Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

Deathly Hallows: Part 1 better made than part 2

PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited June 2014 in General
While I do have to admit that I find part 2 much more entertaining to (re)watch than part 1, I have come to the conclusion over the years that part 1 is a better made movie. The CGI seems more polished for one thing, the direction is better and the pacing is more self-assured; Yates doesn't give a damn about boring younger audience members with lingering shots of characters doing nothing more than gazing into the horizon. The emptiness and sense of isolation is well-conveyed. Some shots linger on for a long time to convey the awkwardness of comical situations (for instance at Lovegood's house) or to emphasize the emotions of the scene, e.g. the close-up on Harry when Ron leaves and Hermione tries to convince him to stay. The situation is actually made far more impactful by showing Harry's reactions to it in a lingering shot with the action happening off-screen rather than cutting back and forth between the characters. Another lingering shot is a rather boring one in the tent when Harry is feeling down because he can't figure out why the golden snitch won't open. This shot is not only about the snitch, but about the lack of progression in general. The length of the shot strengthens the impact of progression when he later in the same shot comes one step closer to figuring it out.

In contrast, Part 2 is a bit rushed. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. Often it benefits from a brisk pacing, most especially during the battle scenes and horcrux hunt where it's all about forward momentum. The notion here is that time is running out. Harry even spells out to Minerva that all he needs is time if we didn't pick up on that from the atmosphere of the film already. The best example of this is the shot when Harry uses stupify on a death eater, runs up to Ginny, Neville reveals his feelings for Luna amidst the battle chaos and Ginny and Harry kiss before going different ways. There is certainly no time to lose as everything is at stake.

Similarly, the filmmakers have a huge burden on their shoulders, tying up all the loose ends and giving the entire series the satisfying conclusion it needs within less than two hours. For the most part, they do so wonderfully. Snape's death and memories are satisfying and feels like the emotional climax of the film along with Harry's walk to his "death". The gravitas of those scenes and how well-directed they are, unfortunately makes the third act pale in comparison. Hagrid's sudden introduction in the forest is jarring because they didn't have time to show him being kidnapped earlier on the film. Instead of sharing Hagrid's helplessness about Harry giving himself up, we are taken out of the moment for a second to question why he is held captive.

The limbo scene also feels a bit rushed plot-wise and lacks substance because it is such a vague scene, yet it slows down the film at a suspenseful point in the film and makes the pacing seem uneven. If they wanted to emphasize the vagueness and dreamlike qualities of it all, I think it would be better to chop it up and make it even more confusing. Maybe emphasize its dreamlike qualities with some jump cuts and move the scene as quickly as the Prince's tale when it comes to exposition. On the other hand, if the point of the scene was to give the audience a break before the climax and provide answers, they should have made it even longer and not be so vague about everything. There was certainly potential here to explain the Deathly Hallows, make Harry question why Dumbledore made everything so complicated and foreshadow the Elder wand allegience thing. Most importantly we got no explanation as to why Harry was able to come back to life or any sense of the future of the wizarding world resting on his shoulders. I feel that the main point of the scene should have been to emphasize the choice of selflessly returning to life to save everybody else or selfishly dying to be reunited with his parents. That's one of the reasons we saw them in the forest from a storytelling point right? I feel like Rowling partially put it in there in order to tempt Harry to do the easy choice rather than the right thing. I wouldn't go so far as to call the scene a waste of time. There are some great lines there and Gambon is great, but there was a lot of wasted potential because the filmmakers couldn't decide between those two approaches to the scene.

The most rushed part, however, is the aftermath. The cut from Voldemort disintegrating to Neville sitting in the Great Hall with Luna is jarring on almost every level. Is that the reaction the audience wanted from the characters to Voldemort's death? That's not a reaction to that event at all. If the point was to symbolize that people's love for each other kept them together through all the darkness or something to do with love winning over evil, shots of families or students hugging seems more fitting than showing someone sitting next to their crush. Basically my problem is how arbitrary the cut was. It seems like some time has passed between these two scenes, which is a weird directorial choice given its importance. There is no catharsis here; the audience wants a release of emotion (in this case relief) after such an overwhelming experience for the characters. Cheering and clapping is not what I want at all, just some acknowledgement of relief and gratefulness towards Harry. For some reason everybody ignores him when he is walking through the great hall. It's like they are thinking, "yeah, so he fulfilled his destiny. I guess he is not important anymore. It's tea time". The exhaustion on their faces was good though. The scene was good in itself, just out of place in the context of the film.

