Burning Questions: Answers for the casual 'Harry Potter' fan on 'Deathly Hallows -- Part 2'


Image Credit: Jaap Buitendijk

If the last time you read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was the weekend it hit bookstores, you may have scratched your head a few times while watching Deathly Hallows — Part 2. Here, a few burning questions answered.

1. Who was Ron supposed to be when they broke into Gringotts? In the book, it’s made clear that they only have enough Polyjuice Potion for one person. Therefore, Hermione simply reworks some of Ron’s features, which is why he’s still recognizable. Had he introduced himself in the film, he’d have been fictional foreigner Dragomir Despard, a Dark Lord sympathizer who doesn’t speak much English and traveled from Transylvania.

2. What was the lotion/potion Hermione put on their hands when they emerged from the water after using the dragon as their getaway ride? In the book, there are two curses on the objects in Bellatrix’s vault. If you touch them they multiply — and they burn you. She uses essence of dittany to regrow skin on their hands. They didn’t mention heat in the movie, perhaps because if their hands were blistered, their faces would have been, too, and no one wants that.

3. What’s the story with the Dumbledore sister Ariana again? They didn’t go into details about what happened between the Dumbledore brothers in the movie (Harry said he had no interest in it — he trusted Albus). Aberforth only said Albus sacrificed many things on his quest for power and gave their Ariana everything but time. In the book, we learn Ariana was attacked by three Muggle boys while doing magic when she was six. It destroyed her. She wouldn’t use magic again, but she couldn’t get rid of it — “it turned inward and drove her mad.” Their father went after the boys and got locked up in Azkaban. He couldn’t say why he did it, because the Ministry would have considered unstable Ariana a threat to the International Statute of Secrecy. Their mother and Aberforth took care of her while Albus focused on his magic. At 14, Ariana killed her mother in an accident. Albus became head of the family. But then Grindelwald entered the picture and became Albus’ partner in the search for the Hallows and creating a new Wizarding order. Aberforth was due to return to Hogwarts, and a fight broke out when he tried to explain to his brother that Albus wouldn’t be able to care for Ariana on his adventures. Grindelwald didn’t like that. He and Aberforth drew their wands. Albus tried to stop Grindelwald and all three dueled. Ariana, who couldn’t handle the lights and bangs, tried to help, and one of their wands killed her.

4. Where was Draco’s buddy Crabbe? Why wasn’t he the third wheel when Goyle and Draco went into the Room of Hidden Things? The actor who played Crabbe, Jamie Waylett, confessed to growing pot in 2009 and didn’t return for the film. Therefore, Goyle (Josh Herdman) had to be the one to succumb to the flames, instead of Crabbe (as in the book), because it would have meant next to nothing if the Other Slytherin Draco had grabbed along with Goyle died. (Per our readers, that Other Slytherin is Blaise Zabini, played by Louis Cordice.)

5. What’s the difference between the Room of Requirement and the Room of Hidden Things? They are one in the same, really. In the book, everyone must be out of the Room of Requirement (where Dumbeldore’s Army had made its makeshift barracks) before it can transform into the Room of Hidden Things.

6. How did Hagrid get with Voldemort and the Death Eaters? In the movie, we don’t see Hagrid until he’s being held captive by Voldemort’s Death Eaters in the Forbidden Forest. In the book, Hagrid, Grawp (his giant half-brother), and Fang (Hagrid’s dog) show up at the castle to fight before Harry finds the diadem. He gets caught up in a swarm of spiders retreating to the Forbidden Forest, which must be where the Death Eaters grab him. Capturing him so he’ll be there to carry Harry Potter’s dead body back to the castle — that’s some planning!

7. If I say, “Technically, Harry died,” am I wrong? Allow me to just copy and paste my dissertation from our Summer Movie Body Count update. While some would argue that Harry technically died in the Forbidden Forest, J.K. Rowling isn’t one of them. In the FAQ on her website, she writes, “When Voldemort attacks Harry, they both fall temporarily unconscious, and both their souls — Harry’s undamaged and healthy, Voldemort’s stunted and maimed — appear in the limbo where Harry meets Dumbledore.” She goes on to explain, “Voldemort is also using the Elder Wand — the wand that is really Harry’s. It does not work properly against its true owner; no curse Voldemort casts on Harry functions properly; neither the Cruciatus curse nor the Killing Curse. The Avada Kedavra curse, however, is so powerful that it does hurt Harry, and also succeeds in killing the part of him that is not truly him, in other words, the fragment of Voldemort’s own soul still clinging to his. The curse also disables Harry severely enough that he could have succumbed to death if he had chosen that path (again, Dumbledore says he has a choice whether or not to wake up). But Harry does decide to struggle back to consciousness, capitalizes on Lily’s ‘escape route’, and pulls himself back to the realm of the living.” So while Harry was prepared to die and thought that’s what he was doing, he didn’t. The part of Voldemort’s soul that lived in Harry and turned him into the Horcrux Voldemort never intended to make, did. In cleaner-than-King’s Cross limbo, that was the bloody baby-sized creature Dumbledore said they could do nothing for now.

8. What kind of charm was on Harry’s glasses so they didn’t get one scratch during the Battle of Hogwarts, and yet, there was blood around his eyes behind them? I suspect a combination of the Impervius charm Hermione once used on Harry’s glasses to make them water-repellent and a lot of silent Oculus Reparos.

If you have a burning question, ask it in the comments. Others are happy to help/debate.

Read more:
EW’s ‘Harry Potter’ Central
PopWatch polls: How many times did ‘Deathly Hallows — Part 2′ get you misty, give you chills?
‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2′ recap: War, Death, and Snogging
Summer Movie Body Count: ‘Harry Potter’ and the Murky Mortality Muddle
EW’s 50 Most Vile Movie Villains

Comments (483 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 8
  • Asha

    The real question, Why did Narcissa Malfoy have two toned hair?! Why not one or the other? In the book she is blonde like Lucius and Draco, in the movie it’s like they are trying to lead you to the fact that she is Bellatrix’ sister by making half of her hair dark brown. WTF?! This puzzler always effed up her scenes for me.

    • Katie

      haha! After my mom saw the movie she commented that she liked how Narcissa wasn’t really taking care of herself anymore because her blond hair was growing out to her natural color. I explained to her that apparently thats something Narcissa wants, as it was that way in the 6th one as well.

    • red

      Narcissa was a part of the Black family as well as the Malfoy family thats why her hair is two toned so you got it right with the sister thing

      • nicole

        she wasn’t born a malfoy red…

      • Derrick

        um she married a Malfoy. So she cant take on their characteristics, she wasnt born one, she married int them.

        then again, Love seems to do alot of things in this series, Snape was able to get the patronus of Lily from pure love, maybe Narcissa got here mixed hair color from her love for her husband.

