeks school trip to Wales, what they ate, what was on TV, what so and so said about....

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Am planning to see it tomorrow, looking forward to it!

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Nobody else is bothering with spoiler things, so...

I really enjoyed that.  It rushes through the story, and certainly didn't feel as long as it was.  A very faithful adaptation of the book, with some really nice additions and very little lost or cut out.  (Kreacher still doesn't get much of a look-in, reducing the whole locket story to little more than an excuse to go to the ministry.)  I loved the whole Harry and Hermione dancing thing, and the animation is really nice too.

If there are problems with the movie, and I think there are, it's mainly that not enough is explained - to the point that some things seem overly convenient.  The friend I went to see it with laughed out loud when the sword made its appearance, for example.  I've read the book so I know that it's going to be explained (or at least I bloody well hope so), but even so.  But that's just the flaw of cutting a book in two - it's always going to feel a little unsatisfying.

It feels like a very different film to the others, anyway, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Robot DeNiro]

Having seen most of the other films for, erm, professional reasons, I thought I'd go and see this one (and the one after it) in an attempt to get some closure.

My god it was boring.  And the bits that weren't boring I didn't understand.  What were they supposed to be doing in the woods?  They didn't seem to be looking for anything, or to have any sort of plan, they were just wandering about looking moody in (admittedly) lovely scenery.  For AGES.  The explanation of how Ron found them again was very unsatisfying, as was the sudden discovery of the sword.  Why did they go to that village, and what was the deal with the old woman who turned nasty?  There was far too much talking about people and places without explaining who or where they were, or how they related to each other. 

Has anyone else seen it without reading the book first?  And did they have a clue what was going on?  Or am I just thick?

Plus there was nowhere near enough Snape in it, he's by far the best thing about these films.  There'd better be a lot of Snape in Part 2.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I agree that Snape is one of the best things in the films, and I would have liked to see more of him in there - but if you heard the bit on the radio, it announced that he'd taken over as headmaster at Hogwarts, which is why he isn't in most of the film.  (It also means Hogwarts has fallen to Voldemort of course.)

What were they doing in the woods?  Running.  They didn't have any sort of plan, and that was kind of the point, they were simply trying to evade capture.  They're in absolute despair for most of the movie.  They're just 3 people against an evil army, there's very little they can do, and they have no idea what the other horcruxes are or where to find them.

The discovery of the sword doesn't make any sense, and is a major flaw in the movie.  It's one that will be explained in the second half, but the fact that they don't seem to concerned about it is a weak point, as you're left to think that it's simply poor writing.

How Ron found them again is important as it suggests that Dumbledore had more insight of what was likely to happen than anyone realised.  He didn't give the wotsit to him to turn off lights, he gave it to him so he could find his way back when he walked out.

They went to Godrick's Hollow to look for clues, thinking Dumbledore might have hidden the sword there for them to find.  The woman Batilda Bagshot, an old childhood friend of Dumbledore's as mentioned by someone at the wedding party as the source for Rita Skeeter's book.  Reading between the lines, Voldemort needed to leave someone in Godrick's Hollow because he knew it was one place Harry might go to - being the place his parents lived.  So he killed Batilda, and placed his snake Nagini in her skin, to wait for Harry.  That's why she didn't speak in front of Hermione, because when she spoke snake language Hermione would have realised immediately, but Harry wouldn't.  (In films 1 and 2, Harry speaks snake language without actually realising he's doing it.)

They did explain everything that hadn't been explained before, I think their reasoning is that if you haven't seen the previous films you won't have much of a clue as to what's going on anyway - if you have seen the previous films, you'll know who everyone is.

[Robot DeNiro]

Thanks for explaining all that, but I do think most of those points were quite unclear.  Batilda Bagshott was mentioned at the wedding, but so were lots of other people, and all the characters in Potter seem to have names like Bertrude Bogbins, so it does get confusing.  Plus I got the impression that Skeeter's book on Dumbledore was a bit of a hatchet job (which wouldn't be out of character) so I assumed that, as she was the source for the book, Batilda had always been evil.