In the action department I also got the sense that a couple of scenes lack the necessary release or pay-off. In Bellatrix's vault, the tension is all there. The build-up is good as the objects multiply, but the resolution is awkward because it goes from the trio almost drowning in the objects to the door being open. Then it cuts to them getting out of there. It almost seemed a bit too easy. The shot of the door kills all the tension. If we on the other hand had been stuck with close-ups on the trio all the time, it would have given off a better sense of claustrophobia and heightened the suspense. Alas, it was rushed to conclusion, much like destruction of the horcrux in the chamber of secrets, which I feel was too easy to destroy in comparison to all the others. None of the action scenes in part 1 had the same problem. The Godric's hollow scene in particular had the perfect slow-burning tension and a satisfying pay off. Yates did, however, do a good job with the other action scenes in part 2. It's unfortunate, though, that the well-directed RoR scene was weakened by the terrible CGI. What happened here? It seems they ran out of time in finishing this film. The CGI in general felt a bit more polished in Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and the Half-Blood Prince.


In sum, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 may be the most compelling film of the two with the memorable moments and twists, but in terms of filmmaking I definitely think Part 1 is better made. It has better pacing and no major direction and CGI faults. Thanks for reading.


Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on

Comments

  • TheDoctorTheDoctor Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    I guess I would agree part 1 is better made, though part 2 does tell a better story. Part 1 would have been a lot better (probably the best in the series) if they hadn't sucked a lot of the heart, tension, and momentum out of a lot of it. On the other hand, part 2 had much more of those things, but was lacking in space, a proper emotional catharsis with voldemort's death, and all the stuff you mentioned. They kind of compliment each other in their contrasting strengths and weaknesses lol. With the exception of poa, we never really could seem to get the best of both worlds in the series

    On a slightly related note, it is harder and harder for me to see part 2 as it's own film. Feels more like a capstone to the entire series, which isn't really a bad thing.
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    Part 1 is raw af
    imageimageimage
  • JordyJordy Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭
    Did it really take 3 years to discover that? Haha, to me that has always been clear. However, they don't match the quality from the middle films (except 4).
    image
  • chesterchester Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jordy said:

    Did it really take 3 years to discover that? Haha, to me that has always been clear. However, they don't match the quality from the middle films (except 4).

    To me 5-8 were always better made movies than 1,2 and 4. PoA is an exception.

    imageimageimage
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jordy said:

    Did it really take 3 years to discover that? Haha, to me that has always been clear. However, they don't match the quality from the middle films (except 4).

    Middle films meaning 3, 5 and 6? I agree that the DH movies aren't as good as PoA, but I think they are slightly better than OotP and HBP.

    I recently rewatched the entire series and here is my ranking:

    1. PoA
    2. DH 1
    3. DH 2
    4. HBP
    5. OotP
    6. GoF
    7. CoS
    8. PS

    PS was honestly a chore to sit through this time. I actually find CoS slightly more engaging. Goblet isn't quite as bad as I remembered either.
  • JordyJordy Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    Yup recently rewatched them as well and I stayed with my original ranking, which is:

    1. POA
    2. OOTP
    3. HBP
    4. DH1
    5. DH2
    6. PS
    7. COS
    8. GOF
    image
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,950 mod
    edited June 2014
    Current order:

    1. PoA
    2. DH 1
    3. HBP
    4. DH 2
    5. OotP
    6. GoF
    7. PS
    8. CoS

    Prisoner will always be the "masterpiece" of the series. Both Half-Blood Prince and Order of the Phoenix get better with age for me, whereas both the Hallows films weather. But I still adore them.
    imageimageimage
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    I don't know that I would agree and this is why: they're two very different things, just like the book. One part is more solemn, more sublime and about the psychology of its characters and one part is the climax. I think in terms of those two differing equations that they're both about as good as one another. Part 1 is a terrific, slow character journey and Part 2 is a terrific but fast paced climax and finale. They both have fucking amazing filmmaking sensibilities and a number of moments and entire sequences that I personally feel still, to this day, continue to outshine most of what I've seen from Hollywood since.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    I've seen almost every action/adventure/summer/big budget film since Deathly Hallows, and IMO they're all total dogshit by comparison. The Avengers wasn't as good, neither was The Dark Knight Rises or Captain America 2 or whatever else there has been. Not even The Hobbit films, which I absolutely loved, didn't nail the pacing or care or vision that Yates had for each Deathly Hallows interpretation.
  • darthorcruxdarthorcrux Posts: 584 ✭✭✭✭
    Current order:

    1. DHP2 = DHP1
    2. HBP
    3. POA
    4. OOTP
    5. TSS
    6. COS
    7. GOF
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    I don't know that I would agree and this is why: they're two very different things, just like the book. One part is more solemn, more sublime and about the psychology of its characters and one part is the climax.