      • allobidallo

        Here’s a question I’ve asked since reading the first book. Do they learn other subjects at Hogwarts besides magic? How about math? Spelling? Social Studies? Science?

      • Dnja

        @Allobidallo, they didn’t need to learn those things. Obviously they had some kind of home schooling where they learned to read and write (as they all know how to do so). I also thought that they learned basic math at home and then if the subject called for it (Arithmancy) they learned more advanced math. In terms of science they learn biology (herbology and Care of Magical Creatures) and chemistry (potions). I just think they learn the same things with different end uses.

      • petuniafromhell

        i don’t think we should look much into it, in all the books is blond, totally different from her sisters..this is just Warner Brother ruining everything again.

      • Laura

        @derrick, i thought most pure blood wizards and witches HAD TO marry other pure bloods? xd
        But that shouldnt mean she doesnt love him

    • Douglas

      Narcissa liked the “Bride of Frankenstein” look, being wed to a monster herself. Also, I see two-toned-hair on women all the time. Never for a second occured to me to wonder about it, as it is far from unusual.

      • Swarles Barkley

        Where do you see two toned hair all the time? I haven’t seen it in wide use since the 90’s. I always wanted to know the answer to the two tone question too! Why?

      • Spritney

        Swarles Barkley-Since the movies technically take place in the 90’s, two toned hair would be in style and common.

      • Sara

        Two toned hair is pretty prevalent in the southern and midwestern parts of the United States, Swarles Barkely. It looks awful…but they do it anyway.

      • Nikki

        @Sara, what part of the south are you visiting?? “they” do it anyway? Like we are all waiting in line at Maw’s Cut and Stuff for the “two-toned” look?

      • Maddy

        I actually thought it look incredibly cool. I too think the hair refers to both the House of Black and the Malfoys. Honestly, I’ve seen witches and wizards look far worse, I thought that in the magical world of HP, her hair really wasn’t the most upsetting thing. Plus, the actress was perfectly cast as well.

    • Pottericia

      Tonks was the niece of Bellatrix and Narcissa,her mom’s sister. Tonk’s hair kept changing colors since she was a baby. Maybe Narcissa’s just stayed two toned.

    • Rush

      Is EW trying to be Cracked.com?

    • David

      Maybe she was having conflicts between the hate and evil of Voldemort and for the love of her son and husband.

    • Chase

      Could someone, anyone explain the Doe’s to me….

      • Lisap

        As in the patronus? It’s form takes on feelings of the witch/wizard (as an example, Tonks’s changes to look like a werewolf when she falls in love with Lupin).

        The importance of them is that Lily’s was a Doe and Snape’s is a Doe because he still loves Lily. This is important 1) b/c is hows Dumbledore his loyalty still lies with Lily and 2) tells us who helped Harry find the sword.

    • Madame Royale

      well it is simple really when you look at it. she represents two pure blood houses. the house of black which traditionally has dark haired beautys aka sirus, Andromeda etc and the malfoys who have blond hair. although it looks retarded i see what the movies was trying to puut forward

    • Maddy

      Maybe it’s also not to cause any confusion in the movies; if Lucius and Narcissa would both have the same hair, it would be hard to distinguish from one another? Again, I think she looked fantastic and was verrrry happy with this portrayal of one of my favorite characters!

    • Cade

      Her hair looks incredible like that. it’s my favorite part of here character. Give it a rest.

  • Traci

    love #8 very funny!

    • Geek

      #9 I haven’t read the books, so this may seem like a really dumb question. If killing the horcruxes kills Voldy, then why doesn’t he die right after Nagini dies? He kinda collapses for a moment and then goes back dueling with Harry soon after. And then his wand collapses and he turns to ash. Was he already dead pretty much and it was his final attempt? Or did Harry’s spell kill him? (which doesn’t make sense since the spell he was using was relatively harmless…)

      Some have told me that part of Voldy’s soul was in his actual body as well as in the other horcruxes… which I don’t really get because I don’t remember part of Voldemort’s soul being put into the brew that Peter Pettigrew concocted to create his body in Goblet of Fire. Help :P

      • Susan

        What was left of Voldemort, including the last fragment of soul, was put in the cauldron in Goblet of Fire — the new and “improved” Voldemort emerged.

      • benngie

        Killing the horcruxes doesn’t kill Voldy. Voldemort ripped his soul into 7 parts = 7 horcurxes (locket, book, cup, ring, diadem, nagini, Harry) There’s still the 8th part – himself. While at least one of the horcruxes is intact, that piece of his soul ties him to the earth, and he can’t “die” because a piece of his still “lives”. So, once all the horcruxes are destroyed, then Voldemort is mortal again, and can be killed.

      • benngie

        That’s also why Harry has to “die” – so that the horcrux inside him is destroyed.

      • Mindiree

        technically Voldermort split his soul into 7 pieces including the one remaining inside him. He didn’t intentionally make harry a horcurx. So really there was only 1/2 or part of a horcurx left in him when nagini died since the other, not intentionally horcurx died when he “killed” harry in the forest.

    • Grannie Panties

      I don’t understand why Harry couldn’t see thestrals until the fifth book. I mean in the books it clearly states that he saw is mum die right before his eyes

  • J.

    I wish everyone would quit calling him “the other Slytherin”. It’s Blaise Zabini.

    • O’Brien

      Word. Thank you so much for saying this.

      • AcaseofGeo

        How do you KNOW its Blaise Zabini? And I’m asking that for real. How do you konow it? Did Draco call out his name?

      • Swarles Barkley

        Geo, he’s introduced in Half Blood Prince I believe.

      • MB

        This isn’t Zabini’s first appearance.

      • Mr. Holloway

        Yeah, the first time I remember seeing him is on the Hogwarts Express in “Half Blood Prince” when Harry is spying on Draco and friends under the Invisibility Cloak.

    • Mr. Holloway

      What I don’t fully get is the notion that killing Goyle (because Crabbe wasn’t there) instead of Zabini was more significant.

      I mean, I guess it’s significant if you think killing a C-list character is more meaningful than killing a D-list character, but not exactly a tragedy either.

      • O’Brien

        Good point. I mean, when it happened, I kind of thought it was just to point out to the reader that they kids H/R/H’s age were dying, too. Just to add emphasis to the point.

      • James D

        It wouldn’t have had as big an effect on the audience if they killed off Blaise. Blaise made only a quick appearance in one other film whereas Goyle has been in the series since the beginning. There’s more of an emotional impact by killing off Goyle, even if it wasn’t that big.

      • Mr. Holloway

        @ James D

        I hear what you’re saying…but I honestly didn’t care that Goyle died…not even a little bit.

        (Mostly, as O’Brien said, it was jarring to see a “kid” fall to a horrible, fiery death.)

