So other people found the wand succession dizzying too...I thought I just hadn't been paying enough attention.

So other people found the wand succession dizzying too...I thought I just hadn't been paying enough attention.

Yeah, me too.

Maybe it all just comes down to "The wand chooses the owner." And maybe Voldi just wasn't very nice to his wand.

Or maybe a little TOO nice to his wand.

Those long disembodied nights, fleeing from magically concealed cave to magically concealed cave... you do the math.

Plus that Voldermort is much more likable than Rowling's.

Hee. I don't think she intended Voldie to be likable. Speaking of, however, I did like that Voldemort, in the end, turned out to be a character and not just Evil McEvilstein. I really liked him in this book, how he was not only admitting his mistakes but, you know, making them. We saw some more of his thought processes and motivations. And in the end, hubris brought him down, like he was a tragic hero all this time. He wasn't, say, one of the Greatest Villains of All Time, per se, dimension-wise, but he was more interesting than, say, Sauron.

So other people found the wand succession dizzying too...I thought I just hadn't been paying enough attention.

Oh no. As Hec noted, that was the predominant conversation in my LJ post's comments for a couple hours.

Maybe it all just comes down to "The wand chooses the owner." And maybe Voldi just wasn't very nice to his wand.

Clearly, he doesn't polish it enough.

One of the things I like about Dumbledor's hidden past is that he so easily could have become Voldermort. If he'd gotten obsessed with the hallows (which continued to be a temptation to him even into his wise old age) he could have been an even bigger bad.

I do like that Rowling continued on with the idea of choices definng the person in discussing Dumbledore late-teen dabbling into racial purity. Every time someone would say, "Well, he was just a kid...", Harry would come back with "He was our age, and you don't see us saying things like that." Yes, it makes Harry look even more saint-like (Dumbledore's repeating of what a good man Harry's turned into was getting a bit old in the King's Cross chapter), but at least he had his own obsession with the Hallows to go through.

If the story is a mythical tale - like HP or LOTR I don't have a problem with them being told differently. I think, for example, voldmont appearing on the train platform made it clear that Harry was being haunted by Voldmont. And it allowed the dreams to remain ambiguous and dream like. The reason that I can except this is because I was a huge fairytale/tall tall/folk tale reader( esp from ages 8 -12) - where I kept coming across stories I knew from before - but told differently. If the essence is the same - I can embrace it.

beth is me. I believe that books and films are such different art forms that some degree of change from book to film has to happen in order to preserve the essence of the book itself. For example, since there really wasn't time in the movie to expand on Luna as a character, I thought that one little scene with her offering a baby thestral an apple, seeing the thestral ignore it, and then offering a hunk of raw meat was perfect, especially as she was expressing that some people don't like the thestrals because of how different they are (bad paraphrasing). Luna sees wonder where "normal" people get grossed out. It was a quick and effective way to express the essence of her character, IMO. Likewise with Harry "seeing" V. at the train station--although that exact scene doesn't happen in the book, the movie doesn't have time to express how very haunted Harry feels, and that moment reinforced that point.

Since Rowling had direct oversight of the movie, I worry less than I do about most book-to-film conversions.

On the other hand, I despise movies that change the essence of the book. Aimee's example is a great example of how changes can destroy the essence of the book rather than enhance it.

But I'm good with agreeing to disagree, jimi, and you definitely shouldn't feel like you can't have a differing opinion. Express away!

Personally, I thought the worst two films of the HP series have been the first two, which were almost slavishly duplicated from the books. OotP did a great job of adaptation IMO, and I loved the fact that they had Neville discover the Room of Requirement, which is nicely reflected in DH by having him become the master of the Room!

Aimee's example

One and only time I've ever written a nasty fan letter.

I thought the worst two films of the HP series have been the first two, which were almost slavishly duplicated from the books.

ITA.

I really enjoyed the first two films when they came out, but having seen what other directors have done, I can kind of see that they're not as good. It's also a source material thing, though; the first two books aren't as meaty. I haven't rewatched any of the movies; I wonder what I'll think of them on a second viewing.

Also, what Kristin said about adaptations.