    Oh, I totally get that. I'm not saying that the pacing of part 1 is better because it's slower. It's better because it adds to the atmosphere of the film in a way that part 2 doesn't. I do agree that part 2 likewise benefits from being fast-paced in general, but like I said it felt more uneven to me. There were especially some scenes that felt rushed and lacked pay-off. This is a directorial mistake. Despite the fact that they are two completely different films, it cannot be ignored that I find the direction of part 1 to be stronger.

    In the end, however, it seems they almost ran out of time in finishing part 2, especially with the CGI. The scene in the RoR is cringeworthy. Hell, it looks more fake than the quidditch scenes in the first two films, which is inexcusable.
  • alexdridhpalexdridhp Posts: 627 ✭✭✭
    DH1 is more artistic but it lacks in joy while part 2 is both artistic (if you don't count the RoR and Bellatrix's death and some crappy effects) and entertaining !!!
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    First of all I consider them the same film considering that it was shot as one.

    Darthorcrux nailed it. No need for me to continue. The book gives off the exact same feel as the film.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    First of all I consider them the same film considering that it was shot as one.

    Alright, this is all semantics. Then I would say that the first half of the film is better than the last half. Feel free to disagree.
  • PatricierPatricier Posts: 253 ✭✭
    Question, whenever u all watch the movies, do u take the time to consider them as separate MOVIES without having read the books, or do u watch them as if checking off stuff that should be there, as to be honest DH2 had a LOT of plotholes and stupid things I noticed, more so than in any other HP and the other movies mentioned here. I mean in the opening scene it shows them having Bellatrixs wand and yet they do not explain why they cannot show the gringotts guards her wand. What was the point of showing us that! You should NOT have to read the book in order to understand what was going on. Also at Gringotts, Bogrod just stupidly stands there right out in the open in front of a freakin dragon and Griphook just leaves him there and they dont seem quick to rescue him, even to cast protego or some other spell to protect him. The Princes tale scene was confusing as heck to follow and I have READ the book a few times, so i really am curious as to whether or not non readers understood the scene. I personally do not get how DH2 got 96 % on RT, as plotholes aside, the whole movie feels empty and rushed, at times like the Tale scene like its a fan edited video than an actual movie. There is a lot mroe to a mvoie than just its story. Thez bring back all of these cahracters to have a proper emotional send off, and yet close to all are barelz even shown on screen, like I had NO idea that that was Oliver Wood flying in his cameo until I looked it up on the internet. Freds death was breathtaking how bad it was portrayed. He only gets 1 shot in the whole movie and they do not even show his death or release it as a deleted scene. U can clearly tell that for DH2 they did not care any more since its the last one and just made it short to make more money. yet, curiously freaking ROTK is 3 1/2 hrs long and it was the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time for a while, same with Dead mans chest which was the third, and freaking Avatar & Titanic, not to mention that Stone was longer than Dh2 & it was until it the hgihest grossing hp. I know all the other movies did not gross as much and were logner but this was the finale, WB wanted a desperate cash grab becuz close to all of their other movies have bombed and failed. If they had put as much effort into their other films as theey did HP and the Nolan films, then this predicament would not have happened.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭

    First of all I consider them the same film considering that it was shot as one.

    Alright, this is all semantics. Then I would say that the first half of the film is better than the last half. Feel free to disagree.
    So.... Do you like the first 2/3 of the book better than the last 1/3? Same thing basically
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One part is a mystery/thriller with character moments and one part is the huge warring finale. It's one thing and I love that one thing with all it's parts. I can't say I love one more than the other because it would be an unfair comparison.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    First of all I consider them the same film considering that it was shot as one.

    Alright, this is all semantics. Then I would say that the first half of the film is better than the last half. Feel free to disagree.
    So.... Do you like the first 2/3 of the book better than the last 1/3? Same thing basically
    That's completely irrelevant. I have already explained and given several examples why I think part 1 represents better filmmaking than part 2. I'm not talking about storyline at all here. Note: I also think part 2 has great filmmaking, but not quite up to the level of part 1.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If this was any other movie I would basically be saying that I thought the first half was better made than the last half. That's a perfectly valid objection.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    Patricier said:

    I mean in the opening scene it shows them having Bellatrixs wand and yet they do not explain why they cannot show the gringotts guards her wand.