    • z

      I suggest Token

    • Douglas

      THAT bothers you? THAT? With all the things on earth to be bothered by, you are bothered by people calling a character they have no idea of the identity of “The Other Slytherin”? Empty life much?

      • Madame Royale

        I know as a fan of the books i make it a point to note every character introduced. he is blaise and he is not the other slytherin. there are five boys in every house per year. Draco Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Blaise and Draco’s equal Theodre Nott. Theo is mentioned only rarely in books 1,2,5, and 6. but even still i know that his father is a DE and he is of a pure blood family. considered much smarter and cunning than Draco but keeps to himself. why would jk plan her characters even minor ones with such detail if she didn’t want the readers to care and invest time in them

  • Lili

    Thank you for this, Mandi! I was one of those people who devoured the Deathly Hallows the weekend it came out and had forgotten so much. My head was spinning!

  • Louis Cordice

    Yes thank you! But I don’t mind being called “the other Slytherin” either. At least I am being referred to at all in this movie!

    • rebecca


    • caroline lamb

      do you plan to continue acting?

  • Gina Vera

    Let me tell you if we didn’t have the books as reference there would be as many holes in the HP movies than in the Transformers movies. The HP story is too intricate to make it all make sense. The viewers have to have a leap of faith to take what is being presented as a story line. And there lies the reason HP will never will an Oscar.

    Cool recap and all the great EW around HP!

    • Amy

      I agree. This is also why the movies lack the emotional depth of the books. Regardless, I still enjoyed the movies.

      • Sue Ann

        That’s exactly how I feel Amy. So very many details and plot lines were left out, I almost wish they would have refashioned the breaks between books and made a series of 10 movies. With lots of back-to-back filming! I suppose that’s the sacrifice the studio made to avoived being called “too GREEDY!” But I agree…without the books to fill in the many gaps and un-clear resolutions, or important omissions – it’ a shame. I enoyed the movies – but if you really want to know and understand the entire Potter lore…start with Book One, and keep on reading. If you enjoyed the movies, you won’t regret it.

      • SueP

        well put, Amy and Sue Ann. I would not have wanted to watch the movies without having read the books though… too much was left out or changed.

      • Michelle

        Or you can just enjoy the movies as they are and the books as they are and stop comparing everything.

      • Kevin

        Any time a book is translated into a movie, your going to lose some of it meaning. Its the same when you translate between languages. Unfortunately it is probably impossible to put everything from a book into the movie. Some stuff is more interesting because you have to interpret it without a visual reference and wouldn’t be as captivating on a screen.

    • Mike

      Of course…the people that haven’t read the books are probably also not looking at each scene with a fine tooth comb for details and trying to piece the whole thing together. So, for the casual viewer, it probably isn’t as noticeable. But I agree with you, since I have read the books (read 1-6 before movie 4 and then 7 when it was released)…There have been things that disappointed me in each movie. Scenes Cut, modified etc… But in the end I got over them. This was the first movie where I didn’t really have many complaints. I thought they covered a lot of the book. If they changed stuff, most of it made sense. Basically Harry/Voldy not fighting in great hall is my biggest disappointment, but I still enjoy what they did. I don’t think the movie will win a Best Picture Oscar either…”MAYBE” it will get a nod just for its achievement over 8 films. But,I would guess that’s only if they decide to have more than 5 nominees.

      • Alice

        I agree that the Harry/Voldy fight should have been in the Great Hall. And I’m disappointed that they changed the scene where Neville kills the snake and that Harry tells Hermione and Ron that he’s going into the forest.

      • Jaime

        I agree that this was the first movie where I didn’t pick it apart, even though I did read the book a week before Part 2 came out. I even waited until Thursday before to see Part 1, because I’m not a very patient person (I hate “to be continued” shows!)

        Half Blood Prince was the worst in the “not following the book” story lines.

        Deathly Hallows was great, and it tied everything up nicely, and I’ve read the series over and over and over again in the last 13 years!

      • Lisap

        I have rewatched all the movies since 7.2 came out (by all I mean 3 on since I have decided for my own sake to completely disregard the first 2). Other than the third (which I have always considered my favourite and stopped me from giving up on the franchise) I always had problems with the movies because of the way things were shortened or changed for the movies.

        Having rewatched them, I realize the problem was that I had the books in my head far too much, the changes bothered me less when there were several year gaps between reading the books and watching the movie. Remembering all the details and noticing every little or big change was what kept me from liking them in the first place. And, honestly, there is no way to make the movies without changes.

      • dustin4343

        Ppl that read the book always feel so accomplished for doing so. It takes a long time and they want the world to know they are a true fanboy or girl. I have never read a book, then watched the movie, then said the book was better because it never is. Movies rock and millions of dollars are put into them. More time is put into them as well. It would be like listening to a record, then a CD, then saying the record sounds better or more accurate. No it isn’t, you are just a fanboy. Or making an awesome meal yourself, then having the worlds top chef make the same meal, then saying you liked yours better even though his was good. No it isn’t, you are just proud of your hard work. Why does no one ever understand this. Especially guitarist that prefer the sound of tube amplifiers. I feel like I am taking crazy pills when I hear ppl say these things.

    • Sylvia

      I think it’s going to win an oscar this time and maybe some cast members will be recognized too, Alan Rickman.

      • Lisap

        The last one should have been recognized. There half a dozen key scenes that should have earned 7.1 at the very least ONE Oscar for visuals, not even counting the deathly hallows story. Still a little disappointed by that.

  • Diego

    2 questions: 1) Why did Harry just drop the resurection stone? Is that how he saw his dead family? and 2) When Narcissa Malfoy goes to see if Harry is dead, she says “Draco” and then lies to Voldemort. Why?

    • Jon

      She asked Harry if Draco was still alive. Harry assured her that he was, so she was willing to lie to Voldemort in return.

    • K

      I had to look it up on Wikipedia, as I was confused on the same thing: “In the climax of the book, the Malfoys are brought with the other Death Eaters to Hogwarts, when Voldemort invades the castle. When Voldemort casts a Killing Curse on Harry, Narcissa is ordered to verify his death. When she feels Harry’s heart beating, she quietly asks him whether Draco is still alive at Hogwarts, a fact that Harry confirms. Knowing that she will not be free to search for her son unless she can return with the Death Eaters as part of a “conquering army”, Narcissa lies to Voldemort and declares Harry to be dead.” A.k.a. convenient plot hole.

      • Douglas

        You looked it up on Wikipedia? I looked it up in a book titled HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS. You don’t have the books?

