No no, the blame is squarely on Yates' shoulder for how he chose to visualize the battles. 

Kinda like saying "there's only so many ways to throw a punch." As a kung fu movie aficionado, I can assure you the only limit to throwing punches in a choreographed fight scene is the imagination of the choreographers.

And now imagine instead of punches it's DOING LITERALLY ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE MAGIC.

Snape vs. McGonagall, from the book:

Professor McGonagall moved faster than Harry could have believed: Her wand slashed through the air and for a split second Harry thought that Snape must crumple, unconscious, but the swiftness of his Shield Charm was such that McGonagall was thrown off balance. She brandished her wand at a torch on the wall and it flew out of its bracket: Harry, about to curse Snape, was forced to pull Luna out of the way of the descending flames, which became a ring of fire that filled the corridor and flew like a lasso at Snape --

Then it was no longer fire, but a great black serpent that McGonagall blasted to smoke, which re-formed and solidified in seconds to become a swarm of pursuing daggers: Snape avoided them only by forcing the suit of armor in front of him, and with echoing clangs the daggers sank, one after another, into its breast...

Flitwick's spell hit the suit of armor behind which Snape had taken shelter: With a clatter it came to life. Snape struggled free of the crushing arms and sent it flying back toward his attackers: Harry and Luna had to dive sideways to avoid it as it smashed into the wall and shattered. When Harry looked up again, Snape was in full flight, McGonagall, Flitwick, and Sprout all thundering after him: He hurtled through a classroom door, and moments later, he heard McGonagall cry, "Coward! COWARD!"

Snape vs. McGonagall, from the movie:

[standing almost completely stationary] BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. WOOSH.

MCGONAGALL
(whispering)
coward

I agree. AVATAR used undeniably groundbreaking filmmaking techniques, but did so with a target goal of making a fairly typical movie, though a prettier one. GRAVITY used equally groundbreaking techniques in the service of a particular, crafted-to-the-context experience.

I've said before that the problem with 3D has been that filmmakers continue to make films the way they do in 2D -- that if there's a validity in the 3D medium, it will require the development of a different cinematic grammar. (If I may toot my own horn, I had a suspicion it would involve longer shots, since the refocusing of eyes and brain between cuts is much of what makes 3D distracting, and I noticed the longer shots in BEOWULF were more successful; but I'd certainly never have dared to think of anything on the order of GRAVITY.) If 3D filmmaking does indeed develop into its own language, GRAVITY may not turn out to speak it fluently, but it's at least the Rosetta stone.

Well, she wrote the first novel at least on a typewriter, but yeah.

I'm personally trying to get in the habit when I write of saving drafts as I go, partially just in case I accidentally stumble into something awesome and want to be able to show the path that led me there but more so that I can always go back to what I wrote before or cannibalize earlier drafts for descriptions or dialogue I like. If we're lucky, she did the same.

Untrue regarding the prophecy. When Harry tells Dumbledore about Trelawney's prediction re: Pettigrew, Dumbledore says that makes it the second true prophecy she's ever made. I would give her the benefit of the doubt that she at least figured out in advance the reason Voldemort went after Harry.

I do agree about the lack of setup for the Deathly Hallows though. That bothered me a lot when I read the final book.

EDIT: worth noting, it's also clear she DIDN'T have things all planned out by her own admission. She changed her mind about killing off characters which would have necessarily had major repercussions, and in the case of Goblet she's talked about getting halfway through before realizing she'd created a massive plot hole she had to do all sorts of calisthenics around. But the throughline of the Voldemort storyline -- and the backstory -- I expect she nailed down and could drop clues about whenever.

Not usually the best way to first-watch a film, with us (or anyone) yammering over it, but I'm not gonna argue with you since you're making the food. You do you bro.

You've read the book, though?

This is a common complaint with OOTP. I had the same problem with it until I realized that was the point, and decided it was kind of brilliant. Will elaborate on the ep.

Many of them will have to be remarked upon in their absence, since the filmmakers didn't know they were important either and left many of them out.

The idea of reading 7 before 6 gives me nerdpanic.

Disagree so hard. That's one of my favorite sections in the series and a majorly important stage in Harry's personal journey.

This is really exactly the problem. In Yates' films, wands might as well be guns. They just fling bursts of explosive light at each other, and if they do it simultaneously the wands connect in the way that only Harry and Voldemort's are supposed to do.

For a while now I've been wanting to shoot a wand duel that did all the cool stuff the movie duels didn't. We might finally do that next year.

I should shut up. I'll be saying all of this again during the marathon.

The movies actually managed to make magic less imaginative. No matter what incantation is verbalized, 90 percent of the time the effect is "blast target back about 20 feet."

is there a movie you watch once a year, every year, perhaps on some anniversary?
For a while my friends and I would watch MICHAEL every holiday season. It's a long story. Anyway we haven't done it for a few years so the tradition/curse is broken.

do you switch off the lights and the phones and unplug the door bells?
I prefer to, yeah.

if there are sequels, do you try and watch all of them together?
Not in a go, but if I watch the first of a series I'll usually follow through on the others in short order.

can you just watch #2 or #5 in a series, or do you have to watch all in order?
If I've seen them all before then sure. If I haven't watched them before then this is unacceptable. Even if fans reassure me it isn't necessary to have seen the previous ones, I can't deal. I haven't seen TROLL 2 because I haven't seen TROLL yet. I know full well that they are completely unrelated but I still can't do it.

can you watch over other friend's houses, or do you have to have it perfect at home?
Nah, I can watch at other people's houses. I don't like it as "background" at parties though. If we're going to watch a movie, everybody sit down and watch the movie. If we're not, just put on music.

do the blu-ray snobs refuse to watch DVDs now?
Given the option yes. But if at a friend's house and they don't have BD, or a BD edition simply doesn't exist, such is life.

with certain movies, can you just watch a scene or do you have to watch the entire movie?
I pretty much never watch scenes in isolation. 

if you arrive at the cinema late, do you still go in, or come back another session?
If the trailers are still going, I'll go in. If the film already started, I'll come back.

Arclight Cinemas here in L.A. used to refuse you entry if you arrived after the film had started. I don't think they do that any more though.

To add my own ritual: when I was growing up I would often spend weekends at my cousins' home. For a while we were on a kick of watching HOCUS POCUS, which coincided for whatever reason with them being on a kick of making chili as a weekend meal. So now I can't watch HOCUS POCUS without a bowl of chili.