    Well, Griphook explains that the guards are warned about imposters. If they had shown Bellatrix's stolen wand to the goblin (surely it's reported as stolen), they would have been exposed as imposters. The audience needs to pay attention and think logically.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    Patricier said:

    Also at Gringotts, Bogrod just stupidly stands there right out in the open in front of a freakin dragon and Griphook just leaves him there and they dont seem quick to rescue him, even to cast protego or some other spell to protect him.

    It was played for black comedy. I doubt non-readers had any problems with this moment whatsoever.

    I agree, however, that you should not have to read the book in order to understand what is going on. There are small adaptation problems with regards to assumed exposition throughout the entire series, but nothing too major. These films can still as a whole be understood by non-readers. It's not like it's rocket science. DH 2 was in that regard in line with the adaptation approach to the films from the very beginning; follow the book closely, include as many characters as possible and from PoA on add a few creative touches of your own. It was not always elegant adaptation, but we did get a solid series regardless.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    How could Yates have just so happened to film the DH2 scenes worse than the DH1 scenes? Was it the cereal he ate those particular mornings?
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If they were properly edited into 1 film as they should be I don't think you could tell any difference.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    How could Yates have just so happened to film the DH2 scenes worse than the DH1 scenes? Was it the cereal he ate those particular mornings?

    Honestly, I don't give a fuck why, but the movie isn't made purely on the set. My objections are essentially about how the scenes are put together and in the context of the film. I expected more from the King's Cross scene in terms of content and I expected Yates to insert it appropriately into the film. Instead it feels out of place tonally. I wanted more suspense in Gringotts. I wanted better CGI in the RoR scene.

    And to clarify another thing, in no way did I say that ALL the scenes in part 1 are better than ALL the scenes in part 2. That's you putting words into my mouth. As a whole, however, I do think part 1 is better made, but you are basically implying I have no right to claim that one part is better made. What the actual fuck? It's not a law of nature that all the scenes in both parts have to be equally good just because they were filmed back to back.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    If they were properly edited into 1 film as they should be I don't think you could tell any difference.

    If it were one film, I'd simply point out those low points in the last half of the film, but nevertheless conclude it was one solid film. What's your point?

    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If they were properly edited into 1 film as they should be I don't think you could tell any difference.

    Did you know that Yates chose wider lenses for part 2? Yeah, I'm sure none of us would notice that if it was properly edited into one film.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    image

    Do you like the last 2/3 of the series best? Wrong answer cause they are all part of the same story. If someone had edited the entire series into one fucking long movie, I don't think any of you could tell any difference between the quality of the films.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Every problem you listed fall into the category of personal preference. I thought all three of those scenes were exactly in line with what Yates did on the entire film... Most people I know can't tell any difference in the two besides tone which is directly from the story, not Yates doing.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭

    image

    Do you like the last 2/3 of the series best? Wrong answer cause they are all part of the same story. If someone had edited the entire series into one fucking long movie, I don't think any of you could tell any difference between the quality of the films.


    This is invalid because there's multiple directors and teams involved with the whole thing... I'm telling you Deathly Hallows as one production was too similar to seperate them. You either liked the story from the first 2/3 of the film or last 1/3 better. You clearly prefer the first 2/3.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The point is that you're nitpicking. DH2 had a few problems and all of them happened when the story diverted from the book. It just so happens that the most changes made to DH the film come in the final 35 minutes.


    You may not like Kings Cross but it wasn't a DH2 thing. It fit in perfectly with what Yates had already done. That scene hadn't been properly set up in the previous parts of the story. There just wasn't time.

    Gringotts had tension, I don't know what you were watching?
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There's been a real surge of people here lately who want to put DH1 on this pedestal and talk shit about DH2. I'm here to tell you they are one in the same. If you want to say one is better than the other then you are just picking which parts of the story you liked better.

    From a film perspective they are one.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's ironic because people bitched about the first 2/3 of the book dragging and the same ones come back and talk about what a great film DH1 because of its character moments... Those character moments are great but they are there for one reason, to set up the grand finale. It's two ends of one string. One book. One film.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    It's ironic because people bitched about the first 2/3 of the book dragging and the same ones come back and talk about what a great film DH1 because of its character moments... Those character moments are great but they are there for one reason, to set up the grand finale. It's two ends of one string. One book. One film.