      • AcaseofGeo

        @ K, it is NOT a convenient plot hole. Throughout the latter books we see Narcissa’s motherly love for Draco overshadow her love of evil. It is clear the Malfoy’s are mean, but conflicted. It is her desire to see her son that leads her to lie that Harry is dead. Its a classic protective mother maneuver. It also shows us that evil comes in varying degrees. Voldemort being at the extreme end of evil and the Malfoy’s being somewhere near the middle.

      • @Douglas

        Hey psycho, put down your HP book, lotions and tissues and calm down. Not all of us treat it like an encyclopedia. It was probably faster to google.

    • Mandi Bierly

      He dropped the Resurrection Stone because he knew from his mother’s comment that his loved ones would be with him even if he couldn’t see them and he was prepared to join them shortly. Narcissa lied to Voldemort about Harry because her only concern was getting to Draco and keeping him safe. Thinking Harry was dead, Voldemort was happy and non-violent when he approached Hogwarts to gloat, which gave her time to get Draco close so the Malfoys could bolt when the battle started again.

      • benngie

        Harry drops the resurrection stone for the same reason he disposes of the elder wand (tho in the book he places it back in Dumbledore’s hands, he doesn’t break it in half) because he doesn’t want anyone else to find all the Hallows and perhaps use them for evil.

    • Gator

      In the book he carries the stone with him (while under the invisibility cloak) into the forest. He then drops it as he walks up to where Voldemort is. He talks to Dumbledore’s portrait and tells him he dropped it somewhere in the forest and they decide to leave it there lost forever.

      Narcissa asks Harry if Draco is alive, and Harry says yes. She knows that the only way for her to get back to the castle is if Harry is dead. She lies so that she can go and find and protect her son.

    • Puda

      Harry drops the stone becasue it is his acceptance that he must die for Voldemort to die. It is his acceptance of this that leads him to opening the snitch as well. Please read the books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Kat

        @Puda I’ve read the books many times. I’m not sure your interpretation of why he drops the Resurrection Stone is entirely accurate. It’s not resurrecting HARRY. Just his loved ones. Whether he dropped it or not has nothing to do with his acceptance of his own death.

      • JBD

        I’ve read the books twice and I still get confused with whether Harry died or not. Also, in the movie I had no idea why he dropped the resurrection stone. Maybe I forgot what happened since it’s been a couple years since reading them, but still, the movie should have been clearer.

      • Valcan Krull

        I am working from memory here but wouldn’t it be logical to assume that at that point in the story all of the Deathly Hallows belong to Harry making him Master of Death. I think that is why he has the choice to go back or die when he sees Dumbledore. What I recently became confused about and what I think illustrates how J.K. Rowling pulled the last book out of her rear is that if Harry is a horcrux he should have been indestructible to all harm from the moment his mother died to the point when he allows Voldermort to “kill” him.

      • Jack

        I shouldn’t HAVE to read the books to get all this stuff. Otherwise, what’s the point of making these movies? They should stand on their own.

      • @Valcan Krull

        No, idiot. If being a Horcrux made Harry indestructible, Neville shouldn’t have been able to kill Nagini (regardless of whether you’re happy with how it was handled in the movie). Dumbledore even SAYS in HBP when they’re discussing his hunches on what the remaining Horcruxes are that choosing a living being to be a Horcrux is taking quite a calculated risk: you’re entrusting a chunk of your soul to something that can move and think for itself and come to harm. The whole thing about the Horcrux being nearly indestructible has to do with the piece of soul itself, not the object that contains it per se; the locket, for instance, even if beaten to unrecognizability with a sledgehammer or otherwise un-locketed, the lump of metal would still hold a piece of V’s soul. A living being, on the other hand, is only capable of holding on to ANY soul in any quantity so long as said body remains viable. Get it?

    • kate middleton

      In the book, he dropped the stone right when he got to the clearing where Voldemort was. Sort of like he knew they were with him, and he’d be seeing them again soon because he was about to die. I thought it was weird how they showed him just dropping it immediately in the movie – I think it would have been more powerful to see him walking through the forest with Lily, James, Sirius and Lupin.

      Narcissa (and Lucius for that matter) are pretty conflicted at this point. Voldemort had taken Lucius’ wand earlier in the book, and you can just tell they’re not all that convinced by Voldemort anymore. Their concern has always been Draco (also think about when Draco was tasked with killing Dumbledore by Voldemort). It’s kinda like the Malfoys are feeling used, but they can’t get out. So, Narcissa just cares about Draco and she had no clue then if Draco was even alive.

      • benngie

        I really like how each time you see Lucius in the last 2 movies, he looks even worse. And that last scene when the Malfoy family run away … gotta love Jason Isaacs!

    • LillyCB

      Harry dropped the stone because he didn’t want it to be found by anyone else. He turned the stone three times over and that’s how his relatives appeared (remember in Part 1 when the story is being told, how the second brother turned the stone three times and his dead girlfriend appeared) that’s what Harry did…

    • Lisap

      The only major thing I can think of that they left out of the film completely was the explanation of the Hallows and why Dumbledore left clues for Harry about them.

      Dumbledore, in his youth, went searching for them and the desire for them corrupted him (in Dumbledore’s opinion, there is more info about his family and his estrangement with his brother to go into this). He wanted Harry to face the temptation of conquering death to allow him to choose better. I really wish this plot had made it into the movies because it adds so much to both their characters. Harry dropped the stone and broke the wand in order to destroy the Hallows so no more blood would be shed in the search for them.

    • Madame Royale

      Because she doesn’t care about voldermort. She sees him for what he is and he wanted to punish her and Lucis in Draco’s 6th year by giving him an impossible task that he would most likely die having to complete. Also although she supports pure blood values she has never been apart of the DE. Voldermort made her song Draco become one and she resents that cause she wants to keep him safe

    • claudia

      It is very clear in the book (I had to reread it): ‘the stone fell out of his numb fingers when he walked towards Voldemort’… he simply dropped it because he was afraid on what was happening next.

  • Rach

    Why can’t they just fix Harry’s eye sight? They can regrow bones but no wand lasik?

    • Mike

      Well, I’ll just say that lots of the Wizards/Witches portrayed in the books/movies wear glasses. So something tells me that they did not come up with a spell to fix eyesight, just glasses :-)

    • L

      LOL! I thought the same thing.

    • ska-triumph

      hello!!! thank you!!! i don’t recall one moment where a spell was even played with to fix Harry’s eyesight. Yet so many other spells were thrown around and tested.

    • Melissa

      Being a glasses wearer myself, I’ve wondered the same thing. I like to think that the best wizards and witches wear glasses. (Harry, Dumbledore, McGonagall)

    • Stevex

      What do you expect from a culture that sends messages by owl, rather than by email or text like the Muggles do.

      Although I did enjoy Shacklebolt’s breaking-news-via-Patronus trick in Part 1.

