A question I've been pondering.

[Christine]

Does anyone else notice that a disarming spell is supposed to take the wizards wand or other weapon, but in the movies it always made the wizard fly backward and didn't always even take the wand? I am very confused.

[Taylor]

That's because the movies are, in no way, accurate recreations of the books.

[Christine]

Yeah but still in the books harry uses the spell like it does more damage then just taking a wand.

[Christine]

I guess that's possible. Or maybe it's the way he says or does it?

[Christine]

Because things change when you say it differently

[[deleted user]]

Like with Harry trying to cast the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix, the intent and conviction you give the spell lends it it's power. In the movie, the Room of Requirement scenes (for the most part) show wands being disarmed, but battle scenes show people being knocked off their feet.

[Sarah]

It always disarmed in the movies. Harry used expelliarmus on voldemort on book 4 because he wanted to disarm voldemort. When harry Ron and hermione disarmed snape in the 3rd one snape was knocked out because all three of them disarmed him at the same time and it was too much force. It always disarmed.

[B]

its just the movies trying to add drama to the scene. dont even bother with it; it's so not worth it.

[Reem]

Taylor
I dont think the movies were that bad and weren't "accurate" sure they missed things and changed them but well to me they didnt destory the books and As i always say lol J K was there in production and at the Studio with them so she was okay with the changes so why arent we? It's her books after all

[Reem]

Taylor
I dont think the movies were that bad and weren't "accurate" sure they missed things and changed them but well to me they didnt destory the books and As i always say lol J K was there in production and at the Studio with them so she was okay with the changes so why arent we? It's her books after all