    I don't think it's ironic at all. The book dragged on and on in the middle section. Yates did a wonderful job adapting the tone from those scenes without making the film drag. It's deliberately slow, but not boring.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    image

    Do you like the last 2/3 of the series best? Wrong answer cause they are all part of the same story. If someone had edited the entire series into one fucking long movie, I don't think any of you could tell any difference between the quality of the films.


    This is invalid because there's multiple directors and teams involved with the whole thing... I'm telling you Deathly Hallows as one production was too similar to seperate them. You either liked the story from the first 2/3 of the film or last 1/3 better. You clearly prefer the first 2/3.
    I'm guessing you are one of those people who also consider the Lord of the Rings movies as one huge film. The only problem is that it's a chore to watch them all back to back, for me personally at least. I do have my favourite film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well, which is based on filmmaking aspects rather than just story preferences. I think it's quite rude of you to claim that the only reason I think part 1 is better is due to story preferences. If anything I prefer part 1 because of filmmaking preferences.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    There's been a real surge of people here lately who want to put DH1 on this pedestal and talk shit about DH2. I'm here to tell you they are one in the same. If you want to say one is better than the other then you are just picking which parts of the story you liked better.

    From a film perspective they are one.

    Oh no, I'm not talking shit about DH 2 at all.

    As for "picking which parts of the story you liked better" I will give you an answer to that: The break-in at Gringotts, Harry's doubts about Dumbledore and uncovering DD's past, Snape's memories, Harry's walk to his "death" and the conversation with Dumbledore in limbo were the best parts of the story for me. All those story elements except for Harry's doubts about Dumbledore were in part 2. Yet, I think part 1 is a better movie, which goes to show that your point doesn't necessarily apply to all people. The filmmakers didn't handle all of these aspects as well as I'd liked. Maybe there is some bias involved here as I expect more from my favourite parts, but in the end it comes down to the filmmakers' handling of it; the way they executed it. See? It's all about filmmaking, not story preferences.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭


    Gringotts had tension, I don't know what you were watching?

    It did have tension, but as I said:
    The build-up is good as the objects multiply, but the resolution is awkward because it goes from the trio almost drowning in the objects to the door being open. Then it cuts to them getting out of there. It almost seemed a bit too easy. The shot of the door kills all the tension. If we on the other hand had been stuck with close-ups on the trio all the time, it would have given off a better sense of claustrophobia and heightened the suspense. Alas, it was rushed to conclusion, much like destruction of the horcrux in the chamber of secrets, which I feel was too easy to destroy in comparison to all the others.
    I guess this is a filmmaking preference. I'm sure most people don't mind, but the rushed nature of both these scenes annoyed me. What's worst is that there was no proper pay-off to Voldemort's death. He died and that's it; no reaction, no sense of catharsis whatsoever. Meh. But if it worked for you, just ignore my complaints.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That scene hadn't been properly set up in the previous parts of the story. There just wasn't time.

    That's no excuse for handling that part of the movie poorly. If there weren't enough time, why not make the movie longer to set it up better? It wasn't even two hours long. It could easily have been half an hour longer unless WB forced Yates to shorten it.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't know much about how the LOTR trilogy was filmed but if it was one production then yea I don't think you can say one is a better film than the other. You basically just like different parts of the story better.

    Yes my point applies because film style is a preference. I know. I'm a Snyder fan. I've had these arguments before.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    DH didn't drag at all in the middle. The mysteries unfolded beautifully and I ate it up. I loved it. I love reading it.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't know much about how the LOTR trilogy was filmed but if it was one production then yea I don't think you can say one is a better film than the other. You basically just like different parts of the story better.

    It was one production, but of course you can say that one film is better than the other. Who are you to say otherwise?

    But you know what? Let's just drop it. Millions of people will have their preferences about which DH movie they like best for various reasons. It's a bit naive to conclude it's merely because of story preferences. The world is simply not that black and white. I, for one, don't pretend to know why you are a Snyder fan.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't know much about how the LOTR trilogy was filmed but if it was one production then yea I don't think you can say one is a better film than the other. You basically just like different parts of the story better.

    It was one production, but of course you can say that one film is better than the other. Who are you to say otherwise?

    But you know what? Let's just drop it. Millions of people will have their preferences about which DH movie they like best for various reasons. It's a bit naive to conclude it's merely because of story preferences. The world is simply not that black and white. I, for one, don't pretend to know why you are a Snyder fan.