    • benngie

      JK Rowling established the 5 exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration (things you can change magically). Tho JKR never states what all five are in the books, food was definitely mentioned (as in you can’t conjure food out of nothing. I think that Harry’s eyesight comes somehow under one of the remaining 4, as well as money, bringing someone back from the dead and true love.

      • Mike

        That explanation works for me, of course I still never thought about it or wanted an explanation. I still wonder why no one questions everyone else’s eyesight. Even the greatest wizard in the world, DUMBLEDORE wore glasses! Even Harry’s dad wore glasses!

      • Gator

        I think that is a great explanation. I would love to hear what Rowling actually includes int he 5 exceptions. We know it is food, I agree with money definitely being there, as well as bringing back the dead. And probably true love as well. And that would leave one more, maybe something with not being able to fix the body (eyesight, some injuries like Mad-Eye’s leg and George’s ear, things like that??).

      • benngie

        Thanks, Gator! I’d love to hear her response, as well

    • Liz Lemon

      There’s nothing wrong with wearing glasses though.

  • Jon

    How about these questions?
    Why did Voldemort let Nagini kill Snape when it was just clearly stated that Voldemort had to be the one to kill Snape in order to wrest control of the Elder Wand away. Yes, it ended up a moot point, but Voldemort did not know that at the time.
    Why didn’t Hermione as Bellatrix offer Bellatrix’s wand as proof of ID at Gringott’s since the scene before with Olivander clearly established their possession of her wand? (I know, explained in the books, but sloppy film-making.)
    Why are the “heroes” of the story so blasé and/or cavalier about death? Molly should not smile when killed anyone, even Bellatrix. Ron should not make a Die Hard style comment when the goblin he had tricked into helping them was burnt alive in front of his face.
    If we are to believe that Houses of Hogwarts are truly not predictors of behavior, why does Professor McGonagall just sweep the entirety of Slytherin House to the dungeons with glee?

    • Mag

      I was thinking about these questions as well while I was watching the movie. I’m not a book fan but I did love Snape’s story throughout the films.

    • Mandi Bierly

      Voldemort does slash Snape’s throat, so he probably would have died anyway from that? Nagini just got in some good bites beforehand? Or, the out is that Nagini did it on Voldemort’s command, so it counts. In the book, McGonagall gives Slytherin the option of using the secret tunnel to flee to Hogsmeade. I thought the dungeons was harsh, but then, would they want Slytherins to know about that tunnel? Good questions.

      • O’Brien

        Great point on wanting the Slytherins to know about the escape route – that actually might make more sense than the books.

        And Mandy, this is OT, but I know you are the EW Bones obsessive as well, so I have to ask – is it just me, or are Booth and Bones not totally the Ron and Hermione of the American crime-solving world? I’m just saying. It always struck me that way, as if B/B were R/Hr if R/Hr hadn’t had the benefit of growing up together and then met as adults. Then again, I’m totally obsessed with both, so that might have something to do with it.

      • Irishgirl

        Well remember, Nagini is a horcrux. A piece of Voldemort’s soul was in that snake. So, essentially, any killing Nagini did, Voldemort did. Perhaps that is the thinking. I didn’t think McGonegall sent them to the dungeon with glee, but I did find it odd it was so sweeping. Give them the chance to stay and fight if they want. I find it interesting that the one BIG issue I had with the movie…(I had a couple, but can excuse them -ie Ron not hugging Harry goodbye when he’s walking to his death)….hasn’t been brought up yet. Why in the world did they alter the resolution of the Elder Wand??? Harry snaps it?? Really? COME ON! It’s the most magical item in the world and he snaps it like a pencil?!? If it were so easy to destroy, why didn’t Dumbledore do that when he discovered Voldemort was looking for it? All they had to do was have the three of them disapperate to the island where Dumbledore is buried, Harry can say why he’s not keeping it but how he’s the owner of it, he repairs his wand, puts the Elder back in the grave with Dumbledore, they all seal the grave, then turn to see the sun rising over a beaten and battered Hogwarts…fade to the epilogue. That would have made so much more sense after spending all this time talking about the legend of the wand and wand ownership.

      • Madame Royale

        Slytherins common room is located in the DUNGEONS. Perhaps the movie could have expressed this instead of making it seem as though they were off to prison. In the books the option is given for anyone else who doesn’t want to fight can follow Pansy out of the GH. A lot of slytherins leave but JK does clarify that some to stay to fight. also not only slytherins leave but other house members do as well. Zacharias smith of Hufflepuff is one of the 1st

      • Potterite6156142

        Actually, JK states in the book that as the houses are leaving “the slytherin table was deserted, a few older hufflepuffs stayed, even more ravenclaws, and half the gryffindors” (my quote was a little off

    • O’Brien

      1. Nagini’s killing Snape was the same as Voldemort’s doing it. For one thing, Nagini was a horcrux, so technically, she is part of Voldy, and for another, it was done at his direction, so it counts the same.

      2. Hermione presents the wand in the books, but there’s still a problem with that, because everyone knows that Bellatrix’s wand has been taken. It actually made more sense to me in the movie for her not to want to present it.

      3. They aren’t nearly that cavalier in the book, I swear. Molly kills Bellatrix in a moment of almost feral protection of her daugther, Luna, and Hermione, and the goblin isn’t even burnt in the book. The only time Ron says anything halfway funny about the situation is after the battle is over, and Peeves is singing a made up song about dead Voldy, and he says, “Really captures the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn’t it?” The rest of the time, they’re all serious.

      4. In the book, every student of age is given the choice to stay and fight, Slytherin or no. None of them do, the older Ravenclaws stay, more than that of the Hufflepuffs, and half the Gryffindors – of age or not – try to resist leaving (some of them are successful). Students who want to leave go through the portal in the Room of Requirement and GTFO.

      • Sarah

        Well said O’Brien.
        I’d just like to add: Aren’t the Slytherin’s common room in the dungeons?

      • LillyCB

        I love your answers, straight to the point, and very clear… Well done!

      • Anya

        Ok that explains a lot. However, they did show that scene with Harry talking about the wand they took from Bellatrix right before the scene where Hermoine snuck in as Bellatrix so that really stuck out to me. And I thought the way they handled the Slytherin thing in the movie was kind of harsh. Like one girl says they should hand Harry over and the entire group gets thrown in a dungeon?

      • mark

        One flaw in this logic is while Nagini was a horcrux, so is Harry. Yet something like Harry’s taking Draco’s wand and gaining ownership of the Elder Wand did not transfer to Voldemort since Harry was a horcrux?

      • Lisap

        On the Slytharins, something has been bothering me I would like an answer to: didn’t the Slytherins act as a sort of student police snitching to the Carrows? Wasn’t that why McGonagall so rough with them?

