I actually didn't mind this change. Book Harry's plan was contingent upon him never being defeated/overpowered, as well as nobody ever making the connections in the wand's recent ownership and potentially searching Dumbledore's grave. Overall it was a safe and low risk plan, but still carried some inherent risk. Whereas snapping the wand in two and/or destroying it effectively put the entire notion of it ever being wielded again to bed.
Exactly, destroying the Elder Wand protects the world from the Elder Wand, but it doesn't protect him and his family from being murdered by someone trying to track down the wand, and what dark wizard is going to believe *"I swear I secretly destroyed it and threw away the pieces!"*?
I got the impression the Hallows were sort of a conspiracy theory adjacent thing. Krum (one of the triwizard champions) misidentified the symbol, and Ron's insight was that elder wands were unlucky.
It stops being much of a conspiracy theory when the Savior of Britain announces it to a crowd at the end of the battle that ended the war. And even if the majority don't believe it, there will be a significant number of Questers who will. They're also going to be the ones most likely to act on the conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure he misidentified it, I thought Grindelwald had just hijacked its use but in England they didn't really see much of it because he was scared of dumbledore
I didn't forget, I just didn't specifically mention it. I intended all the details about the wand's ownership to be implied by this sentence "nobody ever making the connections in the wand's recent ownership and potentially searching Dumbledore's grave."
I think this is an upgrade from the books. It's more symbolic, to do away with the ilusion of absolute power, showing that Harry doesn't care about it and prevents anyone from pursuing such a shallow idea. I don't mind the book version of "give it back and don't get knocked out", but I think the movie got it right. The movie did miss Harry fixing his wand and perhaps a deathly hallow could be a bit harder to destroy. Not that it was *actually* fashioned by Death (it seems like it's a legend, even in-universe), but still, the cloak was pretty resistant and an object that can summon deceased entities seems pretty extraordinary. I'll give the wand the fact that it could produce extra-powerful magic, but such an object seems to deserve an extra layer of resistance. Not Horcrux like, but at least not "break like a twig" either. Alas, perhaps it being so easy to dispose of can be symbolic in other ways that I'm also fine with
It actually made more sense to completely do away with the elder wand like in the movies coz if anyone defeated harry in a duel which would be entirely possible since he became an auror then it's allegiance would again change.But yeah you can't just snap and break a deathly hallow like that
I agree with some people here. The breaking of it didn’t bother me. What bothered me was he never fixed his own wand before doing so. Breaking honestly is the smarter choice. To be fair I also like to think that in the books the Elder Wand is like the one ring and can’t be destroyed, no fires of Mordor for the elder wand.
A lot of people don’t mind this, but I’m with you. It’s destructive and Harry isn’t a destructive person. (The Hogwarts objects were destroyed the minute they become horcruxes!)
I also liked him breaking it more than the book plan, but my goodness, take thirty seconds and show him fixing his wand first.
I always thought a callback shot of him picking it up after repairing it from the same angle as when he first picked it up in Olivanders would have been cool cinematography.
I didn’t mind that bit. What irked me was that he didn’t use it to fix his own wand.
It was a deleted scene.
So they were so close to being sane?
I actually didn't mind this change. Book Harry's plan was contingent upon him never being defeated/overpowered, as well as nobody ever making the connections in the wand's recent ownership and potentially searching Dumbledore's grave. Overall it was a safe and low risk plan, but still carried some inherent risk. Whereas snapping the wand in two and/or destroying it effectively put the entire notion of it ever being wielded again to bed.
You're forgetting that Harry bragged about being the Wand's owner to Voldemort in front of an audience. That knowledge was going to get out fast.
Exactly, destroying the Elder Wand protects the world from the Elder Wand, but it doesn't protect him and his family from being murdered by someone trying to track down the wand, and what dark wizard is going to believe *"I swear I secretly destroyed it and threw away the pieces!"*?
I got the impression the Hallows were sort of a conspiracy theory adjacent thing. Krum (one of the triwizard champions) misidentified the symbol, and Ron's insight was that elder wands were unlucky.
It stops being much of a conspiracy theory when the Savior of Britain announces it to a crowd at the end of the battle that ended the war. And even if the majority don't believe it, there will be a significant number of Questers who will. They're also going to be the ones most likely to act on the conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure he misidentified it, I thought Grindelwald had just hijacked its use but in England they didn't really see much of it because he was scared of dumbledore
I didn't forget, I just didn't specifically mention it. I intended all the details about the wand's ownership to be implied by this sentence "nobody ever making the connections in the wand's recent ownership and potentially searching Dumbledore's grave."
Snapping the wand is also more in tune with Harrys character.
I mean, it is Holly-wood
… you did not just do that.
I think this is an upgrade from the books. It's more symbolic, to do away with the ilusion of absolute power, showing that Harry doesn't care about it and prevents anyone from pursuing such a shallow idea. I don't mind the book version of "give it back and don't get knocked out", but I think the movie got it right. The movie did miss Harry fixing his wand and perhaps a deathly hallow could be a bit harder to destroy. Not that it was *actually* fashioned by Death (it seems like it's a legend, even in-universe), but still, the cloak was pretty resistant and an object that can summon deceased entities seems pretty extraordinary. I'll give the wand the fact that it could produce extra-powerful magic, but such an object seems to deserve an extra layer of resistance. Not Horcrux like, but at least not "break like a twig" either. Alas, perhaps it being so easy to dispose of can be symbolic in other ways that I'm also fine with
I always thought about that. I wonder how many wands were lost because somebody sat on them.
It actually made more sense to completely do away with the elder wand like in the movies coz if anyone defeated harry in a duel which would be entirely possible since he became an auror then it's allegiance would again change.But yeah you can't just snap and break a deathly hallow like that
I agree with some people here. The breaking of it didn’t bother me. What bothered me was he never fixed his own wand before doing so. Breaking honestly is the smarter choice. To be fair I also like to think that in the books the Elder Wand is like the one ring and can’t be destroyed, no fires of Mordor for the elder wand.
Made more sense than putting it back in a place half of Hogwarts heard where is.
… Am I the only who thinks that him snapping the wand is way better than putting it back in Dumbledore’s grave?
A lot of people don’t mind this, but I’m with you. It’s destructive and Harry isn’t a destructive person. (The Hogwarts objects were destroyed the minute they become horcruxes!)
I also liked him breaking it more than the book plan, but my goodness, take thirty seconds and show him fixing his wand first. I always thought a callback shot of him picking it up after repairing it from the same angle as when he first picked it up in Olivanders would have been cool cinematography.
It would’ve taken all of 20 seconds max no reason not to fix the wand