    You probably know
    :ar!
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The truly ironic part of this debate is that I actually like DH1 much better than DH2 :D
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Harry/Hermione dance scene is one of my favorite scenes of all time, HP or not.
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • TheDoctorTheDoctor Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014

    It's ironic because people bitched about the first 2/3 of the book dragging and the same ones come back and talk about what a great film DH1 because of its character moments... Those character moments are great but they are there for one reason, to set up the grand finale. It's two ends of one string. One book. One film.

    I don't think it's ironic at all. The book dragged on and on in the middle section. Yates did a wonderful job adapting the tone from those scenes without making the film drag. It's deliberately slow, but not boring.
    It may be deliberately slow, but I don't think the criticisms about the camping scenes in the film are completely unjustified. They were very good atmospheric, character moments (and on a scene basis, some of the best in the series), but they were poorly incorporated into the story. The question "so what?" regarding the camping scenes was not really addressed satisfactorily. I posted a review of DH1 like a year ago and I still pretty much stand by it:
    I still find this film neither underwhelming or overwhelming. They just tried way too hard to stick to the book. I feel like they just weren't very ambitious or creative at all when adapting the book. What I mean by that is, in their faithfulness to the book, the chaos and danger the Wizarding World now represented was very underwhelming. They really could have used the visual advantage a movie has to effectively show how Voldemort had total power and how everyone was ultimately after Harry. Instead of keeping a constant sense of fear for the trio, the film merely presents it only when it's relative to the scene at hand. The intense importance of the trio's mission to the world at large is easily forgotten given that the film lets you forget just how much the Wizarding World has gone to hell under Voldemort. It's easy to see how the non book readers got frustrated watching Harry, Ron, and Hermione seemingly just hanging around in a tent. It's like the movie paused the action in order to develop the characters. This is in a sense true for both the book and the movie, but the movie didn't convey effectively that outside their little bubble in the tent there were people searching up and down the country for them to the point where even visiting a grocery store was a risk.

    I'm not saying there needed to be constant scenes of Death Eaters destroying stuff. Just, throughout the film, I would've liked some visual reminders: Hermione seeing wanted posters for both her and Harry at Godrics Hollow, Ron exclaiming how he would have know if they were dead because the Ministry was looking for Harry everywhere, a Death Eater attack (or some kind of close call) in the middle of the camping scenes), Death Eaters outside Grimmauld Place. Maybe some sort of announcement from the radio calling for anyone with information on Harry Potter's whereabouts to come forward (with the promise of a reward). Ooo, just thought of this, how about a radio announcement where they say something like "Harry Potter has been sighted in blah blah blah" and that's where the trio actually is, and they realize someone must have seen them and quickly pack and leave.

    Without this the film kind of feels like it's plodding along from set piece to set piece with some camping in the middle in order to develop the characters. However, the film shines in many of the individual set pieces it put out, including the camping where some of the most character charged drama in the series is seen. The opening and the Dark Lord Ascending are both sad and chilling respectively. Sky Battle is exciting, the scene in London has a good sense of urgency, the camping scenes are very effective when it comes to the trio, Ron destroying the locket is great, the Tale of the Three Brothers is fantastic and beautiful, and the little bit we got of Hermione's torture was very scary. Finally it ends with an awesome cliffhanger. Overally, it's probably in the middle tier of the series.
    Also I don't agree with every detail of this review but overall I think it is pretty good: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/defangedpotter.shtml
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    TheDoctor said:


    I'm not saying there needed to be constant scenes of Death Eaters destroying stuff. Just, throughout the film, I would've liked some visual reminders: Hermione seeing wanted posters for both her and Harry at Godrics Hollow, Ron exclaiming how he would have know if they were dead because the Ministry was looking for Harry everywhere, a Death Eater attack (or some kind of close call) in the middle of the camping scenes), Death Eaters outside Grimmauld Place. Maybe some sort of announcement from the radio calling for anyone with information on Harry Potter's whereabouts to come forward (with the promise of a reward). Ooo, just thought of this, how about a radio announcement where they say something like "Harry Potter has been sighted in blah blah blah" and that's where the trio actually is, and they realize someone must have seen them and quickly pack and leave.

    These are good ideas, especially the one about the radio announcement. It would explain why they are constantly moving around rather than staying at one place when they have no idea where to go next. I also think they shot a scene with a couple of Death Eaters outside Grimmauld Place. It was in the first sneak peek.
Sign In or Register to comment.