      • Patrice

        Very good O’Brien! I love the answers. This whole page rocks. Because even though I’m an avid fan of the series, I have NOT read all the book. Only the 4th one and the last one. But like some1 earlier stated, it’s hard to recall each and every thing in the book (since JKR is sooooo detailed and the Wizarding World has sooooo many demensions). So it’s comforting to come here and have EVERY one of my brunign questions answered. I’m also with the person who replied earlier…..”Google”. Who the heck has time to sit back and read every one of those long (but great/epic) books when you can Google the answer. And if any professed (or not) “Potter Geniuses” have a problem with us coming here to get quick answers (and not per se, buying and reading every book), OH WELL! That’s what the site is for. Sheesh! I live in the real world with bills, children, husbands/wives, jobs, careers, cooking, cleaning and surviving. I dont have time to go to my HP collection and read it from cover to cover to get answers. I’m sure others will agree! But rock on…..all of the answers here are awesome. I love it! Kudossssss. :)

      • monkeyboy

        How can nagina killing Snape be counted as the same as V killing him just because she was a holocrux? IN this same thinking, then sense Harry was a Holocrux, then what he did would be the same as V doing it, so then the wand should belong to V, correct?

    • jesslyn8706

      You don’t have to kill the owner of the Elder Wand, just overpower and disarm them as seen by Dumbledore —>Draco and Draco—>Harry.

      • Douglas

        Which is why it is one of Voldemort’s fatal blunders.

    • Mr. Holloway

      1. The two comments before me explained it well, but I still say that Voldemort using Nagini to kill Snape (instead of his favored Avada Kadavera) was mostly a way to keep Snape alive long enough to give Harry his crucial memory.

      2. O’Brien’s explanation is good, but I just figured the real Bellatrix would NEVER present her wand to a “lowly” goblin and Hermione was playing her as such.

      3. That really is more of an action movie thing than an attitude that exists in the books.

      4. I know McGonnagall’s tone was harsh, but isn’t the Slytherin Common room actually in the dungeons? I realize the way she said it sounded like she was punishing them, but still…

      • O’Brien

        I totally agree on Nagini – it was a convenient plot device. I’m not sure why it makes sense from Voldemort’s POV. Excellent point on #2 and #3, and you’re totally right about the Slytherin common room. She wasn’t sending them off to be, like, shackled, and they’re probably safer there than anywhere else in the castle.

      • Jess2

        But if he had used his favourite curse then it would have rebounded on him and killed him (as he believed that Snape was the master of the Elder Wand). Like he died when he tried to kill Harry when using the Elder Wand when he was the mast of the Elder Wand. Voldemort wouldn’t have died but he would have done if Snape was truly the master of the Elder Wand so really he was being sensible otherwise it would be another Lily situation.

      • liza

        I realized that about McGonnagall, too! I was like, …okay, send them to their common room?

      • Mr. Holloway

        Sorry, don’t buy it.

        I don’t see why Voldemort would have any reason to believe Avada Kedavra would rebound on him if he tried to use it on Snape.

        I’m pretty sure Harry was famously the only person ever to have survived the Killing Curse, and that was when he was a baby (and obviously NOT YET the master of the Elder Wand).

      • Mr. Holloway

        (My previous comment was directed @ Jess2.)

      • AcaseofGeo

        Call me lame, but perhaps Voldemort killed Snape this way as an “honorable execution” of his loyal servant. I realize Snape’s death was violently painful, but Voldemort didn’t want to dismissively dispatch his loyal servant with Avada Kedavra. Is that Lame or does it have weight? (And YES, of course its a VERY CONVENIENT plot device).

      • Mr. Holloway

        @ ACaseofGeo

        It’s an interesting thought, but I just don’t agree.

        I can’t believe that if Voldemort wanted to honor his loyal servant he’d do it by having him die a slow, horrible, infinitely more painful death than Avada Kedavra would’ve provided.

        However, I DO like the idea that Voldemort wanted to kill Snape in a different, special way.

      • AD…What was that?

        I don’t think that Voldermort (which, coincidentally is the name of my ex-bf) would even think of an “honorable” anything. He’s evil. If anything, I think it would be the opposite – he’d want one of his foot soldiers (they were all minions really, even Bellatrix – speaking of which I think that all kids named Bella after Twitlight should now be Bellatrix) who he felt betrayed him to suffer immensely. Avada Kedavra is instant and painless and good ol’ Voldy is a killer. If I were a evil killer person (IF) Avada Kedavra would be for times of desperation/fear or those who aren’t even worthy of a second thought. Up close, not like shooting. More stabby then. Ya know?

      • AD…What was that?

        Mr. Holloway…Voldy to my Harry.

      • Bethany

        Perhaps Voldemort figured that (in his eyes) Snape was still one of his most faithful servants and so even though he didn’t necessarily want him to die… he had to for him to obtain possession of the Elder Wand.. and so he killed him in a different/”unique” way so as to still sort of set Snape apart?

      • LillyCB

        The book does say that Voldemort was, in his own twisted way, “pained that he had to kill Snape” because he had served him so “fervently”… The answers are all in the book and in JK’s website… And soon in Pottermore.com!!!! I CAN’T WAIT!!! Hahahahaha!!! xD

      • Josh

        My personal opinion is Voldemort would have been afraid of Snape blocking the curse, so he caught him off guard and defenseless.

      • Derrick

        LOL, you are an idiot, and i mean that in the kindest way.

        you know that the wand only responds correctly to its rightful master, im sure Voldy knew that, thats why he he couldnt battle Snape with what was technically(or hat he thought was) Snape’s wand.

        this is the most powerful wand in existence and you already know it only responds correctly to its true master. you saying you dont by some one being cautious sounds idiotic, im just sayin

      • Mr. Holloway

        @ Derrick

        First off, thank you for kindly calling me an idiot. Most people who call me an idiot are pretty mean about it.

        What you’re saying about Voldemort not wanting to “battle” Snape with the Elder Wand because he believed Snape to be the true master of the wand makes sense. Except that (even though he didn’t use Avada Kedavra) Voldy STILL used the wand to slash Snape’s throat. Sure, Nagini probably finished Snape off, but there’s a decent chance that Snape would’ve died from having his throat slashed. What I’m saying is that it’s not like Voldemort didn’t exactly believe that the Elder Wand was useless against Snape.

        Basically, my original point still stands: Voldemort killing Snape that way was mostly a convenient way of keeping Snape alive long enough to give Harry his memory.

        @ AD…What was that?
        What did I do to you?! Also, if really were Voldy to your Harry, you could be damn sure that I’d PERSONALLY check to make sure that you were dead in the Forbidden Forest.

      • Mr. Holloway

        EDIT: *What I’m saying is that it’s not exactly like Voldemort believed the Elder Wand was useless against Snape.”

        (I think I went triple-negative on my original comment.)

