The Ramblings of Elyse

Now, surely it should come to no surprise if I have forced you to read this or this, then you will realise I am a great big nerd and a Harry Potter tragic.

Well, I think if you have talked to me in any context you would have realised that I am a massive nerd, I some times think I hide the Harry Potter stuff well.
Except when we talk about Harry Potter and then well, like Clark Kent stripping in a phone booth my nerd comes out. With less stripping. Sorry team.

The final installment of Harry Potter film series came out, well some time ago in terms of the premeire and all that but considering I hate the movies and the crowds, I waited and waited I did and I went tonight to the independent cinema up the mountains. It's just so nice to get out of Sydney to fuel my rage.
I kid, it's like 20 minutes away. But it is a great little theatre and there was like 12 people there so it was awesome.

Now, I feel that before I get my rant underway I should mention a few things.
I will be getting my rant on. That's pretty much why I'm here.
There will be spoilers.
I have strong opinions about what is right and what is very, very wrong.

I started off my journey tonight by putting on my Hufflepuff scarf, no one ever notices it is a Hufflepuff scarf coz my house gets no love, but as I sat in my car outside I realised that the chances of someone in Hufflepuff appearing in the movie was pretty much none existant.
I had seen the seven movies that came before it, I was prepared for everything I love about the Harry Potter world to be spat upon.
That was hyperbole.  It wasn't EVERYTHING, just most things.

Now, let's start with a few things...
I am pretty sure that somewhere through the course of the Harry Potter movies Emma Watson sold her soul or just became corrupted to the world because she has really dead eyes. I mean I am convinced she is dead inside. I don't want to say that, I mean Hermione is my favourite characters from the books. Well, out of the main ones, it is when I make up backstory in my head about others they get taken over but that's not the point. My love for Book Hermione just doesn't transfer well on screen, I don't want to say it is because Emma Watson is dead on the inside, but I'm pretty sure she is dead on the inside.

Knowing my luck someone is going to google "Emma Watson Dead on the Inside" and then come here and that will be awkward. Though, it's ok, I actually googled that and ended up with this and that is way harsher than anything I could ever write.

For anyone that is still reading this and haven't read the book of Deathly Hallows, I must say, good for you, but the book is weirdly paced. It starts off when they rescue Harry from the Dursleys and a chases scene, there there is some stuff in the Burrow and then they go camping for half the book. I mean other stuff happens, but they essentially go camping and then they are captured and Hermione is tortured. This is the first movie and I feel that Hermione was  not tortured enough in the movie but alas, my issues.
The second half, and thus the second movie, it's actually not even half, the camping goes on for fucking ever. It is MONTHS in the timeline of Harry Potter, the final part of the book is like a day.
So, the second half, they plan to break into the wizarding bank and then they go straight to Hogsmeade and Hogwart for Battle.
Leaving the second half of Deathly Hallows to be pretty much all the action sequences. Most of the things from that point are very quick moving, plotwise.

The biggest thing that all the movies don't include is the research and the planning, in the books that is a big deal, the fact that Hermione spends all time in the library researching various things for the end so she has her shit together and can save the day in her very Hermione-eqsue way. Say what you want but so many people would be dead if it weren't for Hermione, I'd start off with Harry on that list, but it also includes Ron, Ginny, Sirius, Buckbeak.... Lots more Harry. In this versions re-read I only got to Prisoner of Azkaban so I can't give a really good and complete list. Now, I'm sure you are saying that Hermione didn't individually save those people, no, I'm not. I'm saying she came through with the vital information or had access to the vital device, which in the case of Sirius and Buckbeak is the TimeTurner.
I mention all of this because there is a whole bunch of planning that goes into the breaking into Gringotts, including Bill warning them that they can't trust the Goblin, but also doesn't feature the conversation of how Ron & Harry had planned to double cross him anyway. All of this information is kind of vital to go into the Gringotts scene and have it make sense. Just coherant sense in terms of a movie, I relied on my knowledge of the book a lot for things to make sense.
Though, they left out the part where the run into a deatheater in Gringotts, Travers I believe, who is going to ruin the plan so they impurious him.


The Gringotts scene is home to my biggest complaint and that is pants in the wizarding world. Seriously, in the books there is all this talk about how wizards really struggle in the Muggle world, much like how muggles would struggle in the wizard world and one of this is how they dress, it has constantly been an issue and in fact the first introduction to the wizarding world in the books is because wizards dress funny.
Do the Gringotts guard look out of place as muggle security guards? NO! There lies the problem!
That and I don't think Goblins would trust wizards enough for security.
As for my wizards in pants issue, I appriecate that most of the death eaters wear proper robes and Kingsley Shacklebolt, he also wears proper robes.  Good man.

