So why does his explanation make me hotter than a Hungarian Horntail? (Warning: Book Seven spoilers ahead)
It’s not just because the scene, which Barron says will take place at the Burrow, isn’t from the book. Baron states, and I of course acknowledge, that certain things from a novel don’t necessarily translate to film – it’s the nature of any adaptation. That means sometimes things have to be added and, truthfully, this particular quandary seems as good a candidate as any.
“Jo (Rowling) was able throughout the quite lengthy book to keep dropping little snippets of what was happening in the outside world – there’d be people reading newspapers and talking about how somebody’s parents had been killed, or somebody had been withdrawn from school because their parents didn’t think it was safe,” Baron explains. “And we’re making aware that the Muggle world is also experiencing these disasters…This was brought in because even in what would normally be considered the safe haven of the Burrow, nobody’s safe.”
Fine. Agreed. No, what makes me mad is that this added scene, if it’s indeed an attack on the Burrow from Death Eaters, will almost certainly be a detriment to a similar scene – a much more powerful and important scene – at the beginning of Book 7, when the Burrow actually is attacked for the first time DURING A WEDDING.
When Kingsley’s patronus lands smack in the middle of Bill and Fleur’s nuptials, I nearly lost my breath. So why would they have an attack scene at the Burrow in the preceding film? My great fear is that it’s because there won’t be a wedding at all. Last week, Clémence Poésy told MTV News that she won’t be appearing in “Half-Blood Prince.” Could it be that she’s not appearing in “Deathly Hallows” either?
I’m all for adding scenes – heck, I want each “Potter” film to be three hours long – but not at the expense of actual story.
But what do you guys think? Do you like the added scene? Would you like it more or less if it was indeed an attack by Death Eaters on the Burrow? Sound off below.