      • Potterite6156142

        Voldemort often made his horcruxes out of elaborate, important deaths, so perhaps it makes sense that he would want to get full possession of the elder wand through the elaborate death of snape by nagini.

    • Jenny

      These are all reasons why the books are 100% better. You don’t have these problems in the books.

    • Cortney

      The real Bellatrix wouldn’t have given up her wand very easily. It was more like her to be stubborn about it, that’s why “Hermione” didn’t just hand the wand over. Bellatrix trusts no one but Voldemort, so she certainly didn’t trust the Goblins.

      • anj

        false. bellatrix doesn’t present her wand or is wary of doing so because the goblins have already been warned that someone is going to break into her vault and that they will have her wand with them.

      • Anya

        Even so, I think the real Bellatrix would have gotten a lot nastier with those goblins then Hermoine did. She probably would have pulled her wand so she could threaten their lives with it.

    • kate middleton

      Good questions, Mr. Holloway.

      I agree that Voldemort having Nagini kill Snape is kinda weird. My husband hasn’t read any of the books, but he whispered to me “But he didn’t kill Snape, the snake did” since they’d just discussed the wand lore stuff. Not that a snake can have a wand, but still…

      Bellatrix’s wand – in the book, Harry/Ron/Hermione suspect that Gringotts had been notified that Bellatrix’s wand was missing and that they were trapped. They thought the goblins were on to them as imposters (which they clearly were), and Hermione didn’t want to give up a wand because she didn’t think she’d get it back.

      In the book, McGonagall says something to the effect of “It’s time for Slytherin to choose once and for all which side you are on”. I wish they would have used this line instead of sending Slytherin to the dungeon – I agree that supports the point more about people choosing to be good or evil.

      • Sarah

        Boy, did nobody really listen or pay attention (and no, you didn’t have to read the books to get it, the movies provided enough information)?

        It’s not a matter of killing a wizard for a wand to switch it’s allegiance. It’s if a wizard is defeated, and being defeated does not necessarily mean killed.

        The Elder Wand changed allegiance when Draco disarmed Dumbledore, with the Expelliarmus charm, in the 6th movie. Then in the 7th movie, part 1, Harry disarmed Draco at Malfoy Manor (their tussle for the wands). Harry even said what happened after the battle, how the Elder Wand’s allegiance passed on to him.

        Killing a wizard does help, which was Voldemort’s thinking when he had Snape killed. See how I worded that? Voldemort planned Snape’s death, thus defeating him. Not that it helped since Snape was never the Elder Wand’s true master.

      • kate middleton

        What’s your point, Sarah? I never said that you had to kill someone to get their wand.

      • benngie

        Two things:
        1. Voldemort doesn’t know that you only have to defeat a wizard to change a wand’s allegiance. His answer to everything is violence, so he kills Snape.
        2. Nagini doesn’t kill Snape, since he’s still alive when Voldemort and Nagini leave. Voldy is a sadist, he enjoys the suffering of others. After slashing Snape, he adds insult to injury by having Nagini strike him. I think he it pleased him to see his “most loyal servant” brought low. It’s all about power.

    • Jane

      It’s been a while since I read the book, but isn’t the Slytherin Common Room in the dungeon? Twas harsh to lump all the Slytherin students together, but I just took it as they were being sent to their room — not quite as bad as being sent to an actual dungeon.

    • jen

      #2 – The goblins knew that Bellatrix’s wand had been stolen so they were testing her to see if she was an imposter

    • laurie

      In the story of the Three Brothers that’s in part 1, the brother that got the Elder Wand boasted about his power. That night, his wand was taken and his throat slashed.
      I think if a person dies, the wand will align with whoever happens to have it next, egardless of who killed the last owner.

      • Meg

        Then you are wrong.

      • benngie

        If Dumbledore had died undefeated, the Elder Wand’s powers would have died with him.

    • Aakash

      because in the book, all the Slytherins want to turn Harry over. Of course they won’t fight, their parents are Death Eaters.

    • Liz Lemon

      I think it’s safe to say that the films don’t really go as deep as the books.
      There’s just not enough time.
      But I don’t think they’re cavalier about death at all. They may have just gotten to a point in which they’re desensitized, because they’ve seen it so much. Plus, I think that goblin had been pretending he was still under the curse or something and tricked them. So, Ron wasn’t too upset when he got roasted.

    • Madame Royale

      @ Lisa P most of the students of slytherin house have parents who are death eaters and so naturally they would properly be told by there families it is there duties to snitch to the carrows who are also death eaters

  • O’Brien

    I think another cool point that you don’t get from the movies was Dumbledore’s planning. He (pretty much) knew that Voldemort couldn’t kill Harry enitrely because of his mother’s protection, and that it was strengthened/reignited by using Harry’s blood in his “resurrection” in GOF. Anybody else probably could have taken Harry out, but Voldemort was the only one who couldn’t. The way I’ve always been able to explain it to myself is that Voldy’s soul fragment isn’t protected, but the rest of Harry is. So, when he AKs Harry, he definitely kills the soul fragment, and Harry…well, he’s got a choice to make, but he’s not dead. Does this make sense?

    • Kat

      I *love* that way back in Goblet of Fire, Rowling made a point of mentioning that Dumbledore had something like triumph on his face (or in his eyes…something like that) for a brief moment when Harry told him about Voldemort using his blood to resurrect himself. It stuck out very obviously, and I knew it had to be important…and I love that it really was!

      • Meg

        Yes! That momentary flash of triumph in Dumbledore’s eyes at the end of GOF bothered me for YEARS!! I could not figure out what it meant. I’m so glad it was eventually explained.

      • Liz Lemon

        Yeah. That gleam of triumph that we Potter fans speculated about for YEARS!

  • Nadz

    although the movie was good, it lacked so much of what was in the book! Oh well, we can’t have it all.

    • Judyne

      It would have been a 1-week movie if they stayed really close to the book. I actually liked the two Deathly Hallows films, they were pretty close to the book.

  • banan

    why were they sweeping up after the battle? Can’t they clean that sh*t up using magic?

    • Alli

      Filch is a non-magic wizard so he couldn’t use magic to clean up

    • S

      Filch was sweeping up – he’s a Squib and has no magic! ;)

    • Sarah

      How about I thought the same exact thing!

      • SS

        YES!! My friend whispered the same question to me in the theater. I’ve read the books but it’s been too long to remember. I was confused too.

      • Liz Lemon

        I’m sure they did repair it with magic. Filch can’t since he’s a squib, but I’m pretty sure the Weasleys used magic to repair their house when it was destroyed in HBP (in the films not the books).

    • Leslie

      It was Filch who was sweeping – and he can’t do magic.