I love the dude that plays Aberforth Dumbledore was amazing. It was really too bad that they took out the fact he rescued them and put himself at risk with the patronus and the fact that the whole thing with the Dumbledore family is lost in the plot, when it is kind of important in understanding a lot about Dumbledore, especially why Dumbledore didn't trust himself in going after the Deathly Hallows, then again, there is nothing explained about the Deathly Hallows... Well, that IS annoying. They do seem to realy a lot on the pre-knowledge that has coming with reading the books otherwise things don't make sense.

Ok, so most the stuff previously I've mentioned, I haven't had a real issue with. Except the pants, I have a big issue with that, but it's small things, but you know considering that most of the movie IS a big motherfucking battle, I should talk about that.
Pretty much everything goes to hell with making sense with the book the moment that Harry steps through the door of the Room of Requirement.
They really don't emphasis just the shit that had been happening in Hogwarts, most importantly, in the 7th book it is the time for Neville to shine.
In the begining and throughout most of the books it was always a question on why Neville was sorted itno Gryffindor, the house of the brave, when he seemed anything but. But in the 7th book! That is answered and more! Neville starts a rebellion against Snape and the Carrows, the rebellion is with Ginny and Luna, but Ginny and Luna eventually are taken out of school and kidnapped respectively leaving Neville to fight by himself. The best line Neville gets is "I'm a pure blood, so they won't spill too much of my blood", so he stuck up for everyone and was the leader.
He was just awesome.
Then Harry comes and he is like "I have to do this stuff" and Neville gets his team together to fight with him and cause the distraction, and everyone comes together at that point and thus the fight begins as Harry leaves the Room of Requirement and everyone prepares to fight.
That's not what happened in the movie, it all kind of went all over the place.
Plus, Slytherin were kicked out in the movie, but in the book everyone who was not of age was kicked out. Some stayed, but others did leave. There was a thing about it and how it was like all of Gryffindor, most of Ravenclaw and some of Hufflepuff. But first and foremost the teachers wanted to get the kids especially the young ones out of harms way.
Which was not the case in the movie and everyone just seemed to run around and didn't make sense from many a level.

I guess the biggest thing for me is that it is a Wizard's Duel, a duel is close up. Like with swords or really crappy pistols, but it is one on one close up and trying to attack people. In the movie it seemed like they were artillery shells trying to blow one another up, which just seems like the brutallity of a muggle and not for Wizarding kind.
The thing makes it even make less sense is when in the book Harry and Voldemont are duelling in the Great Hall, while blowing everything the fuck up sort of happened, it wasn't the main attempt, but while that happened duels happened all around them with all sorts of people.
For example, it is Ginny, Luna and Hermione that are fighting with Bellatrix before the infamous "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" However, fim version- they are kind of standing around and then Bellatrix walks up casts a curse at Ginny, then Mrs Weasley comes along says her line, they through some spells around and the Bellatrix loses and disappears like she is a fucking vampire on Buffy... What the fuck? SHE's a person! THERE WOULD BE A BODY!
Though, even worst then that, Ginny just kind of stands back and watches, but doesn't look phased on what is happening.

I mean what is wrong with these people with all the death and destruction happening and they just have no reactions and not fighting to saved their loved ones?
Though, the complete underwhelming death of Fred Weasley was just sad, where was George's reaction?
But most importantly, where was the return of Percy that happens just before Fred dies? Percy is in the final battle, coz you see him but no mention of the rift being mended.

Though, the worst of the deaths on having no reaction because of the minor role is that of Tonks. Tonks is a big part in the books, none existant in the movies. Neville non-sensically gives her a shout out in his speech, it's non-sensical because they have NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER! EVER!
That being said, the shot of Lupin and Tonks holding hands as they were dead was the second most heartbreaking scene in the movie. Number one being Snape with the dead body of Lily. Heartbreaking. Weird, but heartbreaking. Not making sense in context but heartbreaking.

Alan Rickman did not wrong as Snape, even though some of the content was weird, he absolutely nailed it. Really wished they would have kept in Dumbledore telling Snape that he disgusts him.

I want to take a moment ot give a special moment for a movie based on half a book with weird pacing to end up giving the movie even weirder pacing. It was a special effort.
It really was just all over the place. Just weird.

This is a moment just to reflect on people that were significant to the whole story but weren't actually featured: Colin Creevy, Denis Creevy, Charlie Weasley, The Bloody Baron, Ginny's Ability to Act, most of the Death Eaters by Name, Phineas Nigellus Black (The Portrait from Grimmuald Place), Dumbledore's Portrait, The Ravenclaw Commonroom, Oliver Wood, Katie Bell, Alicia Spinnet, Angelina Johnson, The Carrows, Hannah Abbott, Justin Finly-Finch, The Centors, Professor Trelawny, Neville's Gran, reinforcements from Hogsmeade, Kreatcher leading the House-elves (which was totally a better way for Hermione and Ron to start making out)

Some of them are actually important to the story, such as the Bloody Baron and the  Grey Lady. Sigh.
Charlie Weasley got no movie love either. What is with that?

Though, I guess they get some leeway in terms of the Ravenclaw Commonroom since they didn't set up the finding of the diadum in Half Blood Prince, like they do in the book.
But it was in the book when going to the Ravenclaw Common Room that I knew I could never been in Ravenclaw since I suck at riddles.

There is just so many weird things they did that I don't understand. It is action based as it is, why so much change?
And my god, how little chemistry do Ginny and Harry have?
That was the most awkward relationship I have EVER seen.
Especially when you compare the dead inside Hermione hug Harry and not in a I totally am going to ravish you in the common room once we get this war over kind of way.
I mean Voldemort hugging Draco was less awkward.

Just weird.
Just a really weird adaption.

Plus, Neville deserves his fucking moment and he didn't get it good like in the books.
And Harry has a fucking invisibility cloak, it is actually really important to the plot and yet, doesn't take it into battle.

These things just don't make sense.
And it hurts my soul, but finally, I can rest because I've seen them all and they all suck.

It has been awhile since my last post, over a year I know. I'm sure it hasn't bothered too many since I did declare I was never writing again. Just how life goes.

Though, I make bold declarations and I followed through somewhat, but every now and then my desire to write overrides many things, upto and including common sense.

However, I have a specific topic to write about today and as a result it made my title much easier to create, which a small but powerful win, if you are me and since quite frankly am me I grant a massive huzzah!

I have a fair few obsessive tendencies and one of these obsessive tendencies involves the Harry Potter Books and the Harry Potter movies namely that for each Harry Potter movie I have read all the books before going to see it. For each movie. I also read each book in the series when a new one came out, as a result I am quite familiar with them, but that is merely back-story, so the most recent has been released. I'm told it will make me angry as a purist of the books or namely as a Neville in the 7th book fan. So new movie means it is time for Elyse's re-read of the book. I have just finished the Prisoner of Azkaban, which I completely forgot that would not be resolved at all if it wasn't for Hermione, adding further proof on how Hermione is the actual hero of the Harry Potter books. Thus is comes to the point of time travel.

Time Travel in fiction, which is a stupid thing to write because Time Travel doesn't exist NOT in fiction, but whatever, Time travel is an interesting thing.
In Prisoner of Azkaban, Hermione and Harry use the Time Turner to go back three hours to save Sirius and Buckbeak.
However, it is established that when the first go through the time that the things that their future selves cause are happening then. So, technically they aren't changing anything but merely making sure what happened actually happened.
In the world of Harry Potter, they do not change the past. They make the past.
It can be easy to skip how McNair, who is the executioner of Buckbeak, throws down the axe into the wood in frustration up finding out that Buckbeak has escaped and can't fulfill his bloodlust for the day, but when it is first mentioned in the first go through time, Hermione hears the sound followed by Hagrid crying, which also happens in the second part of time, that the orders of the ministry have been fulfilled.
The bigger example of this is and the bigger example of the Time Travel Paradox is that Harry saves himself from the Dementors with his patronus. Harry of the first time sees himself, though he thinks it is father at the time before he passes out. Then when we get to future Harry when they are hiding, Harry is all excited that is going to see his dad until the crucial moment he remembers he looks like his dad and say himself.
So, basically with this,  Future Harry doesn't think of saving himself until he realises what he actually saw himself saving himself.
I actually deleted that sentence because it didn't look right, but it is.

Does this mean that it was always going to happen?
Can you actually change the past? The past by definition has already happened, that is what makes it the past but if the past has already happened because for the time traveler it is their present, but it is also the present for the present.

This is the problem with time travel!
You can't change the past because the past is the past and by changing something are you actually changing something or just make your past what it was in the first place or essentially what is meant to be?
Is time travel just a massive deus ex machina?
That time travel itself is what set into motion what?
But time travel it creates this feedback loop and that if you've already changed the past, you haven't changed it at all because it is what it already is.
And if you do change the past, then you have changed the future, and if you change it back far enough, you could wipe out your entire life and if you don't exist in the future then how can you exist in the past?
Or is it the moment that you change a single act you start a different reality and that for every decision each outcome creates a different reality and if you change the reality can you go back?
Which creates far more trouble for the time travel that goes into the future.

Then again, with Back to the Future and how the future changes. It has the side effects of once Marty McFly gets back, the people he knows are not the same people he know. Sure they have the same names and look the same, but they are not the same people.  Experience has a large influence on the type of people we are. People can change by the experiences they have had.
So, when the future does change, how are all the same people there?
There are ways of which things have changed, like his parents not getting together or having different kids because they got together at different times. What does that do to protagonist Marty?

Time Travel stories raise too many questions.
It is making my head hurt.
Much like a real feedback loop.