2010-11-21, 01:48 PM
Rayquaza2233 Wrote:I think that change was made more for filming limitations. A car chase in the sky is kind of awkward to make on film, and a tad hard to follow for the watcher. Hell, that scene where they were getting chased by Snatchers was hard to follow.
I raged at all the inaccuracies. There were no peacocks in Lucius' yard. Yaxley wasn't with Snape at the beginning. They completely cut out Ted and Nymphadora. The sky chase was completely changed, it would've owned to see Stan Shunpike and the disarming giving him away. Hedwig giving him away was... sort of weird, I dunno. Lupin was reduced to a minor character. They didn't disguise Harry at the wedding. They never said "Voldemort" after Apparating to the coffee shop, so Dolohov and Rowle shouldn't have been able to find them. Harry was supposed to find Regulus' room. Kreacher was supposed to be given the locket, after which point he started respecting Harry. Harry didn't take and "bury" Moody's eye. I'm pretty sure the sword was buried in a pool on the other side of a cliff, but I'm not sure on that. Harry never cast Protego to break up Ron and Hermione (I could care less, though). What was that dancing scene about? The destruction of the locket was... interesting. The part where the whole "snatchers" thing happened was inaccurate, since the snatchers only found them after they broke their protection after saying "Voldemort". Wormtail was supposed to strange himself because of the magical debt he owed Harry, they weren't supposed to stun him. The Hermione torture scene was also... interesting. The scene where Bellatrix killed Dobby owned. I went to see it with 15 other people, we were in a theatre. At least three of us said "COMMANDO PRO"
Inaccuracies? While some of what you listed count as those, a lot of what you said also counts as things they just plain left out. And why? Because of the reason you stated at the begining of your post: filming limitations.
I shouldn't have to reiterate to all of you educated critics that films are often worse than the novels they're based on, with a majority of this due to such "inaccuracies" or "exclusions," but when many of you begin mentioning such utterly minute details such as the existence or absence of peacocks in a setting, it needs to be said. Did you know one of the strongest negative criticisms for this film is the fact that, had you not read the novel beforehand (or for that matter, the preceding one or two novels as well), you would have absolutely no idea what's going on. I'm not saying more major symbolic gestures should have been ignored, and there are certainly some scenes here or there in all novel to film translations that could have used more inspiration from the book. But raging over the inclusion of random animals in a certain scene where the existence or absence of such animals has absolutely no bearing on the plot whatsover? That's a bit ridiculous.