    • Susan

      It was stated several times in the movies that you cannot simply undo what has been done with black magic (a’la growing Fred’s ear back or putting out the fire at the burrows). They couldn’t just wave their wands and clean up because it had been destroyed with black magic.

      • maria

        George’s ear

  • adri

    I was disappointed that they didn’t include Dumbledore’s backstory. Learning more about him was one of my favorite parts of the whole series.

    • Lisa Simpson

      The thing about the movies, though, is that they have, by necessity of the constraints of time and a visual storytelling medium, focused pretty much just on Harry’s story. He is the main character, after all, and taking too many diversions into other character’s stories would make the movies too long and unfocused. Snape’s backstory was important to Harry’s story (as was Voldemort’s, obviously), but Dumbledore’s really wasn’t. Almost everything from the third movie on has been exclusively been about Harry’s journey.

      • Meg

        I think you make a good point, and that’s probably why I liked the OOTP movie so much. I thought it did a great job of focusing in on Harry’s internal struggle and the ways his connection to Voldemort was hurting him, and the movie used Luna really effectively as a way of showing how isolated and freakish he felt. In some ways, I thought it conveyed that stuff better than the book. However, I still wish they’d included Dumbledore’s backstory in the DH movies because I do think it’s important to Harry’s journey. He’s so conflicted about how much faith to put in Dumbledore and the whole Hallows vs. Horcruxes thing sort of drives the story. (Also, they mentioned Grindelwald in part 1 and then never paid that off with anything in part 2, which was really stupid.)

    • Liz Lemon

      It was A LOT of backstory and I don’t see how they would have done it unless they had hired actors and filmed it. I don’t think it would’ve worked as an animation sequence like Tale of the Three Brothers.

  • Debra

    I wish the scenes between Molly and Bellatrix were longer and we could have actually seen what happened to Fred, Remus and Tonks. I was under the impression that JK was going to let one of the characters that was set to die in the book, live. What happened to that?

    • JK plans

      The change in character deaths took place over the series, not just the last book. Originally, Mr. Weasley was to die in Book 5, but she decided to let him live – hence, the deaths in Book 7 of Lupin and Fred (not sure which one was not originally intended to die).

    • ash

      She did. It was Arthur Weasley.

    • kate middleton

      Yeah, she let Mr. Weasley live. She said she couldn’t bring herself to kill him.

      I do wish they had focused more on the deaths of Fred, Lupin and Tonks. They were so sad – they deserved a little more of a mention in the movie (especially Lupin and Tonks, with no one there mourning them).

      • Stiggy

        What really got me was that lupin and tonks son was just a kinda throw away line from harry when he was in the woods talking to the “spirit” of lupin. they definitely should have put lupins scene at the cottage when he tells everyone he has a son and names harry the son’s godfather.

      • Susan

        @Stiggy – I agree!!!

      • kate middleton

        I agree, Stiggy. Lupin got the shaft – he was a great character and it was almost like JK Rowling didn’t know what to do with him in the last few books. He deserved more….LOVED him and Tonks.

    • Lisa Simpson

      We see how their deaths affect Harry, who is the main character of the books and whose story has been the almost exclusive focus of the movies.

    • Sue Ann

      I totally agree. Bellatix’ destruction by Mrs. Weasley should have been filmed and put together to deliver a hugely anticipated emotional impact. Instead, it was a 10 second, a one-shot, badly edited sxene…over efore we had the chance to cheer. Also, the reduction of Remus/Tonks/Fred’s deaths, the final battle not being witnessed by all in the Great Hall and getting no reaction to just having killed Voldemort! Come on…that was a big climactic letdown. And Harry not using the elder wand to repair his own beloved wand…a travesty that could have EASILY been filmed and included as easily as the breaking of the wand. (Which made little sense except “I don’t want to be bothered with it.”) Would it have made the film longer? Not really. So why not film that important scene as originally written? Those are the kind of changes I just don’t understand.

      • Derrick

        and you know whats even worse, this was the shortest of all 8 films, so it being longer would not have even mattered, its like a full 30 minutes shorter than the longest film in the franchise.

      • Vicki

        Sue Ann, I agree with all of your points. I especially couldn’t believe they didn’t show the repairing of Harry’s wand, but I guess since they’d made a big point of Draco’s now giving its allegience to Harry, they didn’t think it necessary for Harry to get his wand back. But still… Overall, I liked the Battle of Hogwarts much better in the book.

      • Meg

        I agree, Sue Ann. It drives me crazy when they cut out moments that are very significant and would take almost no time to portray. For example: they couldn’t have taken 2 minutes to have Sirius tell Harry that his dad used to transform into a stag at the end of the POA movie? Not including that tiny piece of information robs the story of quite a bit of depth. It enrages me every time I watch the movie.

      • benngie

        I’m with you, Meg — We had how many minutes of Hermione playing jump rope and riding the whomping willow and there was nothing about who made the Marauder’s Map? I mean, clues could so easily have been left for Harry to figure out. When Sirius and Lupin confronted the kids and “Scabbers” in the Shrieking Shack, all they had to say was “Wormtail” instead of Peter, and maybe Sirius could have called Lupin “Moony” and then Harry could have figured it out when he and Hermione were “waiting for themselves” at the whomping willow. They had a few minutes to talk. Then it would have made sense to him why he thought the patronus stag was James’.

      • benngie

        Also, didn’t Harry ever wonder why I think it was Lupin who said “The map never lies” How would he know?

      • Liz Lemon

        I think the Bellatrix/Molly moment is perfect. I thought it was too short the first time I saw it, but after the 3rd viewing, I think it’s perfect.

      • Jules

        The Molly/Bellatrix duel was just fine. It wasn’t terribly long in the movie, nor was it terribly long in the book. It was a great moment, hugely satisfying, and definitely a fan favorite – but it was not an important and vital part of the story.

        And I really can’t believe the number of people griping about the fact that Harry didn’t repair his wand before destroying the Elder Wand. He’s Harry Freakin’ Potter – I’m fairly certain he’s not going to have a problem getting another wand made. It just isn’t worth getting your panties in a twist over, is all I’m saying.

      • Patrice

        I agree w/ Jules! Perfectly stated. There’s a lot fo undue griping over things though. I guess, “to each his own”. I loved every movie and the books were epic. JKR is a fantastic writer. I thought that HP7 the book, was “pure perfection”. It was honestly the best book I’ve ever read….and that’s saying a lot. She tied all of teh small details from 6 previous (long and very detaield) books in seamlessly. I didnt have 1 “question” or “i wish….” or “well what about….” or “whatever happened to….” after I finished it. Awesome JKR…from a fellow writer.

  • spooky

    Filch is a squib and can’t do magic… I think it was his way of dealing with the battle…. Its done, so start cleaning. he is the “janitor” of the castle.

Page: 1 2 3 8
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos


From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP