Harry Potter/Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows/Films/Headscratchers

-- Back to the main Headscratchers page
 * Minor gripe. One minute, Hermione is barely able to walk in heels (despite having worn them without trouble at the Yule Ball three years ago...); the next minute, she's sprinting and long-jumping.
 * Perhaps it wasn't so much the heels that she was having trouble with, but rather Bellatrix's radically different height and weight? Which she would, presumably, have gotten used to after a few minutes.
 * The camerawork, and the way she was stumbling, suggest otherwise. Besides, the (rather tight) costume still fit after the Thief's Downfall, as mentioned below.
 * For that matter, where did they get that costume?
 * They've seen it a fair few times by this point; I don't think it's out of the question that Hermione could've conjured up a reasonable duplicate.
 * Surely there are laws against that? Otherwise, how are there clothing stores like Madam Malkin's?
 * Most material evidence from the books seems to indicate that conjured objects don't last a very long time. While it very well may be possible to conjure one's own clothing in a desired shape or style, the potential for it to suddenly disappear in a day or two would do a fairly good job at preventing abuse.
 * This troper just had the mental image of Hermione as Bellatrix with all her clothes suddenly vanishing.
 * And how did it still fit perfectly - including the corset - after the Thief's Downfall?
 * It wasn't. I noticed a distinct lack of the corset actually corsetting after the downfall. I can wear a lot of my big brother's clothes, and they look like they fit reasonably well despite the height and weight difference, but they're not the same. It's kinda hard to judge the fit in clothes that are soaking wet.
 * I always figured that as Hermione simply over-acting in her attempt to imitate Bellatrix' mannerisms. Bellatrix is a crazy bitch, why not give her a crazy gait?
 * I had just assumed that she was nervous and uncomfortable. Nerves can do a number on your ability to walk a straight line and balance properly, and when you're in heels, which demands a better sence of balance, you're more likely to trip and stumble a little bit if you're nervous than completely confindent.
 * She was probably a bit uncomfortable in the body. I think you'd be a bit uncomfortable in the body of someone who tortured you only a few hours or so before.
 * Wasn't The Burrow friggin' BURNED at the sixth movie?
 * Probably repaired by magic, but you're right - They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.
 * If you payed too much attention, you would've noticed that a part of the building was painted differently from the rest. It was repaired off-screen.
 * ...Then what was the point of the scene where The Burrow gets destroyed in the sixth film?
 * The point wasn't to show them living in a destroyed house in the next movie while there is a wedding just next anyhow. It probably was to have an action scene in the middle of the movie, maybe as replacement for cutting most of the battle against the DE after Dumbledore's death. The producers have also stated that it was put in to show that there was no safe place left. In the book Hermione mentions other students being affected by Death Eater attacks. The producers felt it would work better on film if it happened to Harry and company and it was seen rather than just referred to.
 * Also, it gave another reason for Mrs. Weasley to kill.
 * This one will probably be answered in the next film, but for now it's a bugs me mixed in with a good dollop of Fridge Logic; how the hell did
 * Possible answer:
 * Alternatively, perhaps Dumbledore had set up the Deluminator to alert when Ron used it to find his way back -The two of them finding Harry at the same time seems like quite a Contrived Coincidence (though admittedly, it was one in the book). Either way, the second film doesn't explain it, so we're left with Wild Mass Guessing.
 * In the Ministry of Magic, what was the deal with the fireplace-esque things? I thought they were fireplaces for the Floo Network, but Ron, followed by Harry, Hermione, and Yaxley, manage to get transportation out (to Grimmauld Place) without giving a destination and immediately apparated into the forest. Were they apparition zones, put there as a safety measure or to allow people to apparate in and out of the Ministry with, for some reasons, a green smoky-flame effect?
 * They are part of the Floo network. That doesn't prevent the trio from tossing some floo powder and apparating out under cover of the green flame it produces.
 * The fireplaces took them to the toilets they entered the Ministry from, from which they Apparated to Grimmauld Place and then a forest in quick succession. Apparation into/out of the Ministry is impossible for security reasons, otherwise the trio would've just apparated to Umbitch's office.
 * So, in Deathly Hallows Part 2, we see Harry We've seen spells that repair wands before, so this seems like an absolutely horrible idea. In addition,  That's cold, Harry. Very cold.
 * Er, we've NEVER seen spells that repair wands. The only time in the entire series a wand is repaired is when Harry repairs his own...WITH the Elder Wand.
 * So it probably makes more sense in hindsight for him to destroy it. Although repairing a powerful wand could be a good thing for most wizards, better to be safe than sorry in case someone evil comes along and attempts to use its godlike power.
 * What I would like to know is why they decided to not include the scene where Harry repairs his old wand in the movie at all, since the scene where it's broken WAS included in the previous part. So, what, Harry spent the rest of his days using Draco's wand?
 * And why wouldn't he? It's working just fine for him. Besides, repairing the old Holly wand would have broken up the flow of the scene, IMHO.
 * HARRY: "Hermione, give me my my wand. (recieves wand), "If this doesn't work, nothing will. reparo. (Tests and finds that it works again.) There. That could easily have been put in without breaking the flow.
 * True...so they should have rewritten the scene. Even if Harry decided Draco's wand worked just fine for him, he should have returned it to Draco, since he's still alive. A wand is an extension of a wizard's body, like an extra limb--stealing someone else's wand is like stealing a limb. Justified in times of crisis, but now that Harry has the means to repair his own, it's just a courtesy to give Draco's wand back. It's actually a big moral issue, if you think about it. For me, it was the one moment from the film that didn't feel like it captured the book.
 * Maybe he couldn't just "give it back". Since SUDDENLY all the wands adopted the "switch allegiance to one who defeated your previous master", and not just the Elder Wand, it is possible, that Draco's former wand wouldn't obey him until he honestly won it back without Harry giving away, and it was hardly an option. Besides, I think you dramatize the situation a bit. Wands are important but not irreplaceable. Ron was bought a new wand, so I don't see why Draco couldn't.
 * No. Though a wand will work for someone who hhas defeated its owner it won't work as well as it did for the original and if given back it will still work the same for them. JKR confirmed this.
 * May sound a bit cold, but with so many people dead, there are now lots of second-hand wands Harry can take instead if he has to give Draco his wand back. (At least temporarily, until, like mentioned above, he has bought a brand-new wand.) Also, he should still have Bellatrix' wand. (Although granted, Ollivander did warn him not to use it.)
 * When disarming already changes a wands allegiance Draco and Harry would just have to duel each other. One disarming spell from Draco and allegiance problem solved.
 * I actually considered it an improvement over the book's version (his actions there caused a verbal "WTF" from me. ). Placing it back with Dumbledore was touching and all, but what was to stop someone going after Harry in the future so they could claim ownership of the wand? After all, it doesn't take death to switch allegiance; Disarming is enough.  solved the problem permanently, and showed Harry's complete rejection of ultimate power. It fixed a much bigger plot hole than it caused.
 * facedesk* Is it not obvious?! In the book, Dumbledore's entire plan revolved around destroying the power of the Elder Wand! If he could just break it he would've done! It's implied the Wand is unbreakable when Harry realises his wand couldn't be the Elder wand because Hermione had accidentally broken it. This is the (nearly) unbeatable wand, people! Made by Death himself! YOU CAN'T JUST SNAP IT!!!!! See below for more on the end scene illogic.
 * Nope. Dumbledore, despite his wise old grandfatherly attitude, still likes to have power. Aberforth even tells Harry that Dumbledore preferred power over his little sister, and is still angry with him after all these years. There's a good chance that Dumbledore simply didn't want to give up the power of the wand while he was alive, but also didn't want the power passed on when he died. Hence the assisted-suicide option.
 * Don't forget, you don't even need to physically defeat the wand's owner to possess it: Grendelwald became its master simply by stealing it from its previous owner. So if Harry placed it back in the tomb and someone took it from there, the wand would probably view that as a defeat and accept that person as its master. As for Harry letting Draco disarm him and give him his wand back, the wand chooses the wizard and it'd probably want a bit more than Harry taking a dive to transfer its allegiance. Otherwise all of Dumbledore's Army would have been swapping wands during duelling practise.
 * I think JK said somewhere that a wand can tell the difference between a real duel and just practising and so wouldn't have switched allegiance during duelling practice.
 * If the wand could be broken that easily, why didn't Dumbledore do it while he was alive?
 * It was a phallic object. Which belonged to his best friend. Who was a guy. Whom he was in love with.
 * I guess he just couldn't resist the temptation. In the book, Dumbledore said that power was his weakness and that Harry was a much more selfless person than him. This ties into Dumbledore's Backstory, which was cut from the film.
 * Harry was willing to Imperio the goblin at Gringotts several times. Why didn't he just cast the charm on Griphook to make him give back the sword and let them out?
 * Possibly it wouldn't work on Griphook because the goblin would be expecting it thus he could resist it like Harry did. That or Harry was determined to keep his word/promise.
 * They could've at least sought the one goblin they'd enslaved on him.
 * Using the Imperio curse was kind of a last resort. It is one of the unforgivable curses. It's the same in the books, the use it because their ruse with Bellatrix wasn't enough.
 * Why did they go off the book for the ending of Part 2? I don't recall an epic cliff jump or there being much difficulty in killing the snake. It just seemed like padding.
 * Look at how many people, on these very Headscratchers pages, are annoyed at how Harry "talked Voldemort to death." Personally, I'm not one of them, but that sort of thing only really works in a print medium; it would have looked very cheap when played out visually. After eight full movies of conflict, the audience deserved a powerful and climactic final brawl between the hero and villain, and there's little doubt that this movie delivered on that front.
 * So V can now feel when Horcruxes are being destroyed, huh? Well, in that case I guess he should've felt it when DD destroyed the ring in HBP, and Ron destroyed the locket, shouldn't he?
 * Perhaps it's a case of proximity? When the Cup, Diadem, and Snake were killed, he was less than a mile away, so it would make sense that it would "hurt" quite a bit more deeply.
 * Could also be due to him being aware that there being actively hunted thus causing him to pay more attention.
 * It seemed to get stronger as more and more horcruxes got destroyed. When they killed the cup he felt woozy for a minute. When he "killed" Harry it knocked him flat on his ass.
 * How do we know he didn't feel it?
 * Because if he did, he'd obviously took steps to rehide them?
 * Didn't it explain in the book that he didn't feel them originally because he was so far disconected with those pieces of his soul and his remaining soul was so mangled that it just didn't register, but once so many had been destroyed and he became aware that they were being hunted down, he became more atuned to them? Maybe not. I might just be making that up...
 * So Harry can now hear Horcruxes whispering to him, huh? Well, in that case I guess he should've heard the diary whisper to him in CoS, shouldn't he? (I don't remember if the locket whispered to him in DH_1)
 * It was necessary for the films, but an in universe explanation for why Harry couldn't hear the diary was because he was unaware of the existence of horcruxes and wasn't actively trying to find one.
 * When V and Harry fight, V FINALLY shows imagination and produces some cool-looking straps out of his cloak to ensnare and strangle the scarhead. Then the camera switches to some other scene, then switches back...and Harry is free. What the hell? How did he free himself?!
 * This troper thinks it's because The Elder Wand resists V and won't let the ropes kill Harry.
 * Well, it would be nice to see. Besides, from the wand's backstory I got an impression that it was a treacherous thing that would abandon its master in favor of a stronger wizard. Wouldn't the fact that V was strangling Harry entitle him as such?
 * Voldemort was playing with him. He let Harry go.
 * By that point? Unlikely. He'd dropped all that "toying with your enemy" bullshit back in OotP.
 * No, that is what happened. Look closely at the first few frames after the scene switches back. Voldemort's robe-tentacle-thingies are still there, and he's pulling them back to himself. Why would he do this? Eh, he probably thought beating the crap out of Harry was a bit more satisfying than simply strangling him to death. One would have to reckon he was pretty damn pissed off at this point, after all.
 * Diffindo. Problem solved.
 * Again. Would've been nice to see that!
 * In Gringotts' vault why didn't the cup multiply when they grabbed it with bare hands?
 * Horcruxes resist magic, especially curses, especially curses not cast by their owner. Hermione's Summoning Charm didn't work on it either.
 * But it's not a curse, it's a defensive charm. And if it is because V didn't cast it, okay, why didn't he?
 * Well why should he, he's already made the thing practically indestructible and placed it in a place where it's protected by a dragon, amongst a ton of stuff that any potential thief might have taken instead. Don't forget that Voldemort never thought someone would find out about his horcruxes, as he thought he was the only one clever enough to come up with the idea
 * Because he did so with the Ring and the Locket and therefore obviously understood the merit of placing offensive charms directly on Horcruxes. And how could he possibly believe himself to be the only one clever enough to come up with the idea, when there were books on Horcruxes that he'd read?
 * He believed that he was the only one clever enough to come up with the idea of Horcruxes, plural. He figured that he would be safe if someone found out about one of the less-protected Horcruxes (like the Diary) because no one would realize that, unlike every other Horcrux-maker in history, he had actually created more than one.
 * The point is that he still put offensive charms on some of the horcruxes, so I don't see why not place them on all. For consistency, you know. And, although I'm not fond of that kind of reasoning, in the book the cup did multiply when they grabbed it.
 * Well, it's worth noting that he never actually placed the Cup in the vault; he just handed it to Bellatrix and told her, "Hey bitch, this thing is the most important thing EVAR...so hide it well, ya dig?" So if he had placed a debilitating curse on it like he had the Ring, it might've been too much of a risk that it would go off on Bellatrix or some random goblin, instead of an actual thief. And as Voldemort doesn't want to draw any more attention than is strictly necessary to the fact that the Cup is more than just a valuable artifact...
 * What's wrong with those people in the end? Harry's just entered the hall after killing V, and everybody's like "Hey dude, long time no see, what's up?" Ok, sure, they are exhausted, they grieve over their casualties, but they've just won the freaking war, and this is their goddamned hero! Doesn't he deserve some cheers or applause or pat on the shoulder? Doesn't anybody want to ask him whether the bastard is really, really dead this time or at least to check if he's not wounded?
 * I was bothered by this, too. Especially Hagrid, who had been holding what he honestly believed was Harry's lifeless body, only for Harry to suddenly reveal that he's alive, fall out of his arms, and run off to fight. And then next time Hagrid sees him, he hugs him and walks away. They couldn't have had him say "You scared the hell out of me! I thought you were dead!" or something?
 * That part where Hagrid walks away was so hilariously awkward.
 * Why did they edit out the reason Lily ditched Snape? He called her a mudblood and started hanging out with Death Eaters! They made her look heartless for choosing James, who was still a bully as far as the movie showed. Surely they could've cut down on the melodramatic close-ups and found the space to show Lily's story?
 * It's an adaptation. In this story, Snape didn't do any of that stuff.
 * Of course, even if he didn't, the movie series does still establish the fact that he eventually became a Death Eater of his own accord, so even without the "Mudblood" incident it should be fairly clear to a careful viewer just why their relationship went south.
 * Actually, without the context it could easily be inferred that he became a death eater because she dumped him. All we really see is James being a dick to Snape and Lily ultimately falling for him.
 * Even then, becoming a Death Eater - whether motivated by a broken heart or not - isn't just a mild case of falling in with the wrong crowd. It involves joining up with Wizard!Hitler and his inner circle of Complete Monsters, whose stated agenda is the complete and total genocide of a third or so of the wizarding population...including the person who was the focus of the aforementioned heartbreak. Even without further context, that would seem to belie the notion that Snape could just suddenly turn to evil because Lily married James; no one becomes a full-on Nazi overnight, after all.
 * Even without her ever really ditching him the tragedy of the situation still remains, heck it could even make it worse if they were still friends and he had to see the woman he loved happily married to someone he thought of as a jerk.
 * The scene where Ron opens the Chamber. His explanation for knowing Parseltongue is "Harry talks in his sleep." This Is Wrong on So Many Levels. First of all, why is he explaining it then? Least we forget, they had to first open the door to the passage in the bathroom, so certainly he'd explain it there, wouldn't he? Second, whaaaaaa? In the book the explanation was at least somewhat plausible - Ron recited the word Harry had used to open that very door in CoS, so he knew it was the right word, and even then it took him many tries. But learning it from listening Harry dream-speak, are you kidding me? Even if we assume that Harry'd been dream-speaking in Parseltongue, which is unlikely, since he always needed a snake for that, why would he say the word "open" and even if he did, how the hell could Ron discern it among others? But the most mind-boggling is what was wrong with the initial explanation and why change it at all?
 * It is very common for people to relive traumatic memories in their sleep - Harry might repeat that incident and part of it is him saying "open" is parseltongue.
 * Sleeping Harry: "*Snore...Nhh... save... Ginny... Chamber... *Parseltongue*"
 * Except that it wasn't his most traumatic memory by far. Him reliving Sirius'or Cedric's death in his sleep made much more sense. And anyway other questions still stand.
 * I don't see why it is "wrong on so many levels". Ron and Harry must have spent countless times sleeping in the same dormatory or tent. Ron (being Ron) presumably just wasn't thinking, and forgot that this wouldn't apply to Hermione. Hermione, on the other hand, did realise what the implication of her hearing Harry talking in his sleep would be, hence her indignant denial.
 * Indignant or embarrassed? She has just spent an awful lot of time with Harry in a small tent, plus being perfectly happy to walk into his and Ron's room while they're asleep in Goblet of Fire, so there could be an innocent reason for her knowing...
 * I'm inclined to think the explanation is actually the same as in the book - that he's reciting the same word that Harry had used relatively recently in order to open the Locket. But then, why mention that "Harry talks in his sleep" at all? Simple: that was how he learned to distinguish Parseltongue as individual words rather than an indistinct hissing sound, which is how most people tend to hear it the first few times 'round. That made it a lot easier for him to discern and repeat the "open" phrase verbatim.
 * That's the best explanation I've heard yet.
 * And I always figured that, in the movie-verse, Harry was whispering in Parseltongue whenever he was having dreams connecting him to Voldemort, who is a natural Parselmouth and who does use it pretty much all the time. Especially in this film, where his Occlumency is weakening because of his obsession with the Elder Wand and the two are mind-sharing more often.
 * Rule of Funny? At least that was my impression. Since they cut Harry's infamous "is this the moment?" line, they probably felt like they had some humor to compensate for. Besides, if my memory is correct, shit gets way more serious after the Chamber scene. Consider it a breather moment, it didn't bug me that much, personally.
 * It's minor, but immediately afterward...the kiss...so hilariously sudden and out of place...Again, in the book it looked natural for Hermie to kiss Ron after he expressed concern for house-elves, but here...why? Because he thought of a way to kill the horcrux? Fine, but then it'd make more sense if she kissed him right after he had that brilliant idea.
 * They had just enacted a major accomplishment (killing a Horcrux mere hours after stealing it, whereas the last one had taken months) and from their perspective, nearly died for it. The relief they felt over both getting one step closer to their goal and NOT getting drowned in watery graves manifested in them finally letting down their guard and seizing their long-overdue Relationship Upgrade. While its timing made more sense in the book, I think it still works just fine in the film.
 * It's a Smooch of Victory. They just destroyed the Horcrux, and survived nearly drowning. I would call it PG-Rated "Glad to Be Alive" Sex
 * I think somebody pointed this out elsewhere on this page, but there's also the fact that the scene consists of Ron (a blood traitor) and Hermione (a Muggle-born) having their Smooch of Victory in the Chamber of Secrets, the place built for the Heir of Slytherin (who they've just brought one step closer to having his ass kicked for good) to wipe out all the Muggle-borns in Hogwarts. It's the ultimate fuck you to Voldemort, Salazar Slytherin and their whole racist ideology.
 * And it makes more sense to do it there than randomly start making out in front of Harry coughing, looking at his watch and going "Only two hours to save the world here, guys..."
 * For what purpose did the Death Eaters set the Quidditch pitch at Hogwarts on fire? Just For the Evulz? You'd think that they of all people should be in favor of a sport that exclusively people with magical abilities are capable of playing.
 * These are the same people who blew up tents at the Quidditch World Cup. For the Evulz is probably on their business cards.
 * Plus, Muggleborns CAN play Quidditch, so I don't think the official "Death Eater position" on the sport is as unambiguously positive as you might think.
 * As of Book 6, the last season, Gryffindor held the Quidditch cup. BURN that stadium, they said.
 * When Harry, Ron and Hermione were riding on the dragon, why couldn't they have waited until they were above ground and not water to jump?
 * And break their legs?!
 * They could do a levitation spell when they land like they did in OotP when they fell from a high height in the Death Chamber however they are flying on a dragon so I doubt they would think fast. But from a movie director's perspective, spells are too cheap and since there is a war going on, this troper would like to maintain the mood that these three need to do real hard work to defeat Voldemort which means the journey needs to be uncomfortable such as being soaking wet from dropping into the lake instead of cheaply landing on land with a levitation spell.
 * Oh, sure, because the ensuing massacre in Hogwarts was such a walk in the park.
 * True, they could have been hurt if they landed on the ground. But they had no control over the dragon (like trying to get it to land), correct? Plus, that premonition Harry had about Voldemort happened once they landed in the water, so I guess it's part of the plot.
 * Why the sudden pussification? Snape killed off-screen, Bellatrix killed kiddy-cartoon style, Nagini turned into smoke, a werewolf kills a girl without giving her any wounds. Hell, I'm surprised Crabbe's death in flame was left in! I understand ratings and Bloodless Carnage, but when the first movies have more graphic deaths (Quirell getting burned and crumbling apart, Basilisk getting stabbed) than the seventh one, this is ridiculous.
 * Frankly, showing the full graphic-ness of Snape's death would've been pushing the PG-13 rating to its absolute limit, especially given that the filmmakers know that, rating or no rating, there are tons of children in the audience. I also thought it was a little more effective at evoking pathos (since the portion of the audience that hasn't read the book has no reason to feel sympathy for Snape at this point) to merely hear his muffled gasps and the sound of his body striking the wall as an increasing amount of blood covers it.
 * I can't really think of many reasons for Bellatrix, except that they probably didn't want to outright visually depict Molly Weasley as casting the Killing Curse. What she used in the book was ambiguous, though as it was instantly lethal it's generally assumed to be "Avada Kedavra"...but that spell's image in the film series is, without exception, associated solely with the villains. So instead she got Petrified and then Reducted (is that a word?) - which, if the cheers of both theater audiences I saw it with are any indication, packed a sufficient amount of visual punch.
 * I always assumed she just hit her with a Stunner straight in the heart. Now that I think of, despite the cartoonish look, the scene turned out more brutal than in the book. There Molly just had a lucky shot with a non-lethal spell. Here she explicitly finished a helpless opponent off! Ok, I withdraw my complaint to this scene - it was badass, alright!
 * This troper found the Bellatrix/Molly fight to be /not enough/ in the movie. Especially when compared to the book scene where the death eater fights Luna, Hermione, and Ginny all at once, and then has a long epic fight with Molly.
 * Nagini's death scene matched the destruction of all the other Horcruxes well enough, and really, was it that much less graphic than the headless corpse of a snake falling to the ground for half-a-second of screentime?
 * Yes.
 * I got the impression that Greyback was biting Lavender on the back of the neck, which the full-frontal shot of her body did not show. The scene gets across what it needs to get across (the blood splattered all around his mouth doesn't exactly scream "subtle"), so what's the pressing need for picking a shot that shows slightly more gore?
 * One can actually see a pretty clear bite-mark on her neck in an earlier shot, so yeah, the only reason she didn't appear to have any wounds in that last shot was because it wasn't visible from that angle.
 * Why would they leave all the reinforcements out? The centaurs, the house-elves, the wizards from Hogsmeade - these were some of best moments in the story, when the wizarding population FINALLY got their heads out of their asses and started fighting the proper war, and we didn't get to see it?
 * Because The House-Elves in the kitchens were never seen or mentioned in the movies (due to the S.P.E.W. sub-plot being removed altogether from the movies), the centaurs were barely featured (Hell, Firenze didn't even appear ONCE after the first movie), we barely saw much of the village of Hogsmeade (population-wise), and Charlie Weasley, who led the reinforcements, was Demoted to Extra for the films, that is when he DID appear! So it would have made NO sense for them all to appear now. If you didn't read the book, you'd be utterly confused by the sudden reinforcements, and wonder what was happening at all.
 * Oliver Wood shows up at one point on a broom with what is likely several other members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, so we can probably assume the reinforcements arrived off-screen. The battle was packed already, bringing in the reinforcements would've pushed it even longer.
 * In the book, Oliver and his Quidditch chums aren't with the reinforcements, they arrive after Neville sends out the summons. So they may have turned up at the same time as the Order.
 * How did the Basilisk completely decay like that in less than five years?
 * Well, it isn't exactly a natural creature; it's a massive, thousand-year-old serpent born from a chicken's egg that was hatched under a toad, with the ability to kill things just by looking them in the eye. Given the sheer amount of magic that must be inherent in its body, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that it would decay at a much faster rate than a normal animal.
 * Maybe the young acromantulas ate it? Nothing says that spiders flee before its corpse, and once they finished it and the rats off, they would probably have returned to the forest.
 * Why was Lily Evans sorted after James Potter?
 * I don't recall the students being called in alphabetical order in the movies.
 * Hell, when they're being sorted in the first film, the names are all over the shop. They sort Ron Weasley before Susan Bones, for lordy's sake! I suppose it ups the tension, since the kids don't know when they'll be called up.
 * It could be James Potter then Lily Evans. That would explain it.
 * Given Harry is one of the youngest in the year and one of the last to be sorted, maybe in the films they do it in age order?
 * Why is Cho still at Hogwarts? Did she get held back, or did she sneak in to help La Résistance?
 * In the book, she snuck back. In the movies, they never actually specified what year she was in, so it's not something they really need to waste time explaining. She could well be a year younger than Harry in the films, for all we know.
 * And on a related note, why was Luna at Hogwarts? This troper seems to recall that she only came back in the book after the news that Harry had returned, yet in the movie she was already there. So what, did she just randomly decide after Harry went off to Gringots that "Oh yeah, going back to the school that's run by the people who held me prisoner not a day ago totally seems like the best thing to do right now"?
 * Apparently, there was a deleted scene where Harry says goodbye to Luna and she basically tells him she's going to do exactly that. Weird.
 * Why. Did. Bellatrix. Explode?
 * Because Molly turned her to stone, and that's what happens when you fire a magical blast at stone?
 * But why the hell would the filmmakers kill her that way? I mean Jesus, blowing her up?! That's just all kinds of stupid.
 * I don't know, blowing someone up always struck me as a smart way to kill someone...
 * HELL YES! Cleaning up the evidence is easy, all you need is a broom and a pan. ^_^
 * I just got a hilarious mental image of Filch using a vacuum cleaner in the Great Hall after the battle and sucking up Bellatrix's dusty remains.
 * But being as she was such a big villan throughout the movies, such a cheap, quick death was very lacklustre and unsatisfying.
 * Considering the alternatives basically boil down to *spell strikes Bellatrix*, *Bellatrix is dead*? They wanted to differentiate between 'Yay! Bellatrix is dead!' and 'Um, so is Bellatrix dead or Stunned?'.
 * McGonagall throwing ALL of Slytherin house in the dungeons because one (Pansy Parkinson) wanted to hand harry over. And everyone cheers. And Slughorn's ok with that. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
 * Yeah, even the first and second years. 'Cause they are already EVIL.
 * But isn't that where their dorms are, anyway? I thought it was more of a "send them to their rooms!" command.
 * Either way, that's pretty disturbing, especially for a teacher, locking everyone in Slytherin away because one person wanted to hand Harry over. They could have been trapped there or killed if the Death Eaters got in.
 * Well, others didn't rush to smack her on the side of her head or object to being locked, did they?
 * Bystander effect? And in any case, neither did the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, or Ravenclaws.
 * Scarlett Byrne said there was a deleted scene where the Slytherins broke out of the dungeons to join the fight.
 * Fridge Logic sets in when you remember that most, if not all, of the Death Eaters came from Slytherin House, and it is likely that their children are also in Slytherin. This keeps the kids from being caught in the crossfire and, in the worst case scenario, gives the Hogwarts defenders hostages.
 * It also stops them from helping their parents which is another good reason for this.
 * Actually there are death eaters from every house, im sure, not every Slytherin is a deatheater, and in the deleted scene Argus locks them down there behind an iron and very strong gate and it's only because of a misfired spell that broke the lock, were they able to get out. If it wasnt for that spell, when the castle was collapsing, then many, many, young and old Slytherins could have been crushed to death. I for one found the scene disgusting and I think there is no excuse for doing that to a whole house of students, some as young as 11.
 * I'm more than a little surprised that most of the previously commenting Potter fans seen to have forgotten that the entrance to Slytherin House is located in the dungeons (Harry Goes there in Chamber of Secrets). They've been confined to quarters, folks.
 * Given that there's no sign of any students being evacuated before the battle, it seems likely everyone who was unwilling or too young to participate was confined to quarters. It makes more sense than letting them go and having some of them join Voldemort's army, as in the book. Don't forget, when Draco was a second year he was practically begging to be allowed in on a plan to kill all the Muggleborn students. Some of those young Slytherins are hardcore.
 * Why, after all the stuff about Harry having his mother's eyes, did they cast a child actress for Lily who had completely different-coloured eyes? There were several close-ups of her face where her eyes were clearly visible, followed, after the flashback, by a close-up on Harry's where his are too.
 * Why is it that, during the final battle, Harry is affected when  The connection between Harry and Voldemort had been severed in the woods, so why did Harry feel it too?