Another thing that wasn't made clear was the significance of the initials R.A.B.  I've just looked it up on Wikipedia so I understand now, but at the time I didn't have a clue what was going on with the first locket.  It's been almost a year since I watched the 6th film, would it have killed them to do a little re-cap to bring the casual viewer up to speed?  I enjoyed some of the other films without having read the books, particularly the ones with Imelda Staunton and Jim Broadbent, but I felt this one made absolutely no concessions to people who weren't already intimately familiar with the material.

How Ron found them again is important as it suggests that Dumbledore had more insight of what was likely to happen than anyone realised.  He didn't give the wotsit to him to turn off lights, he gave it to him so he could find his way back when he walked out.

Ah, the archetypal "a wizard did it" explanation.  Not very satisfying, but I guess you've got to expect a few of those in a Harry Potter film...

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Thanks for explaining all that, but I do think most of those points were quite unclear.

Pleasure!

Batilda Bagshott was mentioned at the wedding, but so were lots of other people, and all the characters in Potter seem to have names like Bertrude Bogbins, so it does get confusing.  Plus I got the impression that Skeeter's book on Dumbledore was a bit of a hatchet job (which wouldn't be out of character) so I assumed that, as she was the source for the book, Batilda had always been evil.

Yeah, it can be confusing.  And you're right to assume Skeeter's book is a hatchet job - but even hatchet jobs have to have sources.  There is much more about Dumbledore in the book, and although Skeeter's previously established character makes you aware that it is all rumour and hearsay, it's impossible to know how much is actually true.  It's a tenuous lead that they follow, but at the time they don't have anything other than tenuous leads.

Another thing that wasn't made clear was the significance of the initials R.A.B.  I've just looked it up on Wikipedia so I understand now, but at the time I didn't have a clue what was going on with the first locket.  It's been almost a year since I watched the 6th film, would it have killed them to do a little re-cap to bring the casual viewer up to speed?  I enjoyed some of the other films without having read the books, particularly the ones with Imelda Staunton and Jim Broadbent, but I felt this one made absolutely no concessions to people who weren't already intimately familiar with the material.

That's actually something I quite like about this one.  It's largely about tying things up and ending the whole thing, so I think it's fair enough to assume you've seen the others - especially if it's the most successful franchise of all time!  I don't think you need to have read the books to make sense of it, the person I was with didn't and she followed it.  They did recap the R.A.B. bit anyway!  But yes it certainly told you to concentrate more than the other films.  But the films are getting gradually more mature and adult as they go along, which was the intention all along.  Is that a bad thing?  I don't think so, I think it's great.

The director, David Yates, was notable for making the audience work a little harder with his films than the previous directors.  He's much more of a show don't tell director, and will let you work stuff out for yourself at points.

Ah, the archetypal "a wizard did it" explanation.  Not very satisfying, but I guess you've got to expect a few of those in a Harry Potter film...

Yes there are quite a few annoying deus ex machinas in the Potter franchise, such as Hermione's time turner in film 3, and the silliest one of all, the liquid luck potion in the last film.  The latter particularly annoys me from a writing point of view, even though it is quite a fun scene.

[Ginyard]

I spent half of the film pretending my coke was a pensieve. What a yawn fest.

[Turgid Bosun]

Did anybody else see a bit during the escape from the ministry of magic in which one of the pursuers is shrouded in the swirling posters? When I watched it I was convinced this was a nod to Brazil, but now I'm starting to wonder whether I imagined it.

[hpmons]

Did anybody else see a bit during the escape from the ministry of magic in which one of the pursuers is shrouded in the swirling posters? When I watched it I was convinced this was a nod to Brazil, but now I'm starting to wonder whether I imagined it.

I remember that, though I don't remember it in Brazil.  I do remember thinking about Brazil throughout the Ministry of Magic scenes, but I couldn't think why.

[All Surrogate]

Possibly the moment when a minister passes by followed by a gaggle of attendants, a brief allusion to the Information Retrieval scenes with Ian Richardson in Brazil:

(2 minutes in)

Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985) - Information Retrieval

"No, in triplicate!"

And the final scenes of Brazil, with Tuttle being dispatched by paper at 5 min 40 sec:

Brazil - The Ending

[sirhenry]

And the final scenes of Brazil, with Tuttle being dispatched by paper at 5 min 40 sec:

Which in turn was based on portraits by a surrealist photographer (possibly Man Ray) of people completely covered in paper (usually crumpled up